Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rushton's RK theory 1.1 Rushton's r/K theory 2 straw man pro racialist - fails OR NPOV and V 3 brain size 4 About the comparison table 5 about the small table 6 watch publication dates 7 making a mess 8 racialist 9 disputed tag 9.1 dubious tag 10 recent reverts 10.1 need some agreement on terminology 11 Large table straw man 12 Linda Gottfredson in the intro? 13 Protection 14 Truce truce truce! 14.1 compromise suggestion 15 Merge from "research" 16 unprotecting 17 protected edit request 18 unprotection 19 tags

[edit] Rushton's RK theory

Is discredited by all except himself. As noted, the evidence in some causes is outright fraud. As such, it should not be prominently displayed. Even if it were correct, it is not directly a theory of IQ and should not be mentioned in great detail, any more than the Pioneer Fund should be mentioned in great detail. Ultramarine 11:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when has Rushton's r/K theory been discredited? It's been roundly criticized, but discrediting would require disproof. Where's the disproof? Regardless, it's still a highly significant attempt to explain the IQ gaps in evolutionary terms and therefore warrants a description. The table helps the reader easily grasp the logic behind the theory. Dd2 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Rushton's RK theory is a footnote and an incorrect one at that.futurebird 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton's r/K theory

Wiezmann and his associates at York University in Toronto, in 1989, had gone back and checked the sources of information on which Rushton's conclusions are based. This ment going back to the oringinal sources in the literature where Rushton obtained his data, SINCE HE DID NOT DO ANY OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES HIMSELF. Wiezmann and his colleagues have documented numerous instances in which Rushton completely misrepresents work that he cites without giving the reader any sense of the problems recognized even by the original investigators or the cautions and reservations they express.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the misuse of the work of others comes in Rushton's attempt to couple anthropometric data to the evolutionary theory of r and K selection. This theory describes what were identified in the 1960s and 1970s as two different sorts of reproductive strategies. According to Rushton, blacks have evolved as r-strategists, while Asians and whites have evolved as K-strategists: Blacks have more offspring but invest less parental care in each, while Asians and whites have fewer offspring but invest more parental care. Moreover, Rushton adds a few characteristics of his own to distinguish r- from K-strategists that have no counterpart in the original theory (which was designed with animal, mostly insect, species in mind). Putting it all together, Rushton's approach is nothing more than the grafting of crude racial stearotypes onto r- and K-selction theory.

Rushton here is being not only racist, but also disingenuous to his reader. He neglects to tell the reader that r- strategists often differ markedly in life span (r-strategists often less than year, K-strategists more than a year;in total life span) and in body size (r-stragtegists small body size, K-stragtegists large) that do not apply to humans. Finally Rushton does not inform the reader that r- and K-selection theory is controversial within the field of evolutionary biology today, and is considered at best to apply only to groups, particulary among insect species.

What Weizmann has shown is that Rushton selectively cites and misrepresents his sources to support his conclusions. Far from being an "honest attempt" to follow the Truth wherever it leads, Rushton seems to be putting a ring through Truth's nose and leading it toward his own barn. In this respect, Rushton has followed well the traditions of his predecessors in the study of racial differences. He has used, abused, distorted, and in some cases virtually falsified his sources. As Wiezmann and his colleagues conclude:..."Rushton not only cites sources which are notcredible, but he consistantly misrepresents the work of others. His summaries of the literature are not only tendentious, but untrustworthy."

There have been many other studies and reviews that firmly discredit Rushton's work. I guess nobody here has been reading them? I also assume that nobody here is familiar with the advances made in genetic research, or cognitive science. I would also like to inform everybody that Rushton, Jensen, Lynn ect. are not geneticists.

Something else to consider: The Black/White difference in average IQ scores in the United States is not 15 points (as in 1960s), but somewhere in the range of 10 and 7 points. Moreoever, Catholics and Protestants in Irleand are known to differ in average IQ scores by as much as 15 points; why not debate this phenomenon on the grounds of genetic difference?

(Richard Lynn is another race-realists who is widely cited and well known for misrepresenting and distorting data, as well as, falsifying statistics.)

P.S. This artical is absolute garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.186.80 (talk • contribs).

Rushton did not conduct any empirical studies himself? Perhaps you should look at Rushton's CV or the references section of this article series, where we list numerous empirical studies he conducted himself.

You claimed that Rushton did not mention r-K differences in lifespan and body size. This is outright false; these are indeed mentioned in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Finally, the fact that some people claim to have discredited Rushton's work does not mean that Rushton's work should not be included in the article. Rather, all arguments should be included and attributed to their authors. Dd2 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

-------------------------------------

All independent examinations has shown it to be false. See the sources in the article. An article should not include every crank theory. As such, it should not be prominently mentioned, especially as it accuses whole groups of people of for example psychopathy. Ultramarine 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

------------------------------------

"and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is incorrect [25]."

(Sorry, I'm a non-native English speaker)

Perhaps I made a mistake but When I look at the data myself:

All live births

Black total 593,691

White total 3,174,760

Ratio = 0,187

Live births in twin deliveries

Black total 20,423

White total 98,304

Ratio = 0,208

Black ratio of twin deliveries to live births: 20 423/593 691 = 3,44%

White ratio of twin deliveries to live births: 98 304/3 174 60 = 3.09%

Not a statistically significant (P < 95%) difference even with the sample size.

It is still in strong support of Rushton's theory. And if you take account of that he is talking about dizygotic twins only and not all twins, the fundamental prediction still looks correct. The last appreciation should be removed in my opinion.

However, the data on the Chinese and Asians-Americans is sound, but is only one among many :

For example: "After adjustment for age and Quetelet's index, the levels of total and bioavailable testosterone were highest in Asian-Americans, intermediate in African-Americans, and lowest in whites. However, the DHT:testosterone ratio was highest in African-Americans, intermediate in whites, and lowest in Asian-Americans, corresponding to the respective incidence rates in these groups and providing indirect evidence for ethnic differences in 5alpha-reductase enzyme activity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8672990&dopt=Abstract

Moreover, is the turn of phrase "semi-pornographic like Penthouse" neutral and suited? It is a critism selected just in order to shock, for it is not even a key argument in the original article.

There is also a torrent of old references that date back to the Bell Curve wars, certainly interesting, but without description.

All that makes a more balanced rewriting mandatory, by both sides, in my opinion.

82.225.109.190 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Those live birth numbers are for Whites and Blacks including hispanic members of those groups, but the figures given for non-hispanic Whites and non-hispanic Blacks are more appropriate. The ratio between the non-hispanic figures shows insignificant variance, in my calculation. There could be a number of confounding factors here, though, such as this is measuring twin live births rather than twin conceptions (there are differential racial patterns of live births), differential rates of multiple-birth-boosting fertility treatments, and that Rushton's theory only refers to dizogytic twinning.

