Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Race and intelligence
Research: Test data, Explanations, and Interpretations Controversies: Utility and Potential for bias History | Media portrayal | References

see talk archives at Talk:Race and intelligence

Archives
Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54

Contents 1 theoretical stuff should be at the top 2 Article too long 3 Test bias 4 protected? 5 Various errors 6 Comparison of explanations: too much "genetic" vs. "non-genetic"

[edit] theoretical stuff should be at the top

WP policy pages recommend that content within articles be arranged in order of decreasing importance to the barely interested reader. The heritability, factor X and Dickens-Flynn model section is a good summary of the entire topic. It should come early, not be buried in the details. --W.R.N. 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is how the pro-genetic side want to frame the discussion. Nisbett, Dickens, and Flynn srart by discussing the direct evidence.Ultramarine 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It frames the entire debate in-terms of genetics. There is plenty of debate about which non-genetic factors play a role and how. One of the weaknesses of this article, at present, is that fact that the debate about the ethics of the implications of environmental theories (such as Ogbu's ideas about "acting white") are obscured by the "genetic vs. non-genetic" debate.

I mean, if you put all of the people who don't think it makes sense to consider genetics as a plausible theory in the same room they'd still have allot to talk about and to disagree about.

A professor of mine once describe the genetic debate as a "grand distraction from the real issues." A contingent of the research community seems to view it in the same way. futurebird 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FB, the social implications and the causal explanations are certainly different topics -- currently different articles. --W.R.N. 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

UL, the section under discussion is summarized from Flynn's own paper. Thus, the parties seem to agree on this formulation of the issue. Discussion of what counts as "direct" evidence (which is implied to be "good" evidence), OTOH, is not at all a matter of agreement. Currently, discussion of "direct" evidence is not a separate issue, but the theoretical framework is clearly distinguishable. It should be discussed separately (and earlier) than the details of various lines of evidence. --W.R.N. 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "social implications" I'm talking about the fact that some people say that, for example (and this is silly) "Hip hop can't make people dumber, all culture values intelligence in its own way" vs. "Hip Hop is a cause of the gap" (ie, dr. Ogbu) this is a debate about the cause, not "social implications" of the cause ... unless I've misread you. futurebird 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. How much has been written about this? --W.R.N. 03:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just scrathing the surface now.

Have a look at Dickens interesting semi-popular (like this article) review paper: [1]. He begins with the most direct evidence and only then discusses the "X factor".Ultramarine 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Race and the "We-They Dichotomy" in Culture and Classroom
• When Culture Is Not in the Students, and Learning Is Not in the Head (I LOVE THIS TITLE. Ogbu is also a Nut IMNSHO)
• Unraveling Underachievement among African American Boys from an Identification with Academics Perspective

  Many theories attempt to explain why, despite all efforts, African American boys continue to lag behind their White counterparts. This article reviews three prominent theories addressing the social and cultural factors that can inhibit academic excellence among these youth: Steele's stereotype threat model, Ogbu's cultural-ecological perspective, and Majors and Billson's "cool pose" theory. All three emphasize the barriers that prevent African American boys from incorporating academics as an important part of their self-concepts, theoretically explaining the achievement gap. The article reviews possible courses of action to facilitate identification with academics and thus improve achievement.

• Yo' Mama's Disfunktional!: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America By Robin D. G. Kelley (Not related directly, but this book explains the "culture war")

That's just from a quick search. My point is the debate isn't just about genetics. With Jensen creeping around all of these academics tend to keep their gloves on in these debates because when they criticize each other it gets misused.... (ie. Sackett and stereotype threat) futurebird 04:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article too long

This article is far too long to read, and hence to be useful. Ben Finn 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to summarize more than the initial sentence since since it is a hotly disputed topic.Ultramarine 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is too long but, for the time being, let's avoid subarticles to prevent a POV fork. At some point we should think about this issue. Longer sections might need to be made in to sub-articles. The only think I wouldn not want to see is a division of the article in to "genetic" vs. "non-genetic" sub-articles. futurebird 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FB, yes, that would be a POV fork. However, contra UL, we absolutely have to have (1) a summarizing lead and (2) a summary section in the main article. Per the pending mediation discussion, having a technical and nontechnical version of the article content would be one work around (this suggestion hasn't been responded to yet at the mediation page). --W.R.N. 03:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a technical and nontechnical version could also lead to a POV fork. What we need are NPOV leads that are clear enough for a wiki. People know how to skim. We need to put the most important info first in summary form. (I think the test bias section is way too long, for example.)

