Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

moved from accusations of bias section

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund (which according to the Southern Poverty Law Center "has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve"[1]) supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another [1] The Pioneer Fund has been strongly criticized by anti-racist groups and some scientists and journalists.[2] Also, prominent critic Ulric Neisser states that the fund's contribution has overall been "a weak plus".[3] On the other side, it is asserted that misguided political correctness has led to large-scale denial of recent developments in the human sciences.[4]

based on the discussion above, it appears that this text should not be part of the "accusations of bias" section. i've moved it here to preserve it. i believe most of the data is contained in the subsequent "pioneer fund" section, without the attempt to link PF to bias. --Rikurzhen 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Based on the discussion so far, it seems that this text is highly relevant to the accusations of bias section. Particularly the recent cite of Lynn's poor science and link to the Pioneer Fund shown by Ramdrake. Reverted back to inclusion. --JereKrischel 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For the record, same objections as JereKrischel. The accusations against the PF-funded science range from ideological/moral to purely scientific, and may have been made against the fundees more prominently than against the fund per se, especially the accusations of bad science. That would be normal and one certainly can't disconnect the two, or pretend there is no connection. I believe at this point the connection has been more than amply demonstrated. I'll ask again: what more do you need?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then we're back to square 1. I see nothing in Kamin's text that Lynn is wrong b/c he is a PF grantee. It is a WP:NOR violation to build such an argument. We're also treading on WP:LIVING if we construe these various authors statements as such. --Rikurzhen 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. The resoning goes: The PF is wrong because it funds bad/biased/racist science (bad in the sense of scientifically bad). How can it be demonstrated that it funds bad science? By looking at the detailed comments of a critic of such science. So, instead of trying to turn this on its head and say that you don,t see how Lynn is wrong because he is a PF fundee, try to see it this way: PF funding is bad because it funds people whose results (and I'm quoting from above) tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another by using methodologically unsound science.--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The text in from this section that is most problematic is:

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund ... supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another"

That says:

"accuation" ... "Pioneer Fund" ... "research" ... coincidence ... racialism/segregation ... justify racism.

An alternative reading is simply that PF supports R&I research, which the author thinks is evil It doesn't say: the influence of PF is to bias researchers and hence their research results are compromised --Rikurzhen 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you suggest we rephrase a direct quote to avoid offending your sensibilities? Also, it's already been discussed and established that the Pioneer Fund has funded the majority of R&I researchers. So, I don't think I'd dare call it a coincidence anymore.?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to rephrase, as a question this time: is systematically funding ideologically and scientifically biased science the same as imparting a bias on a given field of science? I say emphatically, yes.--Ramdrake 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You begged the question. Nonetheless, the answer to the question of whether these authors are accusing researchers of scientific bias is "no". --Rikurzhen 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the section reads "accusations of bias" rather than "accusations of scientific bias". So ANY type of bias forces a "yes" to the answer, not just scientific bias. Which does remind me that I still need you to define "scientific bias" by opposition to "bias" in general. I'd like to know the definition I'm expected to work with, as like any other guy, I just hate battling windmills.--Ramdrake 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I take your point, but I mean functionally. "Is a researcher's scientific judgment compromised?" None of the sources I have seen make such a claim. They make a variety of other claims, which are not sufficient us to conclude that this is what they really mean. --Rikurzhen 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, then, can you concede that asnwering yes to another question: "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is also a case of bias, not the same kind of bias as what you're referring to above, granted, but certainly bias nevertheless.--Ramdrake 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that has nothing to do with "accusations of bias". None of these papers, including the quote used in the text, appear to make an argument for PF causing bias. The word "coincidence" is as strong as this quote appears to draw the connection (it doesn't say "cause"). You could substitute "association" if you prefer, I mean them interchangably. --Rikurzhen 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, this sure sounds like an accusation of ideological bias, at the very least unless you can prove to me otherwise.--Ramdrake 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless I can prove that you're misreading...? Set the material aside for a while, clear your mind as best as possible, and then reread the source(s). --Rikurzhen 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Here's the original text from which the quotation is taken:

While acknowledging a need to respect the two professors' academic freedom, Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that "this research is being done in the name of white supremacy." He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."