Rushton and Jensen's claim is:

"Around the world, the rate of dizygotic (i.e., two-egg) twinning is less than 4 per 1,000 births among East Asians, 8 among Whites, and 16 or greater among Blacks (Bulmer, 1970). Multiple birthing rates have been shown to be heritable, based on the race of the mother, regardless of the race of the father, as found in East Asian–White crosses in Hawaii and White–Black crosses in Brazil (Bulmer, 1970)."[1] --Nectar 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's more support for this explanation of the difference between current data and Rushton's data from 1970: The rate of twin births in the US has doubled since 1971 due to older moms and fertility treatments.[2] "One-third of the increase in twins is because of a natural tendency toward twin births in older moms and the other two-thirds to fertility treatments." It's highly likely that there's varying rates of births to older moms and fertility treatment among racial groups.--Nectar 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] straw man pro racialist - fails OR NPOV and V

The "culture-only" interpretation is a commonly used straw-man argument made by pro-racialists, and not indicative of the actual positions of the scientific community. Typically, the argument is over the amount of genetic contribution. Pro-racialists typically assert anywhere from 50% - 80% genetic determinism, where as other scientists generally accept less than 20% genetic determinism in intelligence.

as my edit comment indicates, this kind of writing is never acceptable. if -- and so far i am highly skeptical -- there is in fact a real-world controversy over whether the debate really is between partly-genetic and culture-only POVs, then this is certainly not a neutral presentation of such a case. there are no citations (again my skepticism) to support the claim. no balance of presentation of competing views. --Rikurzhen 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

While some of the wording may be unfortunate, there is still a good part of truth in this, namely that "hereditarian" scientists will insist on a genetic contribution at least equal to environmental factors, possibly much higher. "Environmental" scientists may accept a small part of genetic contribution to the equation, say up to 20% (I'm still looking fo a cite to fix this number). I think translating the debate from "partly-genetic" vs "totally-cultural" to "hereditarian" vs "environmental" may diffuse accusations of making a strawman, as it more closely represents the typical positions of classical proponents of each camp, say typically Rushton on one side and Neisser on the other.--Ramdrake 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. Neutrality, for better or worse, mostly comes down to subtle rhetoric when you get to the fine details. Reynolds (2000) suggested the 20% number, probably becomes a heritabilty of <20% is considered negligible/small. Jensen is the iconic hereditarian -- "Jensenism" as it is sometimes called. Flynn may be the iconic environmentalist -- Flynn effect and all -- but it's harder to say that for sure. --Rikurzhen 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we can find an understanding on this. Based on your suggestions for "icons", I'll try to find proper quotes for both sides to try to give substance to those numbers. I think we can make substantial improvement in the appearance of neutrality for both sides in this article if we focus the debate on how much of a genetic contribution there is to the issue instead of pitting an absolutist view of 0% genetic contribution against a >0% genetic contribution. My understanding of the issue so far is that the debate is much closer to an "how much" question than to a "whether or not" question. In this light, the Roth & Snyderman survey results actually make perfect sense rather than being a point of contention.--Ramdrake 23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When people are being dispassionate about it, it's a how much question (how much in any particular environmental circumstance). Obviously there are many examples of people being not dispassionate. No time to dig them up, but they're linked in the article. So it often comes down to some or none. With "some" being abhorrent to many people. Note that "environment only" was a solid 2nd place in S&R's survey. -- Even though we can be dispassionate and courteous to one another, this rarely characterizes the public side of the debate. So we're stuck describing an inflamed debate. --Rikurzhen 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that entire "comparisons" section really smacks of OR - it quite neatly falls into a point-by-point hereditarian paper discussing evidence on one side, and leaving weak arguments on the other. A comparisons section should be more along the lines of - Hereditarian: The IQ gap is primarily caused by genetics./Environmentalist: The IQ gap is primarily caused by environmental factors. A more appropriate title of the section is "Hereditarian evidence and weak environmentalist refutations." Nothing is really being "compared" at all, except for evidence on one side (well cited, and exhaustively detailed), and straw-man argument on the other side. I'm sure if we replaced it with a point-by-point, blow-by-blow recreation of Lieberman's paper, we could have the same section POV pushed in the other direction. It really doesn't belong. --JereKrischel 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, Rikurzhen, would this be acceptable to add to the "comparisons" section?

Primarily genetic	Primarily environmental
Skull sizes of different races have been compared since the 1800s (Morton, 1849), showing differential sizes which are assumed related to IQ (Rushton, 1996).	The views of Morton and Rushton have been invalidated "by a century of anthropological research" (Gossett 1965, Cravens, 1978), and themselves are inconsistent with each other (Morton putting "Caucasoids" as the group with the largest brains, and Rushton putting "Mongoloids" as the group with the largest brains).

If so, we've got an entire paper of Lieberman to go through, point by point, giving the strongest possible argument for the environmentalist point of view. --JereKrischel 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

In other words: I don't like it because it makes the breadth of the claims for the hereditarian view clear. Ultramarine and I did our best to present the strongest arguments avaiable for both sides. Deletion is seldom the solution to achieving NPOV. In this case, you should strength the arguments with the best available ones where possible. -- OR involves an original argument, which this material is not. WRT policy, it is not materially different than an topic point-counter-point in paragraph form, but has the benefit of keeping things organized. -- I'm reverting because deletion of huge amounts of material is not appropriate. Arguments can be made about presentation, but simple deletion is not an option. --Rikurzhen 08:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The point-by-point pro-hereditarian argument is OR, which does qualify for deletion. That being said, let's start off by adding in point-by-point from Lieberman, and see if you're okay with that. --JereKrischel 08:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

JK, it would be fine except it doesn't nearly capture enough of the hereditarian argument. For both POVs, you should present the best published arguments you know of. Also, the "primarily genetic"/"primary environment" formulation is bad. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

JK, all of the material is cited. Most of it comes from the 2005 review papers. It's not OR. Maybe it's just new to you. Check the citations. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you still don't understand my essential concern. It seems you're willing to go blow-by-blow, citation by citation, but I think it's moving in the wrong direction. I'd like to ask other editors to weigh in on whether or not such a section is appropriate - it seems like we're writing a paper to be published in the next issue of some science journal, rather than presenting any sort of concise comparison. --JereKrischel 09:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Concise writing is great. One one point the material was ordered in relative importance/commonality. You'll note that the origianl top item covered IQ, brain size, and reaction time. The editors notes are notes to other editors (i.e. you), not attempts to write text for the article. I was attempting to get your attention to note that you were mulitplying a single topic into multiple rows of the table. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] brain size

there are now like 5 different table entries about brain size. one is sufficient, else this defeats the purpose of having a table where each topic is summarized in a row. also note this is the explanations article, not the average differences article. --Rikurzhen 09:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we simplify it into Rushton's racialist arguments of splitting/differing environments tens of thousands of years ago creating different brain sizes, with the primarily environmental POV simply stating that Rushton's data is incorrectly aggregated, and that sufficient controls for such data have not been implemented in any studies? There seem to be a lot of entries in the "comparisons" section which are not in fact explanations, but rather citations supporting one explanation over another. --JereKrischel 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting like things into single rows is the right idea. --Rikurzhen 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the comparison table

