Talk:Race and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, Race and intelligence, is currently the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee. The mediator assigned is KillerChihuahua. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Links: Case page • Case talk page • Mediator's talk page • Mediation information • Mediation guide This message should only be placed on talk pages.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Race and intelligence:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
If you are new here this long talk page can seem overwhelming. This info-box will help you find active threads and tasks that need your input. This topic spans several articles. All of these articles need attention. History Research Test data Explanations Interpretations Media portrayal Controversies Utility of research Potential for bias References More related articles may be found in Category:Race_and_intelligence_controversy

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Keep, AFD 5 June 2005 (6/40+/0). Keep, AFD 3 December 2006 (1/24/0).

Race and intelligence has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Race and intelligence was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 25 August 2006

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Race and intelligence, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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, 55, 56, 57 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
Topics /Lede section

Contents 1 Statistics 2 Intro 3 mediation 4 New Archive warning 5 a correction to something said by WD 6 Can we remove the "totally disputed" tag now? 7 Background information 8 moved from article 8.1 Multiple intelligences 9 Note 10 research intro 10.1 moved from article 11 race - social contruct section 12 Intro again 13 Section on Research 14 Critique of a reference 15 concerning twin studies and heritability 16 an unhelpful comment 17 Meaningless or at least vapid sentence 18 mi and savants 19 section break 19.1 Relevance of this article 20 Too many archives 21 This is about biology 21.1 Notes 21.2 Hm 22 Archiving

[edit] Statistics

I believe, it may be good idea to add in the article some statistic data on this subject by countries:

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Average IQ of Countries

The average IQ in the United States is usually set at 100. Groups within the US score different average IQ's, such as 115 for college grads or 45 for African-Americans. Similarly, average IQ varies from country to country, shown in the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (sets Britain at 100):

Hong Kong 107 Korea, South 106 Japan 105 Taiwan 104 Singapore 104 Austria 102 Germany 102 Italy 102 Netherlands 102 Sweden 101 Switzerland 101 Belgium 100 China 100 New Zealand 100 U. Kingdom 100 Hungary 99 Poland 99 Australia 98 Denmark 98 France 98 Norway 98 United States 98 Canada 97 Czech Republic 97 Finland 97 Spain 97 Argentina 96 Russia 96 Slovakia 96 Uruguay 96 Portugal 95 Slovenia 95 Israel 94 Romania 94 Bulgaria 93 Ireland 93 Greece 92 Malaysia 92 Thailand 91 Croatia 90 Peru 90 Turkey 90 Colombia 89 Indonesia 89 Suriname 89 Brazil 87 Iraq 87 Mexico 87 Samoa (Western) 87 Tonga 87 Lebanon 86 Philippines 86 Cuba 85 Morocco 85 Fiji 84 Iran 84 Marshall Islands 84 Puerto Rico 84 Egypt 83 India 81 Ecuador 80 Guatemala 79 Barbados 78 Nepal 78 Qatar 78 Zambia 77 Congo (Brazz) 73 Uganda 73 Jamaica 72 Kenya 72 South Africa 72 Sudan 72 Tanzania 72 Ghana 71 Nigeria 67 Guinea 66 Zimbabwe 66 Congo (Zaire) 65 Sierra Leone 64 Ethiopia 63 Equatorial Guinea 59--Igor "the Otter" 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

^^Hmm, judging from those stats I actually see a correlation with IQ and poverty more so than race. It's important to point out that Ethiopians, biologically through DNA are nearly 40% middle eastern. [1] If IQ equates with race and seeing how African countries are at the bottom, you would expect Ethiopians to score a bit higher than 2nd to last. Also, why is there such a disparity between "Black" nations if they're of the same race? A difference by as much as 18 points from Zambia to Equatorial Guinea. China and Hong Kong differ by 7 points, yet they're the exact same people. Ireland is 10 points below Singapore.. Not to mention that all of these low scoring nationalities, Philippines, Latin Americans, Middle Eastern all score higher when bred in developed countries like the U.S. where African Americans score the lowest at 87.. Which is still almost 20 points higher on average than their African counter parts (Under the race/IQ model you can point to the fact that blacks have some admixture, but one would have to account for everyone else who scores higher, everyone is not "mixed").. I'm convinced that if race isn't a social construct then IQ doesn't equate with race.. Taharqa 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It must be all that sun that causes the low scores in Ethiopia :P futurebird 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

that's IQ and the Wealth of Nations material. Lynn's other book, Race Differences in Intelligence is more apt to this topic. the individual IQ scores for each country are not as reliable as the other measurements discussed in this article. quality of life in Ethiopia is especially bad. no one doubts that this kind of deprivation drives down IQ scores. also, the "Ethiopian" samples used by Lynn are actually Ethiopian immigrants to Israel. --W.R.N. 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

^Whatever it may be, it's a great indication that IQ is completely environmental. Someone would have to be racist to think other wise after slowly studying that chart. African Americans average higher than or equal to those from Brazil on down. To stress that living conditions in Ethiopia is a good explanation for low IQs, it would be hypocritical if one did not stress that African American living conditions on average are worse than that of white American society. Also since African Americans have a lower percentage of "Caucasoid" ancestry than Ethiopians on average, yet still scores over 20 points higher on average, I believe is an extremely strong case for environmental (only) causes. The burden of proof is up to the racist people who even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, decide to hold on to the racial superiority doctrines. The argument is done as far as I'm concerned, what ever is written on these wikipedia articles is irrelevant when trying to give opposing view points from one or two people as oppose to just posting the truth. I can say that people who score high on IQ tests were programmed by aliens, but where's the evidence?Taharqa 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Ive rewritten the intro back into some shape. Ive put it on a subpage and transcluded it to the article so the lede can be protected separate from the article. -Ste|vertigo 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's factually inaccurate and non-neutral in its presentation of disputed claims. I could enumerate... --W.R.N. 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be tweaked a bit-- perhaps it should mention how Jensen feels his work has been supressed so that it won't seem as if "everyone" is all on one side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by some name here (talk • contribs).

Because these tests and the concept of race itself are widely deemed to be subjective, current mainstream science, sociology, medicine, and ethics have largely stopped supporting research which carries certain assumptions, namely.

This is a great sentence. futurebird 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! WD RIK, maybe you could suggest an alternative, and we could find some compromise. I dont think specific cases should be mentioned in the lede - its important to keep the general perspective. -Ste|vertigo 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It says - “Because these tests and the concept of race itself are widely deemed to be subjective, current mainstream science, sociology, medicine, and ethics have largely stopped supporting research which carries certain assumptions, namely:

• that race is more than a social construct and correlates to deeper genetic differences
• that genetics has some correlation with intelligence
• that intelligence can be measured
• that testing differences can be attributed to genetic factors rather than to environmental factors.

Nevertheless some research continues which attempts to find links between these subjective areas, and likewise certain related research has been claimed by third parties to demonstrate or prove some link between genes and intellect.”

But:

• The tests are not widely considered to be subjective
• It is well established that there is a link between genetics and intelligence (See Gray Thompson 2004) and rather than science ceasing to support such research it is becoming increasingly mainstream
• Ditto re the fact that intelligence can be measured
• Ditto re the fact that intelligence differences are attributable to genes rather than enviroment.

Romper 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Romper is correct, if we're talking about reliable sources (the scientific community that researchers genetics and intelligence, respectively). I'm not a hereditarian, but he's correct to say that certain premises of the hereditarian view are accepted throughout the scientific community, that are listed here.--Urthogie 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to reword the bit about "that genetics has some correlation with intelligence" to something like "that the genetics of intelligence has some correlation with race" futurebird 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a lot better yeah.--Urthogie 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to make the point right from the start that some kinds of research have fallen out of favor, and I think we can easily source that. However, we don't want to give the impression that nobody reputable uses IQ tests or race in any kind of research. That's just not true. It all about how they use it. It's more the tendency to use both and then go running and leaping to the conclusion (in the face of other evidence) that there must be genetic differences causing the test score gaps that has fallen out of favor.

I think Jensen has even suggested that we ought to assume there is a genetic difference untill proven otherwise!

People like Steele and others accept psychometrics. In some fields race works as a good crude proxy for some aspects of genetics. But intelligence isn't a crude trait, like say... eye color. Everyone knows how sensitive it is to environmental infulences.

futurebird 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, IQ tests (i.e. the psychometric approach to intelligence) is by far the mainstream scientific approach in individual difference psychology of intelligence. Suggesting that the mainstream scientific community rejects the use of IQ or race in research is simply false -- the use of both constructs is pervasive and ongoing. That there is great debate about the proper use and meaning of race is true, but that's a far different conclusion, and one that isn't central to this article. Per Romper, the claim that IQ is subjective or in disfavor is wholly false; alternatives to IQ and criticisms of its use in research are by far the minority position. Finally, the lead is a summary of the article -- it is NOT an introductory or background section. It should provide background to the extent that background is needed to establish the relevance of the article to the reader, but otherwise it is an abstract/summary. --W.R.N. 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said However, we don't want to give the impression that nobody reputable uses IQ tests or race in any kind of research. That's just not true.