This is a very strong and very specific claim, which is different from the implication of an "accusation of bias". It also comes from a source who is not in a position to be able to make judgements about the science. --Rikurzhen 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is a question germane to bias, but the affirmation: the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another." is not germane to bias (when we know the systematic "results" and interpretations of people like Lynn and Rushton, just to name a couple). I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
PF tends to support research that produces result X does not mean that PF causes the research to always produce result X. If that's what was meant, it could have be said. The speaker did not go so far as to make that claim, and it would be inapproriate for us to conclude that he did. --Rikurzhen 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You're using a false straw-man here, Rikurzhen - PF only supports research that tends to produces result X is what is stated, not PF tends to support research that only produces result X. The two cases are very different if you think about it for a minute. Furthermore, nobody has ever stated that PF causes the research to always produce result X, what has been stated is that the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers - the cause of the researcher's bias is unknown, but it seems the Pioneer Fund selectively supports those with bias. Bias does not always force a specific result, but it can make the results invalid. --JereKrischel 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I did misspeak, but it doesn't make a difference. However, you have begged the question here: the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the quote: He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another.". I think you're assuming that I'm defending the validity of the criticism - on the contrary, I'm merely stating that the criticism has been made, and that others have made a link between Pioneer Fund supported research, and invalid and biased results. We can argue all day about whether or not the criticism is valid, true and accurate - but it is beyond argument that the criticism is made, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In the argument, you substituted results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. with biased researchers. This, of course, begs the question of whether that's what's meant. The original source appears to be talking about racism, not "biased researchers". --- There's a discussion on the talk page of WP:NOR which may address the heart of the problem. Primary sources, not secondary sources, are the only ones being used. This tends to lead to WP:NOR violations. In this case, I don't see anything about "bias" in the quotes being offered. All I see is discussion of "racism". Without a secondary source, this question of differeing interpretation of primary sources suggests a WP:NOR problem. --Rikurzhen 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia offers this as part of its definition of Bias: A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for (sic) having a preference to (sic)one particular point of view or ideological perspective. So, saying that the PF supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races... really fits the definition of bias. Most people will agree that racism is a form of ideological/social bias. And I would like to warn you against going down that alley about using mostly primary sources: a massive part of the scientific argumentation in this article is based primarily if not almost exclusively on primary sources as well, and it's been contended many times that several key arguments look like original research.--Ramdrake 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There's sufficient strength to the claim to see a charge of "racism", but not "bias" in what's written. That is, the NAACP president appears to be saying that the research is motivated by racism. The article cites primary source, but is written primarily from consultation secondary sources (see the external links section). Are there secondary sources which discuss PF in connection with bias? --Rikurzhen 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this has gone on long enough. I think it can be said that the comment we've been citing back and forth is tantamount to an accusation of bias, either directly or through it being an accusation of racism (which itself is an ideological/social bias). This doesn't need yet another quote, yet another source to show the PF has been accused of supporting only research with a specific agenda in mind, science which has been described with a number of epithets: "bad", "lousy", "misrepresenting the data", "misconstrued" and I'm missing more than a few tastier ones. In clear, what I'm saying is that whether you call it racism and I call it bias makes no difference, as racism is a type of bias (or is it your contention racism isn't a bias?) We could put it to a straw poll, if you wish?--Ramdrake 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this debate has gone on long enough, and I doubt that merely continuing this debate would resolve the problem. If you read the entire "controversy" super-section and sub-articles, you will see that comments about racism and comments about bias are fundamentally different. The racism charge is reflected, for example, when Sternberg (2005) accuses Rushton of making poor choices of research projects. The charge of bias is leveled by Pinker, Whitney, et al that the debate is being suppressed by a bias towards environmental determinism. Do you see the difference? Ramdrake, as far as I can see, the only possible resolution is to present a secondary source to make the argument for you. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The only difference I see is that racism is a particular type of bias (belonging in the family of ingroup biases. At this point, I think the demonstration has been done that the PF has indeed been accused of bias (whether this bias is a general one or specifically racism is beyond the point). I'd say let's call a straw poll on this: Should racism be considered a type of bias?--Ramdrake 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

policy implications

quote #1 is about abolishing welfare. quote #2 and #3 are predictions about forseen negative outcomes. some more description about what exactly is being criticized about what H&M said might help tighten this up. remember to put page numbers on quotes. --Rikurzhen 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the summary of the chapter from which quotes #2 and #3 come:

we speculate about the impact of cognitive stratification on American life and government. ... Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. towards something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired even more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. Among the other casualities of this process would be American civil society as we have known it.

Not so sure this chapter is relevant to this article. Perhaps the affirmative action chapters would be more relevant. --Rikurzhen 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

UL, your latest change has it backwards. The fear is that infantilizing low IQ people will then lead to limitations being placed on their liberty. Still not sure this is on target for this article. p.s. They're not recommending "reservations", they're warning against them. --Rikurzhen 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They are warning that this will happen if their policies are not implemented.Ultramarine 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

you wrote: they fear that as hostility toward the welfare-dependent increases, a "custodial state" will be created. On my reading that should be a custodial state will lead to hostility toward a welfare-dependent population, or something like that. Still not sure if this is on target w/ race and IQ. --Rikurzhen 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's cool, but just b/c this is discussed in TBC doesn't make it about R&I. it is about IQ, which makes it about race and IQ, but not in the specific. Is there a more direct link? --Rikurzhen

Archiving

Err... Archive, anyone?--Ramdrake 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

archive at will. if we want something, we'll fish it out. --Rikurzhen 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive 24 all done. Jokestress 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quantifying validity