I'll give you my opinion, blunt as it is: it's humongous, it's ugly to read (especially with all those *****editor's notes*****) and it falls into the same tarpit the original article used to: a tit-for-tat battle of arguments on either side, each trying to find an angle to refute the opposing side's argument. In short, it doesn't report on a debate, it is a debate in and of itself. Let's try to find the strongest arguments on each side, and not launch into ad infinitum, ad nauseum refutations. I'd start by moving the table here so we can discuss it, as it looks supremely unencyclopedic as it is on the article page. The smaller table JK has introduced, to sum up the positions, I think is fine and should stay. I don't have time to do it this morning, but I may try my hand at some editing later one today.--Ramdrake 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The editors notes were added with the hope that they would guide JK to put material into existing rows rather than creating new ones. As I tried to point out about we have something like 5 different rows discussing whether brain size differs by race -- all in slightly different permutations. There's no need to use the talk page as a base for editing. This article is unlikely to be read by more than a handful of people -- I note the rate at which typos get fixed in this and other articles. --Rikurzhen 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the small table

it's OR. (1) I recognize 2 of the 4 categories listed. i know of no reference to support the division of opinions in this field along racialist/nonracialist lines except as those terms are used synonmyously with the terms herediatarian/nonhereditarian. thus, combining them creates two categories that appear to be essentially depopulated. (2) i can only assume it was created by logical extrapolation from some implied definitions of these terms. thus, assuming no sources were directly consulted, it's plainly OR. --Rikurzhen 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not OR. There are clearly two axes of thought here, and they are unfairly conflated by the pro-racialist POV which wants to consider any genetic basis of intelligence as proof that racial differences have a genetic basis. There are clearly scientists (http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRN2004_IQ.html) who accept genetic components to intelligence, but dispute the utility of "race" (In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary,on scientific grounds,to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them9,and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods,whereas the causes of racial differences are not). It seems POV pushing to assert that any hereditarian position (that is to say, those who believe there is a genetic basis for intelligence differences) must be supportive of the racialist position. --JereKrischel 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim is fine in itself but misses the point. The article is about explanations for race differences in IQ, not overall differences in IQ. Hereditarian vs environmentalist are terms which apply at many levels, but the relevant level is race differences in intelligence. Claims of the form "it seems like POV pushing" require you to establish that there exists published opinions about there being a two-axis split on the topic of race differences. That some people who accept a genetic cause of individual differences think race differences could be environmental does not establish such a two-factor account. The vast majority of "environmentalists" about race differences are "hereditarian" about individual differences because the herediatarian account of individual differences is by far the majority view (as per the intro sentence which we have not yet resolved). Lastly, on the specific point of Thompson and Gray (2004) a neurobiologist can not be expected to have an informed opinion about the significance of human races except by relying on their evaluations of the informed opinions of others. --Rikurzhen 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, by the very same token, a psychologist (such as Rushton or Lynn) cannot be expected to have an informed opinion about the significance of human races except by relying on their evaluations of the informed opinions of others. Therefore, when an anthropologist like Lieberman says that Rushton's partition of races is wrong, it should be an extremely strong critical argument, no?--Ramdrake 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't address the main part of my point and so I think we should not get distracted, but Lieberman has one view and geneticists like Risch have another. I'm a geneticist and I happen to think Risch is more right than Lieberman. Please help by thinking about the "hereditarian" vs "racialist" claims being made by JK. --Rikurzhen 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I think you still haven't addressed the issue of your OR conflation of hereditarian with hereditarian-racialist. You cannot reasonably assert that all hereditarians are racialists, and that any evidence for a genetic component to intelligence is supportive of the racialist position. Although you only recognize two of the four categories, you do not offer any alternative that clearly shows that there are those who do not believe in the utility of race (as per the article you yourself cited [3]). If you wish to dispute the table as presented, please present us with an alternative that clearly demarcates the position that while intelligence may have a strong genetic component, race is not a viable proxy for genetics. --JereKrischel 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No no no. It falls on you to provide citations to support your two axis model. You appear to be misunderstanding Thompson -- he's not making a skeptical claim about race but rather commenting on the ease with which the cause of race differences can be discovered, and saying that it's possible to investigate individual differences w/o bring up race. However, this is a distraction from the main point. Here's the point: the term hereditarian is an answer to two different questions. The question of interest is race difference. Another question is individual differences. Flynn, afaik, recognizes that individual differneces are substantially heritable. He believes that race differences are not. I don't know where you are getting a defintion for "racialist". I suspect you mean people believe that racial labels are informative about biogeography or such. In that case, Flynn may be a racialist also -- not sure about that. --Rikurzhen 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've provided citations, including the citation you provided yourself showing scientists who dispute the utility of race as a categorization, but see a high degree of genetic component to intelligence. You continue to conflate anyone who has a hereditarian position with one who supports or believes in the utility of race. You are conflating two different questions - "Is intelligence genetically determined?" and "Are intelligence differences between groups genetically determined?". A non-racialist hereditarian may agree with the first question, but not with the second. To list those hereditarian arguments as support for explaining race differences in IQ is clearly invalid. --JereKrischel 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reread my entry, which i've been updating. i'll give you some time to come to grips with this problem and find a citation for you two-axis model and/or remove it. --Rikurzhen 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please explain how you are going to represent the hereditarian/non-racialist POV, and I'll be more than happy to entertain whatever breakdown you'd like to present. If there is a better way to describe the various explanations, without improperly conflating the questions of "Is intelligence genetically determined?" and "Are intelligence differences between groups genetically determined?", I'm more than glad to hear of it. --JereKrischel 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

the experts who write about this subject understand and never conflate those two questions. the gottfredson paraphrase which is currently under dispute in the first sentence of the article makes this point clear. the problem with the small table is that it introduces the notion of a two-factor (four category) breakdown of opinion where that is not appropriate (because AFAIK, it is an original research claim). --Rikurzhen 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is categorically untrue, Rikurzhen. A primary critique of the work of Rushton by Lieberman is such unwarranted conflations of data. --JereKrischel 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for your reference, Rikurzhen- [4] Further analysis by Rosenberg et al. (2003) demonstrated that the categories proposed as races are not that informative. Depending on the markers used, the component of variance between continents could be as low as 2.8%, whereas the component within continents was 2.5%; the remaining 95% of genetic variation was within local populations. From the hereditarian perspective, why then would IQ not be expected to vary between, say, Sicilians and Swedes as much as between Europeans and Africans?