It's more the tendency to use both and then go running and leaping to the conclusion (in the face of other evidence) that there must be genetic differences causing the test score gaps that has fallen out of favor.

futurebird 13:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the above discussion the below points are now relatively well established as scientifically ‘in favor’ regarding intelligence/genes/race:

• Intelligence tests are relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability
• Intelligence is in part determined by the neuroanatomical structure of the brain, which is in turn partly determined by specific (as yet unidentified) genes.
• The degree of heritability of (adult) intelligence depends upon environment but in a developed country like the United States the (individual) heritability is very high.
• The heritability of intelligence does not necessarily indicate that this is the basis of race differences in intelligence.
• There is no particular reason why genes related to intelligence should be equally spread throughout the different self defined racial groups in America.
• There is no particular reason why genes related to intelligence should not be equally spread throughout the different self defined racial groups in America.
• It is an open empirical question as to whether or not the current differences in cognitive ability between racial groups in the United States have a genetic component.
• In theory it could be possible to resolve this question in the future. It seems unlikely that it will be resolved as science seems reluctant to investigate the matter. This reluctance comes not from scientific difficultly but rather from ethical concerns and societal pressure (some might say taboos).
• It is right that scientific investigation takes ethical considerations into account.

Thanks.

Oh, yes and the intro reads better now.Romper 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you could find an appropriate citation to bolster your next-to-last point. A "seems that" based on another "seems that" doesn't promise a rock solid conclusion. Or maybe I'm just against it since it seems an anti-scientific and defeatist position. Of course I'd rather that somebody did the sociological research to rank the causes of black kids not thriving in school first. P0M 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"I doubt that you could find an appropriate citation to bolster your next-to-last point." Here

Romper 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting reaction coming from an individual who appears to be working toward that very goal. Thanks for the citation. P0M 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great source for the utility of research section. futurebird 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - I believe Romper is correct. The list could probably be expanded, but I see no misstatements. --W.R.N. 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence - not much action there --W.R.N. 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to do anything? futurebird 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me this means the experiment has workd! I'll have a heart-attack! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR I'm confused. futurebird 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dewd maybe you know city and people move alot.like what if on 20 test we did,omg,we did alot of test in 2 cities.or 4 5 major city?and a certain group of them was less smart. by luck. we even say derrr.we might have killed more of you smart than dumm.and you accuse us of being racist.like we admit it and you yell at us.and we can't explain to you that we didnt kill everybody smart.and that smart genes don't disappear,think of all the sperm if one is smart.those test also said asians were better. i dont know the video on youtube.but there are more people in china who have high grades than we have people in our country.

[edit] New Archive warning

On Wed. I will archive current sections 1-11, which takes us up to my first archiving announcement. In the next to days please make sure that any material in those sections that should go into an article is moved into an article, and any material relevant to an ongoing discussion is conserved in the talk page. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a correction to something said by WD

"Risch has written specifically about this topic. According to his argument, if you used indicators other than race itself when looking for the cause of a phenotype (in research), you'll most likely just fool yourself (generally in the direction of wrongly concluding that a phenotypic difference has a genetic cause)."

I work with computational genetics and I'm surprised to hear a statement like this. When studying genes we look at the effects of demography and selection, not race. Race is a constructed category that is only useful to the extent that it represents demographics. So chances are, you'll actually fool yourself with race. Lastly, just for clarification, how exactly does "race" "cause" a phenotype? --Urthogie 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, read Risch's paper[2]. A racial difference in the frequency of some phenotype of interest ... or quantitative trait is but a first clue in the search for etiologic causal factors. As we have illustrated, without such racial/ethnic labels, these underlying factors cannot be adequately investigated. It's his argument, not mine. --W.R.N. 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article looks interesting, but the sentence quoted immediately above does not support the existence of the argument attributed to him in the material quoted several lines above. His actual argument, it seems to me, is that in the absence of a salient set of genetic data already assembled for a population it is most economical to count on members of [races] frequently sharing genetic characteristics and therefore more likely to manifest similar reactions to environmental factors than a random sample of the human population. So if some trait or medical peculiarity is strongly represented in one [race] and not in others the smart money will conclude that researchers should look for genetic features that distinguish members of that [race] from members of other [races]. P0M 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the salient point of his argument. Several researchers have proposed that because genetic clusters can be detected easily with DNA tests, and because such clusters don't carry the baggage of doing research on "race", these clusters should be used to divide populations. Risch's argument is that (1) such clusters will only recapitulate racial categories (later his team demonstrates this) and (2) using genetic categories will likely blind investigators to social/cultural factors that confound these genetic categories. Thus there is no advantage to using genetic clusters instead of self-identified racial/ethnic identity and some disadvantages. Therefore, they conclude "racial/ethnic labels" are both important and useful in research and public policy, and you can neither dismiss them as irrelevant to biology or replace them with non-socially affected categories because of the confounding of social and genetic factors. --W.R.N. 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Wikipedia article needs to be read very carefully, then, so that those readers who think there is something intrinsic about black people what makes them on average fall below the level of other [races] do not take comfort and find confirmation in this article. P0M 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is part of what Risch says:

A multifactorial model of risk requires the interplay of multiple inherited and non-inherited factors in producing a particular risk profile.... In most cases, causal variables are not known.... so epidemiologists resort to...the use of surrogate variables....These variables... are correlated with such a causal variable or variables....Although risk factor associations do not usually imply direct causal links, they do provide a starting point for further investigation.....When direct causal factors are identified, risk estimates on both an individual and population basis can be made much more precise. Before such identification, however, the use of cruder surrogate factors can still provide valuable input for prevention and treatment decisions, even while acknowledging the latent heterogeneity within strata defined by such variables.

He is clearly arguing for the value of surrogate factors, even though they are crude, in the absence of knowledge of direct causal factors. He continues:

A question then arises.... as to whether humans can or should be categorized genetically according to a surrogate scheme in the absence of known, specific gene effects.

He points out that there is both utility to such an approach but also that simply ignoring the non-genetic differences among [races] will not work because relevant causal factors in any problem may be the environment afforded to the several groups and not on their genetic susceptibility to good or by influence from the non-genetic factors in action. All the factors involved must be taken into consideration. Using [race] as a "finder scope" can be helpful, but afterwards a closer analysis needs to be performed:

A racial difference in the frequency of some phenotype of interest (disease, or drug response) or quantitative trait is but a first clue in the search for etiologic causal factors.

Correlation of [racial] differences with health outcomes can suggest the presence of a genetic component at work:

Epidemiologists often perform analyses of racial differences stratified on numerous environmental variables, such as socio-economic status, access to health care, education, and so on. The persistence of racial differences after accounting for these covariates raises the index of suspicion that genetic differences may be involved.

RIK said: "Therefore, they conclude 'racial/ethnic labels' are both important and useful in research and public policy, and you can neither dismiss them as irrelevant to biology nor replace them with non-socially affected categories because of the confounding of social and genetic factors." Doubtless, epidemiologists currently must resort to the use of surrogate variables such as race. The reason is that we do not have the disaggregated data. One would not want to "dismiss them," at least as that was all that you had. But what would be the reason not to "replace them with non-socially affected categories"? If somebody is Lolo and has a certain higher risk associated with that status, does it make things worse if we replace "Lolo" with a read-out of the person's genetic identity, information on economic status, information on relevant cultural factors (things eaten or not eaten, for instance), etc.? Maybe the relevant factor is "never sleeps in a hammock or raised bed." So in the absence of a salient set of genetic data and other kinds of specific data pertinent to etiological causal factors, [race] can be useful. Nobody that I know of would doubt the truth of that statement. I cannot accept your characterization of the article to the effect that "there is no advantage to using genetic clusters instead of self-identified racial/ethnic identity and some disadvantages." I think that you are drawing your own conclusions based on a misunderstanding of what Risch wrote. P0M 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, self-identified race will allow you you gauge the impact of racism (if it acts as a single environmental factor, or trough Flynn's social multipliers) on a person. Race is useful in this way for research in to health. In fact, dispute the fact there there have been calls for the abandonment of race data in health research, there is strong support for continuing to collect race data, because it carries such heavy social significance. This kind of argument for the collection of race data should not be confused with the idea that it might be a good proxy for genetics. futurebird 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything P0M said seems correct, but that's not the particular aspect of Risch's argument that I was highlighting in my comment. Risch was also responding to the suggestion that self-described racial categories can be replaced with genetically-inferred categories (clusters in multi-locus genetic data). This, Risch argues, would simply recapitulate the self-described categories, while obscuring the fact that genetic and social factors are greatly confounded in humans. Risch's comments about the value of racial categories to research and public policy are the conclusions he draws from the many aspects of his arguments. --W.R.N. 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that I was reading your formulation with fresh eyes, not having read the original. To me, the statement needs reformulation somehow. ""if you used indicators other than race itself when looking for the cause of a phenotype (in research), you'll most likely just fool yourself (generally in the direction of wrongly concluding that a phenotypic difference has a genetic cause).""

