Talk:Race and intelligence (test data)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This article may not be compliant?

If you mean that table at the end, I agree, WD. futurebird 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Table 12.7 is meaningless and needs to come out. It apparently is nothing more than an illustration of cherrypicking data to fit. Where are the other groups (e.g. asians other than mongols)?

Racedowling 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Have there been any studies involving midgets? If cranial size were a factor, certainly this would correlate. How about differences in stature? Are 4'6" white men less intelligent than 7' white men?

Racedowling 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs Sources For all we know the Klan could have wrote this crap.

I think that the Appendix should be moved to above the footnotes. --Kevin Murray 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the term "Hispanic" being used in the chart below without at least a footnote explaining the definition. On an aside, do we have page numbers for the H&M ref. Not to imply that they need to be here, but I'd like to read the text supporting these numbers. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of objection to this type of inclusion of multiple studies sorted in together and displayed in a high to low order, when I brought Appendix A to the "main" article in January. I had taken that from another article which was a bit POV pushing and overstated the data, specificlly Buj, where the city by city data was implied to be nationwide. I'd rather see this data broken into tables either by researcher or published source and included in a section discussing the particular study or researcher, not aggregated together to imply that common standards were used. It might be good to discuss the weakensses of the study or researcher within the context of these sections. --Kevin Murray 06:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove this table. --W.R.N. 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAT Scores

How can SAT scores be tied to IQ? More than anything these are a product of ability and environmnet, with a huge emphasis on the latter. --Kevin Murray 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SAT measures g and correlates with other IQ tests approximately as well as other IQ tests do with one another. The cause of differences in SAT shouldn't be a matter of discussion in this article. --W.R.N. 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved from article

the SAT charts are redundant with the GRE chart. the social background chart seems to be inappropriate for this article (isn't that explanations?), and the flynn chart is redundant with the BW gap table --W.R.N. 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be more about the gap closing... where are the other SES charts?

The black scores on four tests should stay... Caption is about how the gap has been closing per flynn.futurebird 07:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is, then it should be here, starting with a description in the text. Which ever. The Flynn chart is redundant with the table in that section, but it would seem that the table is safer (wrt NPOV) because it's the raw data rather than Flynn's analysis, which Murray objects to. --W.R.N.

2003 SAT results by race/ethnicity. Redrawn from College Board statistics. College Board classifications, like other "race" classifications are not homogeneous; for example, "Asian" includes East Asians and South Asians; "White" includes Jewish Americans and other Whites. Similarly, "East Asians" are not homogenous, nor are "South Asians".

Distribution of SAT math scores by race and ethnicity. [1]

Percentage of race/ethnic groups that scored above 600 on the math SAT [2]

Min-Hsiung Huang and Robert M. Hauser found that, controlling for social background, the Black-White test score gap narrowed significantly over the period from 1974 to 1998. For Whites, however, improvement in social background across time does not raise test scores correspondingly. ^[1]

William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn write that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. This graph shows the gains for various tests.^[2]

[edit] appendix

here are the data tables from Lynn (2006). If, for example, they were all included here, I think that would be too much. But what criteria could be used to select a subset? --W.R.N. 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't include any large data tables here, but merely reference them to their original source? We don't have to select a subset, we can simply refer to them at a different location. --JereKrischel 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre WW II skull data

Undue weight and outdated material. Skull size has been changed to no longer particularly relevant. Should be removed. Objections?Ultramarine 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Murray, Herrnstein and Lynn think Jews are a race?

Attempted compilations of average IQ scores by race published by Richard Lynn in Mankind Quarterly and Murray, C. and Herrnstein, R. J. in their book The Bell Curve place Ashkenazi Jews at the top, followed by East Asians, Whites, Hispanics and Native Americans, and African Americans.^[3]

Or should this read "ethnic groups" ? futurebird 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Or I proposed "populations" at the mediation discussion. I think WRN suggested "human populations." I don't strongly object to ethnic groups, but I think the term implies a broad range almost to the extent of race. --Kevin Murray 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the general move to rename. This question is really just about how Murray, Herrnstein and Lynn describe these differences and making this text match the sources. futurebird 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

various sources use various terms, but the overall encompassing phrase is self-described race and ethnicity. --W.R.N. 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK educational attainment

This sentence:

In fact, Blacks of African descents in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations.

seems to be at complete variance with current UK data and so is either out of date or suspect. There has been a lot of UK government & media concern recently about low educational achievement of UK black schoolchildren. Take for example this (admittedly patchy) data from the Institute of Race Relations, no less, showing blacks to be the lowest achieving ethnic group at GCSE level: [3] (though it doesn't distinguish African from Caribbean blacks, and I should think most available stats wouldn't either). Ben Finn 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article name?

All this article does is provide data from Lynn 2006 study. Either this article must be renamed or its contents changed to appropriately include results from other studies. No one study can be considered more conclusive than the others.