These new data do not alter the prior conclusion: Historically determined groups of various sizes can be identified, but there is no reason to assume that these categories are coterminous with any complex trait of interest to biologists. This occurs because genetic variation is overwhelmingly discordant among population groups (i.e., different variants are assorted randomly among different groups; AAA, 1998). For example, sub-Saharan Africa is home to both the tallest (Maasai) and the shortest (pygmies) people, and dark skin is found in all equatorial populations, not just in the “Black race” as defined in the United States. --JereKrischel 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever point you're trying to make is not at all clear to me. (My reference???) The apportionment of variance between and within groups is Lewontin's (1972) argument against the validity of race as a category, etc. What's the connection of that to claims about "aggregation" -- a research methodology which is apparently synonymous for "meta-analysis"? --Rikurzhen 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You brought up this article, which states: In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary,on scientific grounds,to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them9,and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods,whereas the causes of racial differences are not.. Your reference is arguing against the validity of race as a category. And insofar as the detailed arguments, a major critique of the conclusions of racialist-hereditarians is their poor use of data, as described in detail by folk such as Lieberman. --03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[copied from the article b/c you keep missing it] --- you are wrong:

JK -- you are misunderstanding Gray and Thompson: "the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods,whereas the causes of racial differences are not." -- the question of cause of individual differences is a tractable problem with the methods of behavioral genetics whereas the cause of group differences cannot be so easily determined -- this and the partitioning of variance is something that everyone would agree with --Rikurzhen 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring the first part of the quote: In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary,on scientific grounds,to consider race. The causes of racial differences are not tractable because race is not a good proxy for every gene which contributes to intelligence. --JereKrischel 04:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] watch publication dates

one problem that this article tends to run into is changes in opinion. we must watch publication dates. if a paper was published in the 90s, there's a risk that the author has since changed his/her mind. for example, here's a paper by Jensen challenging Rushton about brain sizes from 1993: [5]. (assuming I understand this paper) it would anachronistic to cite Jensen as being opposed to Rushton as he appears to have changed his mind since this time. --Rikurzhen 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] making a mess

jk, you're duplicating entries again. read the table in full before adding new material. --Rikurzhen 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

also, if you can't write something cited and informative for the hereditarian side, don't write anything at all. perhaps this will keep down duplication as most points can be found somewhere in the table. --Rikurzhen 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're presenting an unbalanced, OR presentation of the arguments between the racialist-hereditarian POV and the primarily-environmental POV. You are conflating any evidence of genetic linkage to intelligence as support for the racialist-hereditarian POV, and deliberately avoiding the primary critiques of the racialist-hereditarian POV (dubious data, and the futility of race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence). --JereKrischel 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"dubious data, and the futility of race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence" -- take care to be precise and citation based in your thinking and writing. the "dubious data" claim is aimed at Rushton's life history matrix, not at for example IQ differences between U.S. black and whites, which has been studied extensively. the "race as a proxy for all or most of the genes which control intelligence" is an unusual way to describe the criticism of race, which is usually made from a cline/cluster POV. how makes this kind of claim as you have stated it? --Rikurzhen 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The dubious assertion is the implication that a B-W difference is due to group genetic differences. This is a primary fault of your citations used in support of the racialist-hereditarian POV. --JereKrischel 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "the racialist-hereditarian POV" identical to the view that "B-W difference is due to group genetic differences"? Rushton's life history matrix is criticized as being based on dubious sources. But Rushton's theory is a small part of the set of arguments ususally presented for the hereditarian view. For example, The Bell Curve omits mention of it in the chapter on race differences. --Rikurzhen 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the racialist-hereditarian POV is the position that group genetic differences are the primary reason for IQ differences between groups. The hereditarian view can include those who believe that there is a large genetic component to IQ, but do not believe that race categorizations are useful. --JereKrischel 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] racialist

JK you need to work this "racialist" idea out by finding citations to support your position before you finish appending "racialist" and "race based" to every phrase in the article. if you feel the need to append an adjective to every phrase in the article, then you're probably dealing with a 'making necessary assumptions' issue. the APA report saw no need to make these kind of qualifications. a good reason is needed to make them here. --Rikurzhen 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation again:

The “first principle” from which the logic of racialist discourse flows is a belief in the biological concept of race. Needless to say, this concept is hotly contested in virtually all disciplines of science. (For a thoughtful and detailed technical review that takes account of molecular genetics, see Kittles & Weiss, 2003.) Rowe (2005) dismissed this problem with nothing more than a sleight of hand: “The conceptual fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility” (p. 62). In contrast, Darwin (1871/1981) suggested the opposite: The most weighty of all the arguments against [race . . . is that they] graduate into one another [and the] naturalist, . . . if of a cautious disposition, . . . will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects he cannot define. (p. 698)

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60171.pdf --JereKrischel 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How are these claims different from the claims discussed in the main article: Race_and_intelligence#Race? How do they form a second axis in the space of explanations of race differences in intelligence? All claims that 'race doesn't exist' when applied to the topic of this article are forms of an argument that differences in IQ between races aren't due to genetics. --Rikurzhen 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're conflating things improperly again. One can claim that "race doesn't exist", yet still claim that IQ differences between individuals are primarily due to genetics. It is possible to be a hereditarian regarding IQ differences between individuals without accepting a hereditarian hypothesis for IQ differences between groups. Cline vs. cluster. You're taking two different questions and answering them at the same time. Separate the two and you'll understand better. --JereKrischel 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me draw it out for you - perhaps I'm not communicating well. You can bring up evidence that there is a genetic component to IQ, that we may all agree with (A). This is the hereditarian position. You then bring up evidence of differences between races (B), and assert that if you believe (A), you must believe that the differences between races is due to genetic components (C). When someone says that "race doesn't exist", it does not mean that IQ differences cannot be linked to genetics - it means that race is not a valid proxy for every gene that contributes to IQ. They can be a hereditarian and believe in (A) without agreeing that the combination of (A) and (B) implies (C). By forcing this logical fallacy upon them, you are unfairly challenging their hereditarian bona fides, presenting them with a false choice. --JereKrischel 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The primary cause of your problem is that you are trying to deduce these conclusions from first principles. This has (1) led you to errors of reasoning and (2) led you to conclusions that are not supported by direct inspection of verifiable sources. An example of (1): race is not a valid proxy for every gene that contributes to IQ -- no informed person would hold this view because most variation in IQ occurs within families. Perhaps you meant race is not a valid proxy for any gene that contributes to IQ. (2) There is no support for the proposition of making the 'existence of race' an independent axis from 'genetic contribution to group difference' in the space of published theories of racial group differences in intelligence. This second-order distinction is (AFAIK) never made in the research literature, but the single-factor (partly-genetic versus environment-only) description is frequently presented.

A second problem is that you are trying to make "hereditarian" mean just one thing when it has at least two definitions. (For example, "realist" means hundreds of things depending on context.) In the context of this article, it is most reasonable to allow "hereditarianism" to be 'the view that group differences have a partly genetic cause'. The view that 'individual differences are highly heritable' is nearly universal among scholars in a position to debate race differences, and thus 'anti-hereditarians about individual IQ differences' is not a group that needs to be considered. If you had intended "racialist" to mean 'hereditarian about group differences', then this is unnecessary and confusing. If you intended "racialist" to mean 'person who believes that races exist', then we are back to the issue discussed in the paragraph above. --Rikurzhen 08:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant race is not a valid proxy for most genes that contribute to IQ.. Even if it was a valid proxy for a single gene that contributes to IQ, the distribution of that gene cannot be asserted to have a functional effect on group IQ differences unless it can be shown that there are no other genes with inverse effect and the same distribution.

Insofar as your "partly-genetic versus environment-only", this false dichotomy is presented by racialist-hereditarians in order to bolster their POV. Nobody can reasonably assert that there is no genetic component to IQ, and arguing against such a straw-man is an artifact of POV pushing in the racialist-hereditarian literature. The research literature I have cited clearly argues against the racialist position without conflating it with any hereditarian contributions to IQ.