Your reader is going to wonder (1) Why is this investigator down on factors other than race? He's asserting that you will get a bad result if you do not judge things in terms of race. And (2) why that tricky little dip into the colloquial in the middle of the sentence? Most likely?

I understand where Risch is going. It's actually a neat observation. You originally had a heap of factors stuck together under the blanket term "race." You say, "That's a nasty word, let's deconstruct it. First component out is genetic identity. Let's see whether we can find a genetic identifier that jibes with the illness statistics for this city. Bingo!" Somebody who is not trained to realize that two events regularly coinciding does not prove that one causes the other may decide that the only possible answer is to change the genetic constitution of these people. Instead, it may turn out that all the people of the affected [race] (basically meaning all the people with extra-long noses and sunken-in eyes) are all forced to live on the banks of Love Canal and it's the garbage that glows in the night that is getting them, not their genetics. He seems to believe that some researcher who would fall into that trap would escape the trap of identifying the affected population by [race] and just attributing their bad health to their unfortunate racial identity. They would providentally remind themselves that [race] is a pretty unhelpful helpful fiction and ask themselves what common envionmental factors all the members of this race are facing in our fair city. It sounds to me like he's saying that these researchers cannot be trusted with precise concepts but they can be trusted with concepts that seem to have their own built-in siren song.

How about something like: "Preliminary use of a concept such as race that aggregates several factors that may be causal in some situation can often winnow out a small number of populations that have been impacted and will then automatically provide a list of factors, one or more of which will turn out to be causal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Can we remove the "totally disputed" tag now?

There has been a lot of work on this article since it was unprotected. Are we ready to remove the totally disputed tag now? If not, why not (specifics please)? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to have perspective on this. What do you think SLR? It is a lot better, although now it needs to be cleaned up. futurebird 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your perspective (and that of WRN and JK and others) matters a lot more than mine. Let me put it to you another way: can you come up with reasons for not removing the tag? If you can, by all means state them (if others agree, then start working with the mediator to resolve the conflict). If you can't come up with any good reasons, well, let's see how others respond. By the way, we do have tags for "cleaning up" - I guess it is a question of priorities - is cleaning up the main task right now (according to you and the other active editors), or are there still NPOV issues which have more priority? I really think this is for active editors to decide. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of sections give undue weight or present a biased description of otherwise factual statements. This includes the lead. --W.R.N. 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, FYI - I've been waiting for progress at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence in lieu of discussion here, but it appears to be stalled. --W.R.N. 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the totally disputed tag can go. I've also been waiting for more activity in the mediation page, but I believe that the contributions recently have helped reduce the level of dispute, even though it is still a controversial topic. I would expect WRN to disagree, since in general the motion of the article has gone against his POV, but I would defer to his opinion on the tag for now. --JereKrischel 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WRN, if you are waiting for progress at mediation you had better communicate directly with the mediator. S/he may well be expecting you to comment on other people's ideas/suggestions (from what I can tell, you have stated your own position but have not commented on any of the others. My own belief is that mediation requires dialoge among the participants - but if you are not sure or are waiting for the mediator to say or do something now, you had better communicate that). Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I was waiting for FB, JK, Kevin or any of the other editors who signed up for mediation to respond to my comment that there were several competing visions of the presentation of research, but that none were specific enough to really decide between. --W.R.N. 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background information

Hello, I propose the following amendments to the background information. Does anyone have any problems with these before I enact them.

1. Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981).

Should be amended to read: Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) but are now considered to be relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability.

2. The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity

Should be amended to read: The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was probably, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity.

Because this is what the book says.

3. The conclusions of a few researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.

Should be amended to read: The conclusions of some researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.

Few is subjective one persons few might be another persons many. Romper 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. futurebird 02:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that your ammeded 1) overstates the case with regard to validity. While some psychometricians regard single score IQ tests as valid almost all congitive neuropsychologists and psychologists influenced by Evolutionary Psychology believe that cognitive abilities are modular in nature and single score intelligence tests are not valid. Amongst the psychology professions, Clinical, Occupational and Educational Psychology, there is more interest in specific patterns of cognitive abilities than single score intelligence tests. Finally almost all psychology textbooks present the validity of single score intelligence tests as controversial.JonathanE 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite JonathanE's comments, (1) is fine. IQ tests, not composite IQ scores, are the subject of the sentence. IQ scores are, of course, multidimensional (even Ravens), with the composite score being a dimension reducing simplification. The article currently lacks sufficient discussion of the dimensionality of IQ tests and the magnitude of race differences in those dimensions. This should be addressed. --W.R.N. 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved from article

the MI theories aren't important enough to race differences in intelligence to warrant discussion in the background section. it does not reoccur in later sections. --W.R.N. 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple intelligences

Main article: multiple intelligences

Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Howard Gardner and other psychologists have challenged the classicist model of a single index for "intelligence" on which hereditarian assumptions of racial disparity are based. They advocate a theory of multiple intelligences. They write that through research on multiple intelligences they may reveal a more nuanced perspective in to the strengths and weaknesses of students and in to the ways that people view the intelligences of people from other ethnic groups. ^[1]Cultural differences may lead children to develop different strengths in different areas of intelligence. Leroy G. Baruth and M. Lee Manning write "Knowing that a relationship exists between cultures and education is a prerequisite to effective teaching, but continuing to teach with styles and strategies appropriate only for middle-class Anglo learners fails to meet the needs of culturally diverse children and adolescents." ^[2].

Ketty M. Sarouphim writes in Discovering Multiple Intelligences through a Performance-Based Assessment: Consistency with Independent Ratings^[3] that the use of standardized tests to assess the intelligence of culturally diverse groups has been much criticized ^[4]. Some researchers have attributed the problem of underrepresentation of minority students in programs for the gifted to the wide use of such tests in which narrow definitions of giftedness are adopted ^[5]. Sarouphim writes that the field of intelligence assessment seems to be witnessing a paradigm shift, as evidenced by recent definitions of giftedness^[6], the emergence of nontraditional theories of intelligence^[7], and the rise of alternative assessment methods, namely performance-based assessments^[8].

---

May be better in a subarticle, maybe moved there, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not deleted. Your comment is right under it. I moved it here because it's good material, just not for this article. As with the other material I moved from the article to talk, I did so specifically so that it could be addressed without being lost (i.e., forgotten - nothing is ever lost). --W.R.N. 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not given any good reason for deleting this sourced material directly relating to intelligence and race. You personally do not think MI theories are important; not anonymous scholarly authors state otherwise. Maybe it should be moved to a subarticle, like Research, Interpretations, or Explanations. But until then, do not remove, otherwise anything, no matter how important or well-sourced, can be removed from any article simply by moving it to the talk page.Ultramarine 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about moving it to the explanations article with a brief mention here? Ultramarine 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Move it wherever it's important, but it's not important here. In case it wasn't clear, my argument is based solely on the actual article content we're currently dealing with. If it turns out that there's a lot to say about MI theories, then it would be important, but having it in background now is clearly not appropriate (per NPOV-weight). I would think that mention of MI would be about "test data" but I have no particularly strongly formed beliefs about that. Perhaps explanations, but that article is currently overburdened. --W.R.N. 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Not everyone who signed on for the mediation has added their positions - just a reminder to please weigh in, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] research intro

the text is non-neutral, possibly OR, but also unnecessary as it seems to be redundant with the content of the sections in research. if it is meant to be background, and if that background is necessary, then it should be reworked. the aim of any reworking would should be to shift to 2ndary sources, rather than primary sources as it currently does. this will help balance it as the 2ndary sources will take a broader view than the primary sources used here. --W.R.N. 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved from article

Race and intelligence research tries to measure the gaps between different races or ethnicities and to find the causes for these gaps. Average test scores of races or ethnicities varies depending on the method and setting used to test intelligence,^[9] the health and economic situation of the test takers^[10], the presence of stereotype threat, and the period in history when the test was performed. ^[11] Some studies have shown that gaps in test scores are closing, while other researchers write that the gaps have stopped closing in some nations.

Some explanations for the causes of the gaps found relate to cultural factors,^[12] health,^[13] testing situations, stereotype threat,^[14] and other environmental factors.