That's my concern about the Race and intelligence research article itself -- massive duplication and high likelihood of POV forking -- but I'll wait for this to be discussed at the mediation page. --W.R.N. 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test bias

What do people think of making this a sub-sub-article and keeping just the first paragraph. This section is UGLY. It needs a picture or... I don't know... more paragraph breaks.... or something. (?) futurebird 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative - move to test data. It's a non-explanation and relates to the properties of tests. --W.R.N. 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

With or without a paragraph and and "see also" link here? What do you think? futurebird 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. Guess it merits at least a sentence (near the top?) and a link. --W.R.N. 03:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protected?

why is this article protected? there doesnt appear to be any vandalism going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

if you log in you can edit. futurebird 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various errors

First, even Rushton and Jensen do not state that the gap is 100% genetic. Second, North Africans are not described as 100% white by anyone. Thus, incorrect OR to state "Regarding the argument that North African IQ would have to be preposterously high, arithimetic asserts that having as much of a quarter of "black" fathers being racially white would narrow the IQ gap among the "black"/white fathers by 25%"Ultramarine 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rushton & Jensen argue the gap is 80% genetic. Second, no one is 100% White, but caucasoids are defined as the indigenous people of Europe, the middle east, India & North Africa Coatchecker

IQ and the Wealth of Nations give these scores Egypt 83, Tunisia 84, Algeria 84, Libya 84, Morocco 85. So if anything, "North African" blacks depress the score of the black children. Maybe this explain the 0.5 IQ point gap :) Ultramarine 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They're practically third world countries and hence have not had the Flynn Effect. But genetically they are caucasoid & should have genetic IQ's around 100. Look at the ancient civilizations of Arabs Coatchecker

You own OR and Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn certainly do not agree. I will add this argument.Ultramarine 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think they wouldn't agree? Coatchecker

For example Rushton thinks there is continum, blacks are most stupid and asians least due to climate, so North Africans are in an intermediate position. Regardless, your "arithmetic" is OR and extremely dubious. Even assuming your 80% figure for their estimate, no source given, then your calcualtion is incorrect.Ultramarine 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where the original North Africans migrated from and what climates were like thousands of years ago. And Rushton bases his continuum also on the time period when ancestral forms of the 3 main races branched off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree. The ancestors of blacks emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago, and then humans branched into the middle east about 100,000 years ago giving rise to caucasoids. According to Rushton ancestral mongoloids branched off of the caucasoids 41,000 years ago. I agree that arithmetic goes above and beyond the 80% genetic estimate of Rushton & Jensen, but that's just icing on the cake for them Coatchecker

So all members of Ruston's 3 races are on average identical after "branching off"? Thus, no difference between living in arctic Norway or Saharan Africa? No difference between living in a tropical rainforest in Nigeria or the Kalahari dessert? No difference between living on cold tundra or in tropical Vietnam? Still no soruce for the 80% and the calculation is till incorrect, even assuming 80%.Ultramarine 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well keep in mind that the reason all caucasoids are considered a single race is because there was no geographic barrier to breeding. The weren't able to easily breed with the blacks to the South because they were blocked by the Sahara, nor were they able to easily breed with the mongoloids to the East because they were blocked by the Himalayas. So yes, while there is regional and climatic variation among the caucasoids (as there is among the blacks and the mongoloids) they all still had enough gene flow to remain members of a single race and all have roughly the same IQ's when you adjust for the standard of living of their countries which dictates the Flynn Effect Coatchecker