It is not reasonable to allow "hereditarianism" to be 'the view that group differences have a partly genetic cause', for several reasons. One, there are arguments over the magnitude of the difference made by genetic cause. Secondly, the citations posited in the "hereditarian" support include citations which do not contradict the non-racialist hereditarian POV.

I'm afraid, Rikurzhen, that we're going down a slippery slope with this - the entire detailed arguments section reeks of OR, and should be deleted. And your inability to accept that there are in fact, non-racialist hereditarians seems like a mental block on your part. I know you're very intelligent, and have been contributing to these R&I articles for years, but you don't seem to be understanding my concerns, even though you seem to have snippets of insight. You wrote, you are trying to make "hereditarian" mean just one thing when it has at least two definitions. That is *EXACTLY* my critique of the article. --JereKrischel 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been attempting to draft a response that you would not find personally insulting. To do so, I will have to ignore parts of your comments.

The topic of this article is 'explanations of the observation of race differences in intelligence'. These explanations focus almost entirely on the extent to which genetic (genes) causes are a contributing factor for the observed differences. Thus, when scholars participating in this debate about the cause of group differences make arguments to the effect that 'human races are a fiction', they are are making arguments against a genetic cause of group differences intelligence by ruling them out a priori. Thus, the matter of the existence of human races is not a separate axis upon which theories about the cause of group differences varies, separately from the question of the role of genes in causing group differences. Rather, those who claim 'human races are a fiction' are at the extreme of the single axis along which the causal theories vary. Using a term from Jensen, we can call this the Between Group Heritability (BGH) axis, as the theories vary in the degree to which they posit a role for heredity (genetics) in explaining group differences in intelligence. The APA report, which sought out a middle path by ignoring the conflict, completely left out discussion of the race-fiction issue. The race-fiction question is, of course, just one issue about which the competing causal theories differ. Many types of evidence in addition to the reality of human races is argued to shed light on the question of causal differences. One which *does not* figure in the contemporary debate is the issue of whether IQ has substantial Within Group Heritability (WGH). WGH is not an axis upon which causal theories of group differences tend to vary as the consensus among scholars now is that WGH is substantial. However, both the position that WGH is substantial and the position that BGH is substantial have at times been termed the "hereditarian" position. As there is no debate about WGH, and the topic of this article is BGH, the term "hereditarian" in this article should be used to refer to the hypotheses about BGH.

The small table should be removed. The term "racialist", which is being used as a 2nd axis in the small table, should be eliminated as a global adjective, and a less derogatory term should be used to describe the position that human races are not a fiction. There are other things that should be done, but they fall outside the purview of this comment block. --Rikurzhen 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt not to be personally insulting. Much of what you already have said has come across as insulting, even if you did not intend it. My apologies if anything I may have said came across that way as well.

I'm more than happy to restate racialist/non-racialist as BGH/WGH, but I think it is very important to keep that distinction clear - conflating any evidence of WGH "hereditarian" explanations as support for BGH hereditarianism is a clear logical fallacy. If, in fact, you believe that the only "hereditarian" position that should be addressed in the article is BGH, any citations of WGH should be removed (although, unfortunately, the racialist-hereditarians/BGH folk do purposefully conflate the two in the literature, just as Gould speaks against a 100% genetic position, rather than a partially-genetic position). Let's see if it reads better with BGH/WGH. --JereKrischel 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If, in fact, you believe that the only "hereditarian" position that should be addressed in the article is BGH, any citations of WGH should be removed -- What is the point of saying this? There is no basis in WP policy for censoring "a clear logical fallacy" as identified by an editor no matter what his reasons. Jensen (1998) has over 100 pages dedicated to the topic of this article, including detailed math on the relationships between BGH and WGH. Mention of these arguments "should be removed"? --Rikurzhen 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to add the references back in, with a clear indication that the argument being posed is against a fallacious straw man, I suppose that would be okay. But again, I think this really is the wrong direction for the article - doing a tit for tat, point by point, blow by blow rehashing of evidence and arguments for and evidence and arguments against, is a rat hole. We could add in copious references to MMoM, where Gould attacks the "genetic-only" position, and I'm sure you could find more references arguing against the "culture-only" position, and we could keep going ad infinitum. It doesn't improve the article one bit to have such excessive detail and proxy POV warring. This article would be better served if it was completely trimmed down to an explanation of the major positions, without specific citations of point by point evidence. --JereKrischel 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I seem to be having trouble finding the time to discuss this article here. While JK's two-axis construct is an interesting one, it is very close to being OR, perhaps too much so. Also, one of its flaws is that the "racialist-non hereditarian" position in the grid is quite likely to be empty (it is AFAIK). Possibly, if we say we can consider WGH as mainstream (for which I think there is good evidence), then there are two corollaries which need to be proven in order to start saying that the BW IQ gap is even partly genetic: the first is building a bridge between WGH and BGH (several researchers while accepting the former, refute the latter) and then showing that some specific definition of "race" fits the categories suggested by BGH, if it can be demonstrated. So, along a single spectral line, one could posit at one end the researchers supporting WGH only (not sure, but I think Flynn would fit this category), closer to the middle the researchers supporting WGH and possibly BGH without finding race to be an appropriate construct upon which to model BGH (Gray and Thompson would probably fit this category). Then, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the likes of Rushton and Lynn who support WGH, BGH and promote races as a good construct upon which to model BGH. Rik, JK, would such a representation be closer to the truth as you see it? I'd rather we buld consensus on this page than each adding our own spin and continually reverting each other.--Ramdrake 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the racialist-non hereditarian is quite likely to be fairly empty, although I made specific note of what kind of rationale there would be for that position (people who believe that certain specific medical conditions may be appropriate to study on the basis of race, but who would be skeptical of the idea that intelligence could be mapped by race because of the complexity of that trait). A fairly shaky rationale to be sure, but I suppose one might feel the same way about racialist/hereditarians. That being said, it seems like there are still two axes - % belief in BGH for races (as opposed to other arbitrary groups), and primarily genetic/primarily environmental contributions to intelligence ("heritability can be misunderstood to imply both that group differences must be genetic and that intelligence is a fixed rather than a context-sensitive ability — both of these interpretations are incorrect" [6]). I guess my point is that asserting that everyone agrees that there is a high WGH of intelligence does not require one to believe that there is a primarily genetic cause for intelligence.

Now I hesitate to add a third axis, but I've also seen strong critiques of the entire idea of measuring intelligence at all ("intelligence tests measure how well you do on intelligence tests", or something to that effect). Maybe it would be more appropriate to label these articles "Race and IQ", to avoid that axis. I guess this is what you get when you try to combine anthropology with biology with genetics with psychology. --JereKrischel 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that your arguments violate Wikipedia:No original research?