Sourced material. May be better in a subarticle, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, IMO, this material is (1) not a summary of anything actually in the subarticles and (2) not particularly salvageable from an NPOV perspective. I moved it here so those issues could be addressed. There's no good reason to add it back -- WP is not an indiscriminate collection of "facts". --W.R.N. 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is something not in a subarticle, it should be moved, not deleted. Will do so shortly.Ultramarine 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race - social contruct section

there shouldn't be a separate section for this. when sternberg et al. write that Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. they are talking about the same topic as the "geneticists" described in the section above. with the sections merged, effort should be made to condense the material into tighter and more general summaries. leave the details for the race article. --W.R.N. 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro again

I'm no intelligence expert, and can't be bothered to try to follow all the lengthy discussion on this page, but surely the intro's claim that the following is "controversial" is false:

that intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability

No doubt a few people reject this but surely this is the mainstream view among intelligence researchers, and so (even if not 'universal') is not 'controversial'? (The opposing view might however be characterized as 'controversial' for all I know.) Ben Finn 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Research

Paragraph 2 of this section is mostly a repetition of things that have already been listed in paragraph 1. Whoever wrote this section, please fix it so that unneeded repetitions are eliminated and yet it still represents what you intended to convey. P0M 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of a reference

> As a general criticism or remark within this article - surely mentioning that blacks are known to score higher on IQ tests when separated from their white counterparts during actual testing than when they are amongst their white peers would be something worth mentioning?

The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

> This is an interesting point. Do these IQ tests contain crossworld puzzles? I would like the reader to note that East Asians (even the Japanese!) are very poor, or even incapable of solving crossworld puzzles! This is partially due to the constraints of their language - but surely we should also look for a genetic explanation if we are to avoid overlooking it. Surely the inability to solve crossword puzzles would be viewed as a mental disability? Yet, perhaps Blacks would achieve higher results on crossword puzzles than they do on pre-existing tests. The point here is, how does one decide which type of puzzle to include in a test, and which puzzle type to weigh highly as being one that points towards gaining a high IQ score (yes, the answer should be that such tests would have high internal and external validity - but this is not at all easy to verify or determine when attempting to measure intelligence).

Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

> I am uncertain about this issue. If you deal with a single population (such as African Americans), of whom a significant proportion are sleeping rough, or who consistently do manual labour (thereby not exercising or learning skills applicable to the Backward Digit Span test), then this result could be quite meaningless or, even worse, erroneous. I assume that this test measures the length of the longest number that an individual can recite backwards - however, it would not be enough to arbitrarily select individuals from a population for results from the test (as, within real environmental settings, direct or indirect racial allocation of resources would bias results). The approach to take here would rely upon having to deal with test control groups whom you are certain have slept well, eaten well, etc... This would reduce the effect of test bias.

The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

> This is HIGHLY SUSPECT. Different cultures or environmental settings allow the Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ to lead to the SAME statistical distribution of IQ!? OK, suppose that this is true (which is not easy to show mathematically or statistically I believe), then the following qualification needs to be made :

The issue of determining heritability, (or DEFINING it) is non-trivial, quite subjective and, in actuality, could very well be very random. Equations designed to define heritability need to be included in order to see what the mathematical definition of heritability actually MEANS.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

> Well, you have a low correlation value here. There is non-trivial correlation, but the issue is not BRAIN SIZE per se, but the TYPE of neural matter that an individual possesses, and HOW this is distributed in the brain, and HOW it is trained, AND the nourishment that it receives. How can such complex interactions even be APPROXIMATELY determined by correlation?

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100. MrASingh

[edit] concerning twin studies and heritability

Twin studies are an important part of arguments concerning the heritability of intelligence. There are some sources I want to draw to contributors' attention. Given past conflicts and current mediation, I will leave it to you to decide how and where to incorporate these into this or linked articles.

• Thomas Bouchard Jr., David T. Lykken, Matthew MgGue, Nany Segal, and Augke Tellegen, 1990 "Sources of Human Psychological Differences: the Minnesota Studies of Twins Reared part" Science Vol. 250 pp. 223-228 - analysis of 56 sets of identical twins reared apart; includes analysis of the rearing environments of the twins in the samples assessing 9 different environmental factors; found a mild (very mild) correlation between rearing environments i.e. twins reared apart were nevertheless reared in comparable environments meaning similarities in IQ results were not purely genetic ... revises heritability from .69 to .66
• Nancy Segal 1999 Entwined lives: Twins and What they tell us about Human Behavior pp. 135-136 addresses differences between results from comparing identical and fraternal twins; suggests heritability of about .74 or .75
• Kathleen McCartney, Monica Harris, Frank Bernieri 1990 "Growing up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metaanalysis of Twin Studies" Psychological Bulletin Vol 107 pp 226-237 and Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D'Onofrio, and Irving Gottesman (2003) "Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children" Psychological Science Vol 14: 623-628 - detail the extent to which family environment and impoverished enviornments contribute substantially to intelligence.

These seem like recent, well-considered studies that merit consideration somewhere, in this set of debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is in the explanations article directly or by proxy. At this point in the science, the heritability of IQ under common conditions and for common populations is nailed down pretty accurately from multiple angles. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but these are relatively recent studies and the question is are they worth citing? I think they belong in any good review of the literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an unhelpful comment

i think the article is a mess. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not make this a helpful comment? Specify what you think the main problems are, and bring it up with the mediator? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the article, looking only at the topic sentences, to get a fast overview. I found little to quarrel with. So why don't you tell the rest of us what makes the article a mess. Is it content? Organization? Tone? Or what? P0M 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

the article is likely beyond remediation and the pace of discussion here and at the mediation page has slowed to a crawl. --W.R.N. 07:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaningless or at least vapid sentence

The current text says:

overall the culture-only hypothesis is not "progressive" but "degenerating" >

What could cause a hypothesis to degenerate?

Could the writer have been trying to express the idea that some hypotheses cause people or culture to make progress and other hypotheses cause people or cultures to degenerate? Those hypotheses must be really powerful stuff if that is what is meant.

The reader should not have to guess about this kind of thing — particularly if it has any intrinsic value. P0M 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is from the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos. See Lakatos#Research_programmes. He showed that in some cases one research programme can be described as progressive while its rivals are degenerative. A progressive research programme is marked by its growth, along with the discovery of stunning novel facts, development of new experimental techniques, more precise predictions, etc. A degenerative research program is marked by lack of growth, or growth of the protective belt that does not lead to novel facts. --W.R.N. 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the average well-informed presumed to know this idea pertinent to relative degrees of success of research programs and then to be able to apply them in some appropriate way to a single hypothesis? P0M 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one:

This [assumption of congenital stupidity] changed after the definition of "white" was expanded to include the Irish.

It's possible that the article cited really says things that way, but I am suspicious of it because it offends my understanding of how things work in society. Someone with access to the original text might want to check it out. Usually when the values attached to a group of people change it is through a kind of dialectical process. So I find it hard to accept that somebody really believes that first the opinion leaders in the world just decided to make the Irish white and only thereafter were attitudes toward these newly bleached people improved.P0M 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mi and savants

in terms of background, MI itself is barely relevant to this article. savants are not at all relevant for background. savants are about intelligence, but not race and intelligence. --W.R.N. 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MI is very relevant to this article. One cannot have a discussion about intelligence without talking about MI. IQ is the only form of intelligence that can be measured. the very fact that it can be measured by humans is enough indication of its relative insignificance. ie how can a human be more intelligent that a human. Anyway I digress.

At the core of MI is that people who may not score well in IQ may actually do better in other areas, and those who score well in IQ may not do well in others. If we neglect a discussion on MI then we imply that humans can be graded solely by IQ alone.