Your own OR. There are enormous distances and geographical barriers between for example Scandinavia and North Africa, like two major seas and several mountain barriers. Remember that ships, especially ships able to leave the coast, is a very recent invention. More importantly than our own OR, state exactly where Rushton, Jensen, or Lynn states that all members of these 3 races have identical IQ.Ultramarine 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well their specific argument that I quoted about the North African fathers is that they are white as they define it in terms of the black-white IQ debate Coatchecker

Then you misread. They never stated that North Africans have identical IQ with or are white. They stated "(i.e., largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here)" which certainly is not the same as stating identical IQ or even that all true Caucasian populations have the same average IQ.Ultramarine 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They are saying they are roughly white and since they believe whites have IQ 100, they're saying North Africans are roughly 100 at least at the genetic level. You're nit picking over trivial details Coatchecker

No, they are not stating that. They state "largely", not identical. They claims regarding a white IQ of 100 applies only to the US, not other white or caucasian populations. If claiming otherwise, quote.Ultramarine 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They are claiming the North African (even though just a fifth to a quarter of the sample) genes pulled up the IQ's of the so-called half-black children so obviously they think North Africans are genetically much higher than African-Americans & since they think African-Americans are genetically 88 at the lowest (assuming 80%) they must believe North Africans are significantly higher than that (hence around 100). Coatchecker

Even assuming that North Africans have a genetic IQ of 100, this explains only a small part of the gain, one fifth to fourth.Ultramarine 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much that needs explaining. Assuming the IQ gap is 80% genetic, then African Americans are really only 12 points below 100 instead of 15. But assuming 25% of the socalled black dads are IQ 100 North Africans, the black dads are now only 9 IQ points below the white dads. So the kids fathered by the "black" dads should be only 4.5 IQ points below whites since they are half white. As for the remaining 4 points: hybrid vigour Coatchecker

You are always using the largest numbers, 80% and 25%. Even assuming your numerous assumptions, 100 IQ North Africans explain only 1.5 IQ points. Hybrid vigor claims of 4 IQ points is uncited and will removed shortly unless there are a source.Ultramarine 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well assuming they think the gap is only 50% genetic, than that means Africans Americans are genetically only 7.5 points below whites genetically (50% of the 15 point gap)and have genetic IQ's of 92.5. Now 25% North African dads would bring them as high as 94.38 or 5.63 IQ points below white dads. Hence the kids who are half white should be only 2.81 points below fully white kids. Instead the study found they were 0.5 points below, so only 2.31 IQ points needs explaining. Sampling error? Military selection? Hybrid vigour? All 3 are more than adequate explanations Coatchecker

No source for Hybrid vigor, Flynn have excluded military selection as noted in text, the a relatively large study with hundreds of subjects limits sampling errors. Also note that Flynn lists a 102 IQ for Germany, if R&J are right, the genetic IQ for white Germans is even higher. Not to mention the very dubious assumption, again, that North Africans have an IQ of 100, or using 25% instead of 20%.Ultramarine 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The mean IQ of Germany less relevant than the gap between the half-white kids and the full-white kids in the actual study. How could there be no differential selection when only 3% of the white distribution vs. 30% of the black distribution was excluded. Perhaps in standard deviation units there was a large gap between black and white dads, but in absolute IQ points I bet it was small Coatchecker

Obviously the mothers are just as important than the fathers if looking at the size of the absolute gap, in fact 4-5 times more important than the North Africans.Ultramarine 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding differential selection, read Flynn's article. If disagreeing with him, publish in a journal.Ultramarine 00:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But again, they never state that. "largely Caucasian" is not identical and claims regarding a white IQ of 100 only applies to US population.Ultramarine 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So your statement has numerous factual errors and should be removed. Objections? Ultramarine 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Second, "heterosis" does not refer to that children score on average halfway between the 100% genetic abiilities of two parents. Heterosis happens if the children avoid inbreeding depression which happens between close relatives. Thus, incorrect to say "the effects of heterosis(4 IQ points) in mixed race children". Jensen have never stated 4 IQ points. There is one adoption study suggesting that mixed race children score intermediately between parents, but this has nothing to with "heterosis".Ultramarine 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. Fathers with average IQ of 85 who breed with mothers with average IQ of 100 should have kids with average IQ's around 93 according to genetics right? But if the fathers & mothers are different race, there's an outbreeding effect estimated at 4 points by Jensen based on a study of Hawaii multiracials. Hence genetics predicts mulattoes should have an IQ of 97. Then when you add the fact that a quarter of the kids are not even mulatto but white (mix of dark white & European white) their average IQ inches closer to 100 Coatchecker