Are you familiar with the concept of principle component analysis or other dimension reducing algroithms? What is the correlation between the row and column axes in your revised small table? No doubt it's quite large. How many factors does it take to describe the range of theories about group differences? When people answer this question in the literature, they say it takes one axis: the role of genes in causing the gap. --Rikurzhen 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with Principal components analysis, although I suppose there may be an analysis of principled components as well...in any case, I think it is fairly clear that those people who reduce it to the single axis are prejudging the question by framing it in a way that reduces the amount of choice - a logical fallacy, I'm sure you'll agree. If you'd like to keep in arguments that use the "culture-only" strawman, we should include those that use the "genetic-only" strawman as well, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 06:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed tag

jk, you know it's not appropriate to remove my disputed tags. you're comments have grown incoherent to me. later --Rikurzhen 03:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a citation showing the axes and positions I stated exist. I've done that. Your dispute is not with me, it's with the sources I've cited. --JereKrischel 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dubious tag

the dubious tag is a sentence-level dispute tag. it is a meta-tag, meant to indicate an editorial dispute, not a tag to mark facts which are disputed in the research literature. for example, you've marked several NPOV-format sentences with the dubious tag, but this can only mean that you think the citation does not support the text. i doubt that was your intended meaning. --Rikurzhen 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why then, did you mark Assertions of Black-White-East Asian differences are based on invalid "aggregation" of data. as dubious? The citation (Lieberman's "How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank") directly supports that text. See the "Abusing Anthropological Research" section. --JereKrischel 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in the section about IQ differences, but the Lieberman paper is about brain size differences. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent reverts

I understand an argument is being made that the grid presented is original research, but I think there has been sufficient case made that there is a basis for the taxonomy presented in the materials cited. If you would like to remove the section, instead of simply reverting it, I would be amenable. However, reverting it to the previous POV pushing revision isn't appropriate. --JereKrischel 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

the table is presumptively OR and must go. the "primarily genetic" label is also OR -- and inappropriate in that it relabels a position that already has a title and suggests 100% genetic, which is not what is believed at all (50/50 or "some" mix has been the most common suggestion). these were the two major edits. the third edit was the addition of a dispute tag. all three of these edits must be preserved. --W. D. Hamilton 09:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the assertion that the table presented is OR - there has been significant presentation of citations which back up the scale as presented. Removed the "comparison" section as per earlier discussion and skepticism of value. --JereKrischel 10:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Big table is clearly valuable, as it allows for the rapid comparison of the two major POVs on different issues. The precedent for such a table is R&J(2005). There is no precedent for the race*genetic table. I totally dispute your claim that the research literature *obviously* indicates that there are two orthogonal dimensions upon which scholars differ. In fact, as you more or less admit when you added the racial labels to the big table, they two variables are in fact highly correlated. --W. D. Hamilton 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The "two major POVs" being presented are inappropriate strawmen. The race/genetic table has reference in the literature, and represents a neutral layout of the true complexity of the issue. --JereKrischel 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively not. As a simple matter of fact you are wrong. This is discussed below. My suspicion is that you are confusing the labels used for describing views about WGH and BGH. --W. D. Hamilton 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need some agreement on terminology

The use of "partly-genetic" seems to be weasel words to frame the question in a way that places anyone who believes in only a small genetic contribution (<20%, for example) into a different category of "completely-environmental". We need to find some alternative than to simply using the terminology favored by one side of the argument - neither "partly-genetic" nor "racialist" seem like neutral terms, although both are used by various authors to describe a pro-hereditarian stance.

I might suggest "significantly-genetic" and "significantly-environmental", but that may seem like an improper characterization of those people who believe in 20%-50% genetic contribution, rather than 51%-80%.

The APA calls it simply the "genetic hypothesis", which may be a more neutral term that doesn't have any specific qualifier. The "environmental hypothesis" may be an equally neutral term on the other side.

We could also specifically state "20%-80%" and "<20%" genetic, which may be less readable but certainly more accurate.

Another alternative may be using both the terms from both sides ("partly-genetic"/"racialist" vs. "environment-only"/"primarily-environment"), but readability there may be fairly poor as well.

In any case, I think that we need to be particularly careful in crafting the article with loaded terms borrowed from only one side of the argument. Suggestions? Comments? --JereKrischel 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In intellectual debate, it is a common policy to describe people as they choose to describe themselves (e.g., pro-choice, pro-life). The proper term for the hereditarian position is "partly genetic". I found "primarily environmental" to be fine, but I assume you made it up rather than finding a self description. Also, you appear to be ignoring the S&R survey when you imagine what the two sides are. They are (1) 0% genetic contribution (margin of error <20%) and (2) ~50% genetic contribution (margin of error ~30%). These are the POVs that people claim to actually hold when asked directly and anonymously, and they fit cleanly with the debate being about whether there is or isn't any genetic contribution. --W. D. Hamilton 17:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not written from the POV of what you call the "partly-genetic" side. Certainly there are those who would assert WGH as "partly-genetic", but argue the utility of race as a proxy for genetics. To use that label in this article inappropriately presents the issue. It would be just as appropriate to label the "primarily environmental" as "non-racialist" on the assertion that that is the description used by skeptics of the pro-hereditarian position.

The S&R survey you cite does not present any numbers regarding percentages as you suggest - the questions were:

• The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15%.
• The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1% (8 respondents).
• The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45%.
• The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24%.
• No response (or not qualified): 14%.

We definitely need to find neutral terms to describe the different POVs of this debate. --JereKrischel 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment did not mention WGH at all, and WGH does not figure into the structure of this debate as people who deny that WGH is substantial are very very rare. "Partly genetic" is about BGW, and it is the self-label of those individuals who believe that "the difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation". The discussion of race, when it occurs*, falls strongly along the "difference is entirely due to environmental variation" and the "difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation" divide. *However, it does not occur frequently in the literature, certainly not enough to warrant the kind of attention that you are trying to give it (look at the APA report, the WSJ report, and the S&R report for mentions of the debate -- it occurs only in passing in the APA report). --W. D. Hamilton 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Without the explicit mention of whether or not WGH is being discussed or BGH is being discussed, the "partly genetic" as a label for pro-hereditarian unfairly biases against the anti-hereditarian, by allowing a conflation of those labels in the minds of the readers. Look at Lieberman 2001, it does occur frequently in the literature which opposes the pro-hereditarian POV. --JereKrischel 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's non-sense. How can "partly-genetic" be unfair and misleading while "primarily genetic" is an improvement. The article tries to make clear that discussion of BGH was what was being considered -- see the 1st paragraph. If confusion of BGH and WGH is actually the cause of your "primarily genetic" label, then the obvious solution is the explain more clearly that "partly genetic" is about BGH. --W. D. Hamilton 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large table straw man

We simply cannot turn this article into a tit-for-tat meta-analysis, original research paper on the evidence for and against the pro-hereditarian position. Although arguably well cited, much more appropriate for a wiki like gnxpwiki.com than wikipedia.org. Fails NPOV on both undue weight, as well as an inappropriate characterization of the contrary view. --JereKrischel 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Gottfredson in the intro?