A typical example is that those with high IQ ( Nerd or Geek stereotypes]] ) are seen as not the most social or affable people. Weird Al satirizes this in his parody White and Nerdy, about a trekkie who wants to "roll with the gangstas".Muntuwandi 16:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that a higher percentage of whites are nerdlish? ;-)

More seriously, are there studies that compare across [races], e.g., the ability to simultaneously maintain several rhythmic patterns of great complexity? I heard recently the account of a famous musician, I think it was Wynton Marsalis, who spent weeks trying to learn the rhythm structure of music he was learning to play with musicians from another music culture. (He kept getting told he had it wrong.) I remember Ravi Shankar's group demonstrating how they handled communications about complex rhythms involved in their music. So it's not a simple operation, and it's not an ability that would get tested directly in a typical IQ test. So you might be able to find some actual research that you could cite for the purposes of this article. What if it turns out that people from India can do things with rhythms that people who come in square white boxes cannot handle? That would be really interesting. But you have to have some facts that relate [race] and something that can be compared in some objective way. P0M 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing you might consider in looking for articles you could cite on the issue of multiple intelligences × [race] would branch off the well-known fact that different "intelligent" people have different strengths in different memory areas, e.g., visual memory, kinesthesic memory, memory for sound sequences (music, etc.), etc. People who have photographic memories have a much easier time learning to read and write Chinese, for instance. So if you're taking a test of reading competence in Chinese... P0M 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

different cultures emphasize different aspects. Certain cultures have historically had a greater emphasis on academia and thus they are expected to have a higher IQ. others may emphasize the qualities needed for survival. The san bushmen for instance live in the kalahari desert where there is hardly any rain. this is a place where an outsider would die of dehydration and hunger within two weeks, but the san have a body of knowledge that has enabled them to live there for thousands of years. I wouldn't expect a san straight from the desert, on his first IQ test to score high marks but how could someone say he is not intelligent. this is why we should have some detail on MI. see Steve Urkel.Muntuwandi 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Bushman comparison 100%. Oh, and I took the liberty to change your post about only by removing the brackets from 'san' to 'bushman as San really goes nowhere, so your reference now points to the correct source. You can yell at me if you want for doing that. :) But, I don't think Urkel is proof of the fact that there are black nerds, if that was what you were trying to convey, that is, because he is just a TV character portraying a nerd. Not saying there are no black nerds, cuz I know a few. JSYK. Cheers. -- Jeeny 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a man in the U.S. who came from a white family but was educated in tracking by an Apache scout. The white boy and his Apache friend learned together and they did equally well. Even so that doesn't prove anything since within any group there are big differences in "who is smart" and "who is slow." What I'm trying to get at is that the kinds of intelligence needed by the San and by the American blacksmith may be the same, but the things that they spend the first 20 years of their lives on may be entirely different.

I can't prove this observation with printed studies but my belief is that an adult is frequently dissuaded from beginning a long learning process at his/her adult age. So the American blacksmith transported to the Kalahari might not be willing to become a child again and absorb everything the "adults" told him without a fight. He also might just be too old to learn if learning desert skills is like learning to talk or to play go. Similarly, the San who goes to China to study with only a primary school ability at a foreign language (English), might never make it up to grad student reading level no matter how long he used the language. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's lack of a singular focus on one language, or maybe something else is going on. Anyway, it is rare for somebody to learn something from the ground up when beginning it at a fairly advanced age. So I am not convinced by a Western guy's failure to learn the ways of the desert if he goes there after college. If you find that little white boys adoped into San families can never make it in the desert (even with lots of UV lotion), then you'd have research that, if published and peer-reviewed, could be used in this article.

If you have research papers, books, etc., that discuss these issues, please list them here. P0M 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an example of an adult from one culture having trouble accepting what a teacher from another culture says. The karate instructor tells you to take a posture that looks something like the letter "h", so actually most of your weight is on the leg pictured on the left side here, but the instructor tell you that the weight on each foot is equal. Any physics teacher will tell you that's impossible. Besides that, you can stand on two bathroom scales and test the idea for yourself. But you won't get anywhere good by arguing with the karate instructor. You've got to forget physics and try to make yourself feel as though the weights are equal. Even so there is some cognitive dissonance left over to interfere. A child would just take the words at face value and tailor his perceptions to his verbal picture, i.e., make them "come out even." If you go to a teacher and the teacher says, "The flower knows when and where the sun will come up," you've got to be able to accept the statement as would a child. If the teacher says, "Go ask the crow," you can't argue back with your teacher and tell him that crows can't talk. It's hard for adults. The minds of adults may automatically translate all tunings into some semblance of equal temperament, and if a note is obviously somewhere between a C and a C# they may insist that it is exactly half a semi-tone — regardless of what the frequency actually is. So in some ways adults may be closed-off from learning things that children could easily learn. P0M 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, me again. As I understand it, there are no empirically verifiable measures of the Multiple Intelligences that are not measured by IQ Tests. Thus there is no data regarding any possible ‘race’ differences in the Multiple Intelligences that are not measured by IQ Tests. Therefore the issue of Multiple Intelligences theory in this regard only relates its value in emphasising that not everyone accepts IQ as being the be all and end all of intelligence. From this point of view, and given its status in psychometry this article well over emphasises Multiple Intelligences theory. Romper 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

physical ability, interpersonal, creative intelligences cannot be measured by IQ. If someone is a very good dancer, how can IQ be used to measure his dancing abilityMuntuwandi 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But there could be innate abilities to process information that could relate to, e.g., dancing that would not get measured by an IQ test, no? Someone who is unable to "calculate" rhythms accurately in real time might be at a disadvantage in dancing or in music. If a culture valued that kind of thing it might find ways of objectively measuring it, and that measure could be used to project how good a candidate the individual might be for conservatory training.

Think about what might be considered essential abilities among dolphins. Which dolphin is best at echo-location, which is best at finding the disguised sound of some prey? Those questions might decide how dolphins related each other's ability to respond effectively to the environment. Humans would probably be way sub-normal on those measurements regardless of whether they were intelligent enough to invent calculus on their own. P0M 04:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this?

Facial recognition ability has shown differences by race.^[15] Richard Ferraro writes that facial recognition is an example of a neuropsychological measure that can be used to assess cognitive abilities that are salient within African-American culture.^[16] In the US Blacks' performance is significantly better than that of whites', and blacks are better at recognizing faces of whites than whites are at recognizing blacks.^[17] A 1991 study found that white subjects performed significantly more poorly on trials involvingAfrican American faces than on trials involving White faces, whereas no such difference was obtained among African American subjects.^[18] One possibility is that expertise in perceiving faces of particular races is associated with increased ability to extract information about the spatial relationships between different features^[19]

futurebird 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In the book making friends with black people [3], the author laments that his white neighbor can only recognize him when they meet in their apartment building. When they meet on the street his white neighbor fails to recognize himMuntuwandi 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's telling that low ability among whites in this area isn't automatically considered an indicator of low intelligence-- It shows how the definition of intelligence (used by some) is circular. ie. "If white people are bad at it it can't be a matter of intelligence." and "Those who are successful are intelligent, and those who are intelligent will be successful." futurebird 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It would be easy to be cynical about this observation. However, it is known that some people have defects of brain structure (?) that make them incapable of recognizing faces. I'm pretty sure that there isn't simply an on-off switch for this ability. I'm weak on the ability to distinguish and remember faces myself. I hate it when I have two students who are similar in appearance in one of my classes. To me it is about as bad as for most people who have trouble distinguishing between identical twins. And yet I can have instant recall for people I knew years ago and 10,000 miles away. Is all of this stuff genetic? Is it cultural? Who knows.

One of the things that might make the author of the book feel a little better is that bad memory is a known symptom of neurosis. So maybe his white neighbors are neurotic. I mean that seriously because I believe that there are serious deficiencies in white culture. (Sometimes I saw that whites frequently have the nastiness gene, but I really mean there is something wrong with our culture.) P0M 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. But, these studies show that a large number of white people have the same problem. I think it's probably a matter of socialization. But it seems ...contrived... to just assume that it's something wrong with the brain when there are clearly problems between cultures that lead to this divide. This is scientific evidence that, to some people, people of other races really do "all look the same." futurebird 05:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be cynical about what is going on when somebody recognizes somebody else only "in context" and the problem is noticed in regard to cross-race recognition. Besides, we've all heard the "they all look the same to me" comment. We would need some good studies to differentiate all the confounding factors. Clearly, if somebody only looks far enough to see that the other person has a different skin color, then it's like somebody who sees only two values of cards in a poker deck, not very bright and probably pathological at some level. The question would be, given serious motivation for distinguishing among black individuals, do the scores of these oblivious types improve? FWIW, I never had any trouble distinguishing among my 8th graders. On the other hand I once saw my old landlady in Taiwan, after an absence of 8 years. She recognized me immediately. I mis-recognized her as one of my favorite teachers, but I didn't know how to act because "my teacher" had a husband along with her who unaccountably recognized me. I tried to fake my way through the situation and only afterward figured out who she must have been. (The two ladies really did look quite a bit alike, but I hadn't made the connection before.) And in my community of 6000 white people, hardly anybody could keep me and my brother apart even though there is 20 months between us. We really are not anywhere near as similar as identical twins. I might think it was because they felt disdain for the spawn of a mixed Protestant and Catholic marriage, but adults genuinely liked me.