Again you wrongly think that R&I think that the gap is 100% genetic. Name of study please.Ultramarine 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This one study is consistent with 100% genetic explanation. But it's only 1 study. And Jensen & Rushton think the gap is 80% genetic, that it will only narrow by 3 more points in the future Coatchecker

Again, name the study and also where R&J states 80% estimate.Ultramarine 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall they said this in their 2005 essay Coatchecker

Sorry, "The hereditarian model of Black–White IQ differences proposed in Section 2 (50% genetic and 50% environmental),"but also "On the basis of the present evidence, perhaps the genetic component must be given greater weight and the environmental component correspondingly reduced. In fact, Jensen’s (1998b, p. 443) latest statement of the hereditarian model, termed the default hypothesis, is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood." So they seem unsure themselves regarding what they think. Again, the name of the Hawaii study please.Ultramarine 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Their latest estimate is 80% genetic. I don't remember the name of the Hawaii study but I've left a message for Wantednewlook, who may have Jensen's book at hand. He discusses it in his book. The interesting thing is that if hybrid vigour causes a 4 IQ point gain in Eurasian hybrids, it should cause even more for mulattoes because Rushton & Jensen argue the genetic difference is greater in the latter. Coatchecker

Until you have the name of the study or the page number in Jensen's book this is not verified information. It can be removed anytime and will so in the future. Meanwhile, a tag while be applied. Note also Flynn discussion on this in the article, inbreeding depression applies mainly to very close relatives, like happens in small and isolated communities. That it applies between races seems dubious.Ultramarine 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, their 2005 estimate is 50%.Ultramarine 21:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For someone who posts on these issues so much, I'm surprised you haven't bothered to read Jensen's book. Hybrid vigour, the opposite of inbreeding depression is a very well known concept in biology. If it occurs even among different breeds of dogs, then certainly it should occur among human race mixing. It sounds like they prefer the 80% figure but don't wish to commit to a precise estimate just in case it's wrong Coatchecker

Dog races are very unnnatural creations, usually extremely inbreed by humans in order to create some nice characteristic. Regarding 50% or 80%, they certainly not committed themselves to any of these.Ultramarine 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They may be less natural than human races, but human races have had far more time to diverge than man-made dog races Coatchecker

Cannot be compared, selective breeding, often to close relatives, is not natural evolution.Ultramarine 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any argument against applying tags, pending removal, until there is a source for this claim? Ultramarine 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, tags seem reasonable until more precise citation can be provided Coatchecker

• Third, regarding Wikipedia:Original research. You have put tags, [2], on things clearly not original research. The first tag is on statement directly from a study. The second on statement that leads to a section with referenced statements.Ultramarine 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the OR here? Everthing is cited, here or in the other section "Regarding heterosis, if breeding with close relatives such as in isolated, small rural communities, then this depresses IQ. As for the beneficial effects of outbreeding, 3 IQ points is the advantage of not breeding with one's cousins.^[1] Regarding the argument about the disappearance of the shared family effect, this is discussed in a section below."Ultramarine 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OR because we are here to report on the debate, not debate ourselves. So just stick to what environmentalists have actually said about the study or their actual complaints about Rushton/Jensen interpretations of it. Once we start trying to prove Rushton/Jensen right or wrong ourselves, we are doing OR. Coatchecker