Article leads with the ideas of Linda Gottfredson, who is far from the mainstream. The intro paragraph should reflect all sides of the debate. futurebird 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph has been altered to attribute the claims solely to Gottfredson, but it is actually text where Gottfredson is describing where the consensus and debate among experts exists. See the version of the text which JK has been reverting -- it is fixed in that version [7]. --W. D. Hamilton 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the non-controversial idea of within group differences was being inappropriately presented as a lead in to the controversial idea of between group differences. Similarly, Gottfredson seems a poor choice to lead in anyway - the APA statement would probably be a better lead in. I also note the "consensus statement" offered in the WSJ notably lacks signatures from non-racialist scientists (Flynn, for example). I get the impression that although the article was titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", in fact it does not reflect the mainstream. Perhaps you could offer some evidence that anyone on the list of signatories challenges the pro-hereditarian POV. --JereKrischel 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Roughly a third of the 52 signatories out of the 100 scientists hand-picked by Gottfredson to receive the statement, including Gottfredson herself, have received grants from the Pioneer Fund. Eight of the signatories, including Gottfredson, currently (as of 2006) sit on the editorial board for Intelligence which reprinted it; also Detterman, another signatory, was the founder of the journal in 1977 and is its Editor-in-Chief. - from Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Hardly seems like a very reliable source of what is "mainstream", especially if 48 out of 100 refused to sign. --JereKrischel 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanations for why they didn't sign are the important part. Only a handful disagreed with the content, the rest didn't want their name in the WSJ next to Arthur Jensen's. --W. D. Hamilton 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3 of the 9 authors of the APA statement are signatories of the WSJ statement. the WSJ statement preceded the APA statement and have quite different levels of detail. the statements about within group differences are easily found in the APA report.

I think the problem was that the non-controversial idea of within group differences was being inappropriately presented as a lead in to the controversial idea of between group differences. -- the point is to contrast them. while one is quite certain, the other is disputed. --W. D. Hamilton 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3 of 9 doesn't seem to be a majority either. Again, talking about "Explanations", we might want to use the APA headings of "Genetic Hypothesis", "Socioeconomic Status", "Caste-like minorities" and "African-american culture", instead of deriving "partly-genetic" and "environmental only" in some arbitrary way. --JereKrischel 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The subsections of this article are

1. 1 Test bias
2. 2 Motivation
3. 3 Socio-economic factors
4. 4 Cultural explanations
5. 5 Language
6. 6 The Flynn effect
7. 7 Nongenetic biological factors
8. 8 Genetics

for that very reason. But the debate is clearly between those who believe there is some genetic contribution and those who don't. Neither group is homogenous, but the battle-line is clear. The situation is analogous to pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion, the rationalist versus empiricist views on epistemology, the gene-selectionist versus group-selectionist views on evolution, etc. It's the common way that people divide the dispute in order to understand it. --W. D. Hamilton 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of the debate is not as clear as you'd like to promote. The battle-line is not clear. By asserting an arbitrary characterization, as typically used in the POV literature from one side, you push POV. The subsections of the article should not be arbitrarily characterized as "environment only" and "partly-genetic". --JereKrischel 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely, something better could be said than bald contradiction. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Considering this article is protected, shouldn't it have a tag to warn editors and users? - Joshdboz 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that too... where is the tag? futurebird 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If this page is protected, the editors in conflict have to come up with a plan for resolving their conflicts. remember, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Unless discussion translates into viable proposals to improve the situation, they do not belong on the talk page. And unless you are working to resolve conflicts, there is no point in protecting the page. Page protection (aside from problems with vandals) is meant to give editors a chance to work through their conflicts. If that does not happen, I will unprotect the page. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What was the conflict here about in the first place? I was not a player in it... futurebird 21:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

this edit. JK deleted a substantial portion of the article. that debate extended to here and here. --W.R.N. 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a case of disagreement as to what NPOV means. I'm quite adamant that putting a table pitting "genetic" vs. "environmental" is conflating opinions, and WRN is quite adamant that that is the only reasonable way of looking at the issue. I'm really not sure how we move forward on this, since WRN has rejected any and all compromises I've suggested, and hasn't offered any of his own, although we've both spent pages and pages advocating for our rationales. --JereKrischel 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truce truce truce!

Oh right! the whole problem with the table. Didn't you propose an alternate table, Jere?

• Can we do this via and RFC or something?
• Can we have both versions and agree to keep talking this out without an edit war to remove either one?

I really want to edit this page. I think WRN will like this, I do think we need to expand the "research" section of the main page so that it mentions each of the major explanations for the gap, including, yes, the "genetic" one. I don't think it makes sense to burry this, the major source of debate, in another article.

But, I can't start making any of these changes with this article locked. We need to work out this article first and then put a summary of this article in the main article.

I don't know how to get over this dead lock about the table-- any table can represent a POV, even if it sourced, why should the summary be beholden to any one source? I think it's better if we stick to summarizing ideas, rather than coming up with our own schemes for organizing these ideas, WRN you could take the information in the table and make it in to paragraphs, for example. I mean right now the thing looks like a guideline for point counter point in a debate for the person who debating for the side called the "pro-dumb-black-genes-camp"-- and it's not even a two sided debate in the first place--

Uh oh, I'm getting sucked in to the debate over the tables, now. Never mind that. Can we just ignore this issue, for now, for the sake of the main article? I think the main article needs a good section on explanations. None of these tables will make it there anyway, so let's just have a "truce" or something and clean up EVERYTHING else in this section, then we can lock the article again and go back to trying to resolve the matter of the tables.

As a last note: I'll say that the table is hard to read, Often, you can't even see the headers as you look at each section. Jere, if you want the table out I think you need to make an effort to preserve the sourced information that it contains in another format. WRN, if we have your table we ought to have the 4 part one Jere made too--

Now can we just put this on the back burner and work on the content for the main article?

How's that from a, non-neural, ad-hoc mediator???

futurebird 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, deletion of the material is my primary objection. Contrary to JK, I did suggest alternatives (see the threads I linked). Decide for yourself who had the better alternatives. NPOV tag the table all you like, suggest a better alternative, but per Arbcom, don't delete material if the concern is NPOV. --W.R.N. 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the major problem is the way the material is organized, WRN.

JK, can we pull it out of the table and work with it as an inline paragraph? Could this be a working compromise to prevent an edit war so that we can improve the rest of this article? I'm seeing some problems with content being in more than one place, as things are now... It could lead to bad content forks, like the content here and the content in the Race and intelligence (Research) article. Are we going to:

1. Merge this article in to Race and intelligence (Research) (***let's do this!)
2. Make this a sub-article of Race and intelligence (Research)
3. Do something else... (explain)

futurebird 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

a single research article (e.g. Race and intelligence (Research)) is a bad idea for reasons I outlined on the main talk page. you need to have two articles (one for the phenotypic differences and another for theories that explain the differences). briefly-- the data and the interpretations need to be presented separately. in a scholarly science article, these would be called the "results" and "discussion" sections. both the WSJ and the APA report took this route in their presentations, and for good reasons. please trust me when I say that it is a vital measure to make NPOV presentation of this topic possible.

per the linked threads, JK and I both acknowledge that there are benefits and problems with a table format. i think the benefits are large enough to make it worth fighting for. in short, you can have arguments and their counter-arguments side-by-side without getting in each other's way. that is, a table can be read both down columns and right-to-left. if it turns out that the problems are intractable, then i guess you can't have a table. --W.R.N. 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can accommodate your requirement for two articles for research (phenotypic differences and theories) by simply making them sub-sub-articles.