One of my pet peeves is the people who have very good recognition of faces and memory of names who claim that "anybody can do it." To me that is like Einstein saying, "There is nothing special about my math ability. Anybody..." On the other hand, my father absolutely could not carry a tune and it was painful to hear him try to sing anything and I have what is called relative perfect pitch (like my mother). Somebody can whistle a melody at me and I can repeat it quite easily. Jasha Heifetz was said to have in mind around 40 different frequencies that he used within the scope of one octave to get just the right harmony for each occasion. That ability made his violin sing in a way that just buying a Stradivarius could never accomplish. (Most professional violinists are said to be able to identify frequencies of about 100 "cents" apart. He must have done much better than that. People who can't hear what frequency their violin is producing end up playing keyed instruments, fretted instruments, etc.) That reminds me of my 140 IQ kid. I tried to get him interested in math via his love of the guitar so I went through the calculations for setting up the common pre-Equal Temperament scale and where those calculations would put each fret. I actually had some kind of a "canjo" or something that we could put frets on. I should say I tried to do that because he quickly grew impatient and pointed to the points where the frets should go. As far as I can tell he had it exactly right. Like the guy who could visualize a slide rule and then accurately compute physics problems on it, this young man apparently had the kind of memory that could produce a set of fret settings on a relative basis (my keyboard was not cut to any particular length standard). In the world of today he could probably get a job standing at the entrance of a high traffic airport and watching for disguised terrorists to try to get in. But those kinds of abilities to deal effectively with the environent will not be measured by reading, vocabulary, comprehension, math... problems.

Anyway, the story about the white person who could not identify a black person out of context is anecdotal. He might have brain damage and all the Archie Bunkers in the world might have perfectly function squishy computers but bad software. Only research can tell. I'd like to know what the results would be of testing people for the ability to identify rhythms, say something like 13 against 17. But even there we might have trouble correcting for musical education. P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The question would be, given serious motivation for distinguishing among black individuals, do the scores of these oblivious types improve?

Of course they can. I've seen it happen. (anecdotal? yes, but I'm saying it is possible...) Like many mental abilities recognitions is probably malleable and a result of expereince. But just as policy makers find it disturbing that black kids have low scores on average on tests of IQ I think it's makes sense to find it disturbing that there may be these differences in facial recognition. The response is, of course to simply desegregate society further and give people more opportunities to interact. Just as the response to the IQ gap would be to address problems in the education system. futurebird 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are talking about [race] and intelligence I suppose that (if you and I are right in our conclusions from personal experience) the only thing that is relevant is the constructions that are built of superficial differences. The interesting possibility is that science progresses by disproving incorrect ideas. Science never gets to "the truth," but it keeps eliminating what is provably wrong.

On the other hand, there are some differences among groups that prove out. As far as I know, they break down into two main groups. One is the kind of thing that results with the "founder effect" -- people move off to some isolated place and they remain isolated for thousands of years. One or more prominent members of the community carry a mutation that either originated after they lost contact with the rest, or maybe that mutation dies off in the outside world because it isn't very competitive. That kind of difference could be just about anything, and it probably does not matter to the individuals. The other kind of thing results from adaptations to the environment. Skin color is an obvious example, but people all over the world who live in malaria-infested areas come into contact with the environment at a level that is more than skin deep. Their biological adaptations have medical consequences, important consequences. Even so, these are still "super-ficial" in the sense that they are changes that occur on the surface of contact between the organism and the environment.

We can't simply assume that there are no MI differences.

By the way, there is a need to decide how to define "intelligence." If "intelligence" is any mind-based ability to adapt to the environment, then something like the ability to distinguish odors is a factor in intelligence. Again, it is anecdotal, but Chinese people do things that I am pretty sure I can't do, e.g., one of my friends grew up in a Chinese restaurant and he claims to be able to tell by the smell of the food when enough salt has been added. But a confounding factor is that some cultures educate the sense of smell and some cultures discourage individuals from paying attention to smells. Identification of rhythms would be another factor. Clearly education would be important, but maybe there are differences in individuals' inner clocks. (I tried setting 13 against 17 and if I hadn't written the midi music out myself I would never figure that there were two rhythms going on. Maybe other people would spot it as automatically as some people can tell you that two colors clash. The subject needs study.) P0M 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

response in the next section

[edit] section break

We can't assume there are not differences, but the differences we see are well within the expected range for differences caused by environmental factors. These aren't my words, they are the APA's. It is difficult to separate theories of the genetic inferiority of black people from the history of that idea in our culture. The genetic theory, views with a cold scientific eyes is tenuous at best and far from proven. It's a speculation. The only reason it holds so much sway and receives so much attention is because it validates people's pre-existing ideas about race. Without the historical legacy of racism these theories would be simply "unlikely theories"

For example, I could suppose that Chinese people can identify Chinese food smells with greater accuracy because they have a specific virus that is native to China and more prevalent in Chinese communities abroad. I mean this sounds sort-of plausible. But I think most people looking at this would say: you grow up with Chinese food, you'll know it better. This is what the genetic theories about race and intelligence sound like. Only it's not just innocent speculation, it's speculation with a specific political agenda.

The example was not about Chinese food per se, it was about the ability of some people to detect the amount of salt in something by way of the sense of smell. If there is such an ability (and I am torn between taking my friend at his word and my own ideas of saltiness as a taste and not a smell), then it enhances one's ability to deal with the environment. Whether there is such an ability can only be established by careful study. (There was a report recently about the ability of dogs and humans to follow a scented trail. At least somebody is trying to quantify human abilities in this little-researched area.) Whether that ability is learned or intrinsic is another question for empirical study, and, finally, whether there is a statistical variation in the level of this ability among groups is also a matter to be decided by empirical study. Maybe it will turn out that all red-haired people have an extra measure of "smellability." But I have to agree with your assessment of genetic theories about [race] and intelligence, and, by extension, with your feeling that it probably is not worth it to follow these other ideas out -- unless you can one by one knock out the idea that there are genetically produced group differences. P0M 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to take these discussions seriously some of the time. When I know other black people who would do poorly on IQ tests. (I imagine all four of my grandparents would have scores about 85) but, at the same time I know that they are much more intelligent than I am even though I do well on tests. There must be something wrong with intelligence test because intelligent people simply don't do well on them some of the time. And yes, this brings us to the point of defining intelligence. That's a controversial topic all on it's own. futurebird 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The consequences of misjudging somebody's intelligence (or misjudging their potential) can have a profound impact on their lives. I don't like it when a student of mine is written off because he can't do his multiplication tables and can't read. If you tell a person s/he is stupid you risk having your words believed. When the words are believed the student may give up. It's even worse when potential is systematically thwarted.

I suspect that if I went to live with dolphins I would be regarded as a real idiot. My ways of gaining information from the world I live in and using that information to guide my actions are not ways that work very well underwater, and I doubt that I could ever master echo-location. Some blind people use echo-location very well, but as far as I know they can't compete with bats and dolphins. Einstein probably would need a "designated hitter" to get him from base to base in the dolphin world.

We distinguish "intelligence" from elements of personal success in contending with the environment like physical strength, running speed, etc. But it is difficult to divorce or abstract information processing success from information acquisition success. Moreover, it it turns out that there are several kinds of intelligence then it may be impossible to average them together in any way that is not arbitrary.

The desire to compare absolute intelligence levels probably rests on egocentric desires to be better than other people. If you are looking for a good stenographer you may need excellent abilities to decipher speech sounds, the capacity to type or write shorthand rapidly and accurately. You may not want that person to have much of an imagination. But how do you compare a good stenographer to a good composer of music? It probably comes down to a value judgment having much to do with whether one needs a good transcript of court proceedings or a nice melody to play at your coronation. P0M 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you very much for your swift responses. Muntuwandi and P0M* seem to be in agreement with me in that there are no empirically verifiable measures of Multiple Intelligences that are not measured by IQ Tests. Especially given Muntuwandi earlier observation that “IQ is the only form of intelligence that can be measured”. I have yet to review Futurebird’s references (for which I thank her), but it is late(/early) in my time zone. Speak to you tomorrow.

* Wrong. I may not know of any, but I am ignorant and the world may not be interested in doing the studies that would clarify the point. P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoughRomper 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to your last view Futurebird, if there is empirical evidence of lesser intelligence of ‘Whites’ in any area then that should and probably will be regarded as evidence of lesser intelligence of whites. As a good example check out American Asians/American Whites re Spacial Reasoning.

“So maybe his white neighbors are neurotic. I mean that seriously because I believe that there are serious deficiencies in white culture. (Sometimes I saw that whites frequently have the nastiness gene, but I really mean there is something wrong with our culture.)” - What on are you on about?? (Sorry I'm drunk) Romper 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are drunk and you don't recognize any deficiencies in white culture? Like white culture is perfect and other cultures do every single thing worse than we do? P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was white? No I grasp that there are probably aspects of most cultures that members of other cultures (and indeed members of the same culture) regard as deficient. I was just confused by this - “I saw that whites frequently have the nastiness gene”. I just wasn’t sure which gene that is and if there is evidence it occurs at greater frequencies in whites. I think I am probably misinterpreting you.Romper 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, twice. I should always write ;-) when I am saying things like I just did. Being ironic of facetious is always going to get me in trouble. The "nastiness gene" is (hopefully) purely a fiction of my own mind and any nastiness involved with white people is (hopefully) a result of cultural features, or perhaps the lack of culture, toxic parenting, or whatever. The cultures of other countries may not be perfect either, but my belief is that if we could absorb the better parts of each others' cultures we would all be ahead. As it is, we frequently see people doing something in a way that is different from ours and we get upset about it. We white people also tend to attribute differences to intrinsic factors rather than learned factors. That attitude contrasts strongly (in my admitedly limited and unscientific set of observations) with the Chinese society in which I lived for 7 years where people don't go beyond identifying somebody as "white" or "foreign" or whatever. (They are not blind, after all.) They do seem to me to care very much whether someone is behaving as a civilized individual or as a barbarian.