Arguments regarding the shared family environment effect and heterosis are common and not OR. For example, Dickens (2005) discusses both Flynn's study and the shared family environment as the same time. I could repeat this study and arguments in this section, but I would prefer to avoid duplication.Ultramarine 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Dickens (2005) arguing in response to Rushton & Jensen's claims about this particular study? If not, it's OR to put it in that context. We're simply here to report the actual debate exactly as it occurred, not rewrite history by citing studies the experts forgot to cite when making their arguments or by transposing an argument over one study into an argument over a similar study. Coatchecker

Dickens make a general argument regarding all invocations of the shared family effect, including this study.Ultramarine 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many general arguments that can be made on both sides, but unless Dickens mentioned this specific study in his general argument, his comments belong in a general discussion, not a specific discussion about a specific study Coatchecker

There is no such need. Jensen makes a general argument appicable amd prevously applied to many studies, including the Flynn study, Dickens makes a general argument applicable to many studies, including the Flynn study.Ultramarine 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fourth, regarding Dickens and Flynn's model. "However Jensen 1998b argues that while it's possible to substantially increase IQ through cultural stimulation, the IQ gains are "hollow" with respect to g, and that g itself appears to be a wholly biological variable, and not something that has proven amenable to cultural or psychological manipulation. Hence the Flynn and Dickens model of individuals seeking more stimulating environments may explain the dominance of heritability over environment with respect to IQ, but should not apply to the heritability of g, which is paradoxical because it's almost entirely g which causes IQ to be heritable." Their paper is published after Jensen's book and certainly mentions g. Jensen makes no comment on their model in his book, so this conclusion is OR and incorrect.Ultramarine 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But you applied general arguments against R&J's interpretation of a study even though the authors didn't specifically cite that specific study or those interpretations. If they argue you can increase g through cultural and psychological stimulation they are directly contradicting Jensen's conclusions so one of them must be wrong Coatchecker

I did not. Jensen never makes any argument to this model in his book, not a general and not a specific.Ultramarine 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He makes a general statement about the nature of g which is relevant to cite by your argument that general arguments are relevant to specific claims Coatchecker

They respond to his model in their paper and also discussed g. He never responds to them in his book.Ultramarine 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that he responded to them in his book. I am simply citing his GENERAL argument that intellectual stimulation increases IQ but not g Coatchecker

They have made a general counter-argument.Ultramarine 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of explanations: too much "genetic" vs. "non-genetic"

1. The only academic debate is not the genetic question.
2. The table frames the debate along a single axis.
3. The table is too long.
4. It spends too much time on insignificant fine points.
5. I still wonder if this presentation of information is WP:OR...
6. The table is hard to read.

I think it would be better to present a summary of the explanations of each researcher for each topic instead of having these columns. Something like this:

On Topic A:

• Rushton: Rushton writes that the gap is ....
• Ogbu: Rushton writes that the gap is ....
• Flynn: Rushton writes that the gap is ....

This will be long, so I suggest we put it in a sub-article Race and intelligence (explanations) and include a concise summary in this article, Race and intelligence (explanations)

futurebird 14:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article already a sub-Article of a an article that was meant to all be one? And now you want a sub-article of even this? Coatchecker

It's a very large topic. This article is "over-size" already. futurebird 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The table contains essential information not present elsewhere. This should not be removed. However, maybe the table should be dismantled and the info moved into the main text in order to avoid possible bias regarding inclusion and also duplications, there are many of these between the table and the main text.Ultramarine 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that using two columns makes no sense. It's not a debate with just two sides. futurebird 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate between those arguing for a genetic and those arguing for no/very little genetic. There are of course also many other debates.Ultramarine 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are the environmentalists arguing? No one is saying it's 100% genetic, so are the environmentalists saying it's 100% environmental? If not, what's the debate if they all agree it's a mix of genes and environment with no one pinning themselves down to exact percentages? Coatchecker