Regarding the sourced information of the table, I think much of it is worth saving, but we need to start with some ground rules on how far we go with counter-counter-counter-counter-counter points.

I might suggest looking at Mackenzie's treatment as a general outline for organizing things, but frankly, making a comprehensive list of arguments, counter arguments, counter-counter arguments, etc, seems a bit like OR to me. It reminds me of papers written for science journals, not encyclopedias. --JereKrischel 02:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] compromise suggestion

Let's make Race and intelligence (explanations) a sub-article of Race and intelligence (Research), and return the full table without column-headings, and work on how to organize the material together. It's going to be more complex than a "this or that", but I'm not sure exactly what will work.

Are you willing to accept sub- and sub-sub articles WRN, if I'm willing to accept the massive table without column headings to begin with? --JereKrischel 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! this sounds like progress, sub-sub-article works for me as long as some of the explanations info makes it in to the main article in a more coherent form than at present-- right now that part of the main article is just... random... futurebird 03:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's called "horse-trading" and it's a bad idea. If either of our concerns is legitimate, it's not appropriate to compromise one for the other. Having 3 levels of articles is, I would think, a nonstarter for article organization when a 2-level organization seems perfectly reasonable. See main article. --W.R.N. 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "horse trading" it's just putting the whole table problem on the back burner and working on things that have an impact on the main article first. futurebird 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to accept sub- and sub-sub articles WRN, if I'm willing to accept the massive table without column headings to begin with? - means i'll drop this objection if you accept this change. the answer is that one change is not related to the other and each has to be decided independently. if one or both is the wrong thing to do, then the whole thing is wrong. --W.R.N. 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, WRN, is that this is what it comes down to for compromise. I believe you're wrong on both, you believe I'm wrong on both. There apparently is no arbiter here to decide if you are I are correct, and no way for me to force you to accept my solution, or you to force me to accept your solution.

I think as a measure to build good faith between us, which is sorely lacking, this would be a good step. Frankly, I don't think you're giving up that much in the compromise, since the sheer volume of information in the pages requires more sub-articles anyway. You may see it differently, of course.

Please, consider "horse-trading" as a possible way for us to build trust together. Neither of us is going to be able to convince the other that they are wrong, but we may be willing to give in one area if the other is willing to give in another. --JereKrischel 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can the two of you reach a compromise? IF so, great. If not, I suggest you both read this page and then discuss between yourselves whether you want to make an official request for mediation. Your choice, but this page is not going to be protected. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from "research"

I think that we should move the material in research to this article. Of course we can't do that since this article is locked.

futurebird 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, however, that we still should have an article on research. Called Race and intelligence research. This is why I did not agree with the other merges. futurebird 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unprotecting

Wikipedia pages should be protected only in extreme circumstances like vandalism or egregious edit wars. This page was protected for six days, more than enough time for people acting in good faith to resolve their dispute. I have unprotected it. If you are still in conflict, follow my advice (two sections above). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not unprotected....futurebird 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protected edit request

{{Editprotected}}

please copy the contents of Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Explanations and Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Surveys_of_academic_opinion to the top of this article, making them the #1 and #2 sections in the article. FB and I appear to agree that this should be in this article. Organization will happen at some point in the future after the article is unlocked. --W.R.N. 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, I only agree that Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Explanations should be in this article. Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Surveys_of_academic_opinion should stay in the article: Race_and_intelligence_research.

So could a mod please move just Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Explanations in to this article. We'll talk about the other bit before we make a move.

I'd rather just see this page unprotected since I'm in the middle of editing Race_and_intelligence_(Research)#Explanations anyway. futurebird 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking "copy" not "move", but that's fine too. If the page stays locked, we can work out other editprotected requests. Start a sub page in the talk space where we can work on revisions if you'd like. --W.R.N.

The page is not protected, it is semi-protected, which solely prevents very new accounts from editing. You are free to carry out the changes yourselves. Proto ► 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unprotection

no settlement has been reached about the edit that locked the article. --W.R.N. 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think just about everyone else thought that the compromise proposed above was fair. Are you the gatekeeper here? futurebird 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What are you referring to? --W.R.N. 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: "return the full table without column-headings, and work on how to organize the material together". That's actually a fine idea. The idea of a "research" subarticle is, IMO, a bad idea. But if we "return the full table without column-headings, and work on how to organize the material together" I think that would be great. Based on the notion that that's what we're doing, I've 2nded your request for unprotection. --W.R.N. 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I never had a stance on the whole problem with that table. We can work it out later. There will be no "edit wars" I just think we should move on so we can put things in the right place. So I think we agree on this. I think JK wanted no headings, so he can make that edit, we'll let the table linger for the time being and maybe some others will come in and help us make up our minds about it. But It's annoying that we can't just move in the new material and start making it look good. futurebird 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, we do not protect pages as a solution to conflicts among editors. If you are in a conflict, follow our policies: make a request for comment, and if that does not help seek formal mediation. This page was protected for a week and as you say there was no settlement reached. But I do not see much evidcence of people trying to reach a settlement. Protecting this page indefinitely goes agains tthe whole idea of Wikipedia and is NOT a dispute-resolution mechanism. If you have a dispute, use the appropriate mechanisms for resolving them. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tags

these tags mark individual sentence or other small regions of an article for correction. this is typically done when the correction isn't obvious. --W.R.N. 05:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV
   1. Template:FixPOV (edit talk links history)          —^[POV] - This template is suitable for pointing out where you think a minor POV problem exists.
   2. Template:Lopsided (edit talk links history)          —^{[opinion needs balancing]}
   3. Template:POV-statement (edit talk links history)          —^{[neutrality disputed]}
   4. Template:POVassertion (edit talk links history)          —^{(Neutrality disputed — See talk page)} - to signify that just that statement may be subjective
2. WP:V
   1. Template:Specify (edit talk links history)          —^[specify]
   2. Template:Who (edit talk links history)          —^{[attribution needed]}
   3. Template:Fact (edit talk links history)          —^{[citation needed]}
   4. Template:Citequote (edit talk links history)          —^{[cite this quote]}
   5. Template:Page number (edit talk links history)          —^{[page # needed]}
   6. Template:Request quote (edit talk links history)          —^{[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source]}
   7. Template:Verify source (edit talk links history)          —^{[verification needed]}
   8. Template:Dubious (edit talk links history)          —^{[dubious — see talk page]}
   9. Template:Verify credibility (edit talk links history)          —^{[this source's reliability may need verification]}
   10. Template:Unverifiable (edit talk links history)          —^{[not specific enough to verify]}
   11. Template:Failed verification (edit talk links history)          —^{[not in citation given]}
3. WP:NOR
   1. Template:Or (edit talk links history)          —^{[original research?]}
4. importance/notability/off-topic
   1. Template:Notability-inline (edit talk links history)          —^{[notability?]}
   2. Template:Off-topic-inline (edit talk links history)          —^[off-topic?]