Yes, I though you were probably being ironic or facetious. I wasn’t sure though. :-). Oh, and I may or may not be white (I just thought that me being drunk on a Saturday night = deficiencies in white culture involved quite a few assumptions/tenuous links) ;-). Romper 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

the white neighbors cannot recognize him because whites are the majority and thus the media is saturated with white images. White people will learn facial recognition from personal interaction with other whites and the media. Blacks will also learn facial recognition of whites from the media, and facial recognition of blacks from personal interaction. Basically the environment you are in predisposes one to certain types of knowledge.Muntuwandi 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is that complicated. Assuming one doesn't have some marginal brain damage, the corrective measure is simply to pay attention to what people actually look like. If I have two kids in class who look "the same" to me, then I have to find a couple of tell-tale features. If I don't bother then I'll never get the job done. P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IQ can only measure logical-mathematical and verbal/linguistic intelligence because these are the only ones that can be measured on a piece of paper. The others are too complicated. We cannot make a pencil and paper test to predict who is going to win American Idol or any reality show. The person who knows best how to manipulate the audience with their performance will win. In this way there is a test, that is the competition itself.

Even though there are several intelligences their are stratified by class or prestige. IQ has more prestige than music for example. this the reason why there is resistance to the MI theory.Muntuwandi 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with the proviso that it might turn out that the low-prestige things are also acquired on the basis of learning experiences that are mediated by g. Before somebody does the research we would be guessing to come down one way or the other on the subject. But as long as nobody "important" thinks it's a function of genius to come out with the rhythms of some African music, then nobody will do the tests. P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some evidence that the need to quickly categorize people by race plays a role in this too. People who are poor at recognizing black faces tend to be faster at determining the race of the face. That is, black faces are categorizes as a race at the expense of categorizing these people as individuals. (see Race as a Visual Feature: Using Visual Search and Perceptual Discrimination Tasks to Understand Face Categories and the Cross-Race Recognition Deficit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, Vol. 129, No. 4,Page 559-574) futurebird 14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a "need"? Or is it a sociologically driven preference? In the past many white people could afford to ignore which black person it was to whom they directed their abuse, but the black person had to be aware of which white person it was because some of them could be very unfriendly and hurtful and you had to take defensive measures (like not talking to them if at all possible) while others might be able to do some good.

How could somebody's "time to identify" be calculated? Maybe in cases of mixed ancestry? If the study is true, what would that say about the nature of intelligence? A person has a certain g, and if s/he turns that g to identifying [race] then s/he doesn't have enough left over to turn to the problem of identifying the specific and differentiating facial features of the person? And another person devotes all his/her g to deciphering the facial identity of the person and doesn't have enough g left over to determine the person's race? (Like, "This is the freckled one with red hair, not the lightly tanned one with red hair --- but what the heck is this person's race?") I don't think that is plausible. I think what is plausible is that there are two strategies involved. One person needs/wants only a racial identity and so runs down his/her little "key to racial identification" list until one or another branch end up with a designation. Then that person quits. The other person wants/needs to identify the individual and absorbs the whole face, the separation between eyes, their separation from the nose, etc., etc. and quickly says, "That's that rotten cop." It may not make a great deal of difference to person number two whether the "rotten cop" is of [race] x, y, or z. Or it may make a little difference because rotten cops of one [race] automatically have more power than cops of another. But that information is likely to be included not by logical operations but because the virulence or benevolence of each individual is already contained in his/her mental dossier. Once you know it's "Officer Clancy," you either know he's on the take and bashes people with his sap, or that he's a good cop. Anyway, I'll have to read the article. It looks interesting. P0M 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with extent of the inclusion of MI was its relevance to the issue of race and intelligence. As it is not a mainstream theory and as there appeared to be no evidence that the other aspects of MI (other than those measured by IQ tests) were measurable , let alone showed any race differences, I felt that it was receiving over emphasis. As there is now data regarding race differences in MI then it should of course be included to the extent that it now is.Romper 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of this article

Because of the discussions on MI I think it is time to consider the relevance of this article. There are probably hundreds of millions of perfectly normal people on earth who are illiterate or who have never ever been to school. Many still live a pre-modern existence such as the some of the san bushmen. For example how do we compare the intelligence of a white ivy league grad with a hunter gatherer who has never been to school. By IQ alone we obviously expect the ivy league grad to perform significantly better than the san tribesman, who may not know how to write. In which case it is comparing apples with oranges. The only fair comparison is if the san tribesmen had been living in a westernized country for generations, had the same access to education at all levels and a similar social economic status.

So I think that this article is very biased towards westernized countries because only in developed regions is it possible to have close 100% literacy(see List of countries by literacy rate. Once again comparing an illiterate with a literate is apples and oranges. Someone who is illiterate has not had the chance to prove him/herself. When we look at the case of India for instance, the report says it has a literacy of 61%. thus 39% are illiterate. Considering a population of 1 billion that is quite significant. but on the other side the contribution that India is making to the technological sector is quite significant. Which means a portion of the literates have IQs some extremely high. However India ranks lowly overall according to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. this is the conundrum of comparison.

So I therefore think it is time to consider renaming this article something like "Race and Standardized Test scores" or "Standardized Test scores and World Regions"Muntuwandi 04:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Race and IQ/Intelligence Quotient. Romper 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

tha Yes possibly. The thing is if the article is about race and intelligence then we already know the result is there is no difference in intelligence between the races because biologically race does not exist. Therefore an article on race and intelligence should be more of a historical account of how people have had distorted views on race and intelligence. An article about test scores is more valid because it can objectively be measured whereas the total of human intelligence cannot.Muntuwandi 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking race and IQ because race is accepted by all parties to be a valid (at least social) construct within tne USA and it primarily discusses IQ differences between races within the USA. Romper 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be the only one, but to me the idea of [race] as a "valid social construct" is about like the idea of one of O. Henry's stories about the ever-beating heart of a murder victim being a "valid ghost story." It may well be valid from a public health officer's standpoint to count a Dyak family as "black" because everybody will red-line them and glass-ceiling them and they will end up living in the same neighborhood built over the local version of Love Canal and getting the same fall-out from the same nearby dump and incinerator... But that's a "validity" that pertains to our expectations of how a dysfunctional society will treat individuals who carry the "stigmata" that make their family "black" in the eyes of policemen, real estate agents, rental agencies, landlords and landladies, etc., etc. As individuals they may have little genetic similarity to the "blacks" with whom them live. But they may have little difference from them in regard to anything that really matters, just as they have little genetic difference from anybody in the city in regard to anything that really matters. What they are is, unfortunately, not what is material in this case. What matters is what they look like and how that helps determine how other people treat them.

We manage to skitter back and forth among definitions of "race" depending on how strongly some understanding of the word "race" and what it means will threaten the comfortability of those who need the assurance of their own value that membership in "the higher race" gives them. If we kept it clear that every time we use the word "race," we disavow there being any proof that intrinsic differences among groups account for differences in intelligence, then I think that the interest in this article would quickly wither and die. It isn't very interesting to conclude that people who are defined by society on the basis of several superficial characteristics and treated badly happen to do poorly on tests performed upon them by the dominant social group -- unless you are interested in doing something about the injustices. Those who want somebody to feel superior to will have to find some other measure of intrinsic worth with which to prop up their ego-centric vacuity.P0M 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll say a widely used constructRomper 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many archives

It seems to me that there are too many archives to this article. I think that it would be best to reduce the number of archives, and, if possible, include an extended comments page for this article so that newcomers may better navigate through the material within it. Does anyone else have any ideas about this?

Also, given the number of archives, and the general length and importance of the material within this article – is it sensible to have the same length rules, etc... apply to this article as would be required to apply to other articles?

--MrASingh 20:56, 23/03/2007, 2007 (UTC)

One of the possibilities would be to make a series of archives that group content. There would be some danger that someone's contributions could get lost, removed from a standard archive and never placed in the new topical archive. And it is possible that some people might disagree about where something should have been shelved.