Little or no genetic contribution, the Pioneer Funded states 50-80%.Ultramarine 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund funds the academic community but doesn't speak for it. As you claimed, Jensen & Rushton are undecided but assuming they believe it's at least 50%, what does "little or no genetic contribution means". Less than 50%? Less 25%? Less than 10%? Coatchecker

Rushton is of course the head of the fund. So little that there is no evidence that genetic factors have an effect.Ultramarine 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Do you mean so little that it can't be measure by IQ tests? So less than 1 IQ point of the 15 is genetic in their opinion? Coatchecker

So little that studies, for example, looking at admixture using blood groups and skin color find no evidence of for genetic racial differences.Ultramarine 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Jensen skin color is correlated with IQ among African-Americans (negatively) but this is only weak evidence because there's been assortive mating for both light skin and status (hence IQ). I think we should clearly define (with exact percentages) the two camps in this debate. According to either Rushton or Jensen (can't remember which) the debate is between those who say 100% environmental and those who say there's a genetic component. In a practical sense I would say 100% is less than a point, for example Jensen notes that the 0.5 IQ point German study is consistent with environmental interpretation, even though he finds the study highly ambiguous Coatchecker

Most studies disagree with Jensen regarding skin color, as noted in the article. The corrleation between skin color and IQ is extremely low, about 0.1. That is, using skin color, you can only decide 1% of the variance in IQ. That is even before adjusting for "assortive mating" which could make this even smaller. Regardless, claims regarding preference for skin color does not apply to blood groups. If R&J have made that claim regarding 100% environmental, then they have misrepresented the other side, since it would be very difficult to exclude a very small genetic component.Ultramarine 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many of the people who you're calling "environmentalists" do not denny that some aspects of intelligence are genetic. They say that the available evidence indicates that the gap we see in test today "are well with in the range expected for environmental influences" (see the APA statement) This isn't the same thing as saying "no part of the gap is genetic" it's saying that we don't know the answer yet and none of the available evidence is conclusive--- but it is reasonable to think that environmental explanations will be able to explain the entire gap. The gap would need to be much larger and much less subject to environmental change for the scientific community to take the position that genetic explanation is likely.

The environmental camp argues that Jensen and Rushton are rushing to the conclusion that genetics is the cause based on tenuous evidence. Because most of these people are good scientists they are unwilling to say that the gap "is in no way caused by genetics" until there is some direct method of testing this idea.

What nearly everyone agrees on (including Jensen and Rushton) is that environment plays a role, the question is how large is that role and how does it work?

The big debate at the moment is about to what extent are the effects of racism an important factor in shaping intelligence. And difficult questions of assimilation. Oppressed minorities resist assimilation, but does this resistance present a barrier to education and occupational success? Does hip hop make people dumber? Should majority culture become more multicultural and accepting of minority values, or are these values in some way "dysfunctional" and must they be discarded? That is the dynamic that is missing from this article and that is why I object to the two-column organization. futurebird 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These are good points. It may possible in the future to find an exact answer regarding the role of genetics when more is learned about how specific genes affect the CNS, but not now. The debate regarding the role of different environmental factors is not the same as the debate regarding the role of genectics vs. environmental factors. We could certainly expand the discussion regarding environmental factors. Regarding the table, I think it could be a good idea to dismantle it and move not duplicated material to the main body of text.Ultramarine 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be fine, as long as the final effect is not to create a "point counter point" debate ... futurebird 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Why is it not appropriate to have a "point-counter-point" debate? This is what really exists in the literature for many topics.
2. UL's characterization of the genetics / no-genetics debate is essentially correct. Despite protests from JK at times, ULs characterization is the correct one. It's between "detectable genetic effects" and "no detectable genetic effects". Having a table which outlines this is helpful but not essential.
3. just FYI, a correlation of just .1 between skin color and IQ among U.S. blacks would be evidence of (1) substantial genetic contributions to IQ difference thru admixture (~50%), or (2) pervasive and powerful racism based on skin color, or (3) modest assortative mating for skin color and IQ. --W.R.N. 06:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WRN, who breaks it down in to these three possibilities? JJJamal 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)