There are so many archives because people have had so much to say on a very complicated issue. Also, it frequently happens that somebody with no previous experience with an article will have some of the same objections that have already been expressed. If you don't answer the person's objections in a way that can educate the newcomer to common pitfalls, etc., then the person remains angry and may start edit wars. If you do answer the person you can't really do so effectively by telling him/her to do a search of all the past archives and current discussions to see what has already been said on the subject.

The length requirement seems to be a recurrent issue. Cavalli-Sforza's book on The History and Geography of Human Genes covers roughly the same topics as the article on Race, but it's nearly 3 inches thick. So where does one draw the line? Using hyperlinks it is possible to have a relatively short article that does not leave the reader totally helpless by using unexplained concepts. But it is still a difficult process to reduce things to 32K. That number, by the way, appears to have been set originally because of the limits of some of the older browsers that simply could not download and process any more information than that. It seems to stand now as an ideal limit. Going to 33k does not provoke much comment. Going to 300k will prompt criticism.

Even though Wikipedia is not paper, one of the limitations that we must always be aware of is that many users access materials using a telephone modem, so articles that are long may take a prohibitive amount of time to be downloaded to the user. One way or another the user needs to be able to download material in digestible volumes.

It is, generally speaking, easier to write a 300 page book that gets a certain body of information across in an intelligible way than it is to write a 100 page book. It takes great skill so say things in a truly economical way. Just being brief won't work if the brief expression of an idea does not enlighten the reader. And just taking a lot of space to say something doesn ensure that you get the idea communicated either. So we balance between ideals and the best job in the real world we can manage. P0M 04:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is about biology

One problem I see with race research is the following. Basically, a biological phenomenon (distribution of genes, which may or may not differ between groups) is under study. However, as far as I can see, no study of race employs a biological definition of race in its selection of subjects. This not to say that there are no biological definitions of race or that such definitions are not given in the articles in which race research is published. The fact is that subjects are assigned to "race" categories based on criteria other than biology, basically how a subject defines herself/himself. In the US, this usually means that anyone who has some ancestry tracing back to sub-Saharan Africa is being defined as an African-American, even though biologically speaking his African ancestry may be far less than 50%. The opposite is not true. I do not see how research into a biological phenomenon using non-biological definitions can lead to valid results.

Crusio 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you think we could improve the article to better reflect this distinction?

In the United States, racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin, cultural background and self-identification. In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device,^[20] and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,^[21] on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them,^[22] and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.^[23] Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,^[24] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,^[25] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.^[26] A survey taken in 1985, asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were: biologists 16%, developmental psychologists 36%, physical anthropologists 41%, cultural anthropologists 53%.^[27] A survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999^[28] found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Many alleles vary in frequency across (and within) human populations. Most of this variation is selectively neutral, but a significant number show evidence of recent positive selection.^[29] These include genes involved in brain development and other neuronal functions, which have variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure and now occur in substantially different frequencies in different global populations.^[30] The actual functions of these genes, and their effect, if any, on IQ is unknown.

Many of the sources in this section are about "race" but not about intelligence:

• Bamshad, M., Wooding, S., Salisbury, B. A. and Stephens, J. C. (2004). "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nat. Rev. Genet. 5: 598-609. DOI:10.1038/nrg1401. 
• Schwartz, R. S. (2001). "Racial profiling in medical research". New England Journal of Medicine 344: 1392-1393. DOI:10.1056/NEJM200105033441810. 

• Stevens, J. (December 1 2003). "Racial Meanings and Scientific Methods: Changing Policies for NIH-Sponsored Publications Reporting Human Variation". Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 28 (6): 1033-1088. DOI:10.1215/03616878-28-6-1033. 
• Wilson, J. F. (October 2001). "Population genetic structure of variable drug response". Nature Genetics 29: 265-269. DOI:10.1038/ng761. PMID 11685208. 
• Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. and Tang, H. (2002). "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease". Genome Biology 3 (7): comment2007.2001 - comment2007.2012. 

Other sources are about genetics and intelligence, but not about race:

• Mekel-Bobrov, N., Gilbert, S. L., Evans, P. D., Vallender, E. J., Anderson, J. R., Hudson, R. R., Tishkoff, S. A. and Lahn, B. T. (Sep 9 2005). "Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens". Science 309 (5741): 1720-1722. PMID 16151010. 
• Evans, P. D., Gilbert, S. L., Mekel-Bobrov, N., Vallender, E. J., Anderson, J. R., Vaez-Azizi, L. M., Tishkoff, S. A., Hudson, R. R. and Lahn, B. T. (Sep 9 2005). "Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans". Science 309 (5741): 1717-1720. PMID 16151009. 

Some sources do mention both intelligence and race:

• The Biological Meaning of “Race”—Matt Riese
• Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. and Kidd, K. K. (2005). "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". American Psychologist 60: 46-59. PMID 15641921. 
• Suzuki, L. and Aronson, J. (Jun 2005). "The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11 (2): 320-327. DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320. 
• Smedley, A. and Smedley, B. D. (Jan 2005). "Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race". American Psychologist 60 (1): 16-26. DOI:10.1037/0003-066x.60.1.16. 

In this section I think we need to be careful about using papers that say that race is valid for biomedical research as supporters of race categories as valid for intelligence research. We have talk about this point in the past, but I can't recall what we resolved to do about it... if anything. futurebird 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did we not make a silent surrender on that score? It seems to me that we are not "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up disputing the validity of [race] but we are "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up supporting the validity of [race] and/or its connection to intelligence. P0M 06:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Futurebird. Actually, on closer reading (which I should have done to start with.... sorry...), the section following your quote above exactly makes the point I was making. Crusio 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] Hm

This is about ethnicity, social constructs of biology, and genetics, and nutrition, SES, and likely other things I haven't begun to consider. Hence, the muddle, as well as the variance, between scientific fields. I would challenge our resident editors to ask whether the Hutu or Tutsi groups of Ruwanda are differing in intelligence (as measured by, uhm, the evasive 'g'), and what would be the most *concise* way of presenting this example of a multi-factoral question of self-and-socially-defined race "groups" to a lay reader who lacks any background in anthro, biology, etc. Do we need to teach them the fundamentals of social definitions, economics, power of group, socially constructed metrics to elevate a power group, etc.? Ronabop 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made a good summary of the reasons that it is difficult to get anyware using the word "race." One of the factors that made science a successful undertaking at the dawn of the modern age was the realization that scientists had to work out their vocabulary so that they all knew that they meant the same thing by a given word. If temperatures were involved then there had to be a common standard for two points on the temperature scale, e.g., 0 at the freezing point of water (and it had to be pure water) and 100 at the boiling point (and elevation/air pressure had to be taken into account).

The idea of [race] is considered useful by some researchers who regard it as a useful heuristic and research "lead-in" device. For instance, if some epidemic hits a major U.S. city, it might quickly become apparent that some [racial] group is being affected more strongly than any other. Then the appropriate thing to do might be to concentrate resources on people of that [race] -- without worrying for the moment whether the actual common factor is genetic, ethnic food preferences (maybe the problem lies in the kim chee not in the Korean genetics), physical environment (maybe Chinatown was the location of release of some biological weapon), etc. The trouble is that the impression that the average citizen may take away from a headline such as, "Little Taipei Hit by Mystery Cancer Epidemic" is that a certain intrinsically different group of people is involved when the true reason may be that the people of a certain group are being treated differently because of their perceived [racial] identity. P0M 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when this article was created it was only considering the US. Because race is almost clearly constructed in the US and extensive studies have been recorded for more than half a century. Outside of the US this study becomes almost nonsensical because race is not consistently constructed, in some places one can argue it is not constructed at all(eg ethnically homogeneous societies). I really think this article needs some serious re-evaluation possibly even deletion.Muntuwandi 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your words describe the situation I found in Taiwan. Because of a passage in the Analects of Confucius they have the idea firmly in mind that "all men are brothers." So, on the one hand they are aware that all Chinese are genetically connected at some level, and on the other hand they know that even though the connections with other groups may be go back far in history if you are looking for a major nexus nevertheless the "outside people" are still brothers. People in Taiwan could be very passionate about their culture, politics and freedom, but I don't ever recall anybody being passionate about [race]. The aboriginal people living on Taiwan are remote from Chinese genetically and linguistically, and there is some level of discrimination involved, but I never heard the aboriginal people identified as belonging to a different race or identified as being materially different from Chinese in terms of intrinsic characteristics.

Which reminds me: What do we call the form of discrimination that was visited on the group given the derogatory term "Okies?" Those people were for the most part "white" and it was the poverty of the dust bowl era that set them apart. P0M 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

talk pages shouldn't be much longer than 35kb - I just did some archiving but this page is too long. I will archive again soon, so make sure that anything on the page that is still unresolved gets resolved soon, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)