There seems to be a move afoot to suggest to the casual reader that some scholarship is more valuable or relevant in this debate. This brings me back to something I have been saying since last year about Gottfredson's Mainstream Science on Intelligence collective statement vs. the APA's Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns consensus statement. The former is one-tenth as influential as the latter if one goes for these citation quantifications, and the oft-cited (here, anyway) Snyderman & Rothman survey is only slightly more notable than the Gottfredson piece, relative to the APA. So if we are going to heirarchize everything, we should point out the relative lack of influence of Gottfredon et al. and S&R compared to the APA piece. Thoughts? Jokestress 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, which probably means this would have an WP:NOR problem. One could argue that S&R surveys 500+ scholars, WSJ surveys 50+ and APA surveys ~10. --Rikurzhen 08:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has taken into account the hierarchy in influence between these collective statements implied by this citation analysis and by that one of the statements largely represents the official opinion of the APA; I don't see any citations that give it undue prominence. Citation analysis is a valuable quantifying tool in gauging influence, but of course isn't the only consideration, per Rikurzhen's point. Also, the APA statement probably has increased weight in the sense that the journal it was published in has a very large readership, but on the other hand MSoI probably has increased weight from it being published in one of the foremost specialist journals in its area. (This discussion was partially started by the discussion at Talk:Institute_for_the_Study_of_Academic_Racism.)--Nectar 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Another interesting statistic is that (according to LG), nobody has ever said that MSoI does not represent the mainstream consensus. On the other hand, there are several reactions to the APA report that criticised it for being biased. So (if we want to play this game) the score is 0-several. But I think it would be much more useful to identify the issues where APA and MSoI agree (e.g., measurability of intelligence, observable gap between test scores between populations), and then present these points in this article in the same way we write about the shape of the Earth. Arbor 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, they only "disagree" on one point -- the cause of group differences -- and here each is conspicuously indirect (employing careful spin). MSoI reports that Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. Of courese this allows signers to agree that most experts agree w/o agreeing themselves. APA says It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. As Murray points out, the term "direct" before "evidence" here makes the claim so specific as to have no bite. So, materially they don't actually disagree, but they both spin the causation question differently. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy implications - 17 August 2006

Policy implications is now messy. There are several problems, large and small:

  1. what's wrong with "argue"? i find it commonly used in the scientific literature.
  2. the quotes from TBC take up a lot of room, but don't seem to have any specific implications for "race", only "intelligence"
    1. besides In Our Hands, which calls for a direct cash-transfer program, has Murray debated Welfare since the 1996 reform?
    2. affirmative action seems to be the most direct thing to discuss

--Rikurzhen 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bell Curve in general is about races. We should certainly point out that any policy affecting those with low IQ will affect memebers of all races.Ultramarine 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
But maybe we should move the Bell Curve material to a footnote, it is quite long? Ultramarine 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine. So long as we move beyond the current state: footnoting, summarizing, etc. --Rikurzhen 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

size and detail are better. --Rikurzhen 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

do the IQ curves completely overlap each other?

The IQ curves completely overlap each other. "Substantial" would indicate that *some* part of the IQ curve of some races lies outside of the IQ curve of others, which is false.

actually, we don't know if they "completely overlap each other". the formulation often used is to talk about IQ "levels" (which implies there are small, finite number of levels). thus, in the U.S. individuals of every race can be found at all IQ levels. it's quite possible that there are some small groups which might be called "races" which have no individuals with 200+ IQ scores. because of birth defects, there are certainly people at the lowest levels from each group, which was a safe formulation. there are many public policies that target low IQ (few/none that target high IQ), so this is probably the right way to formulate it. --Rikurzhen 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fist of all, the IQ curves are Gaussians. By definition, Gaussians extend from (minus infinite) to (plus infinite). However, because of probability considerations, most specialists consider them to extend from 0 to 200 or from 4 to 196. Second, the graph we are using and our entire discussion or that matter only shows the "four largest" racial groups (hispanic isn't really a race, but the point is irrelevant here). Due to their extremely large membership, it is basically assured that all four racial groups do have members at all levels of the curve. And lastly, even if there did exist some minor racial group which wasn't large enough to have representatives at all levels (and that's a hypothetical), there at most could be one point of non-overlap somewhere. Saying there is "substantial" overlap means there exist definite regions of non-overlap. These regions are hypothetical and not one is proven up to now. Thus, the word complete is adequate until we have found at least one region of non-overlap of one racial curve versus another. You're right that we don't know or a fact that they completely overlap each other. But theoretically they do overlap completely and experimentally we haven't found a single counter-example. So, complete is the better term until we know more.--Ramdrake 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There are probably no Khoisan or Australian natives with IQs of 200. Moreover, the highest IQ person in the world puts their race at an IQ that is unique. These are the things that concern me. Better to talk about all "levels" rather than overlaps. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an objection about using the formulation "all levels", and actually it may be more appropriate than trying to qualify the overlap. I've modified the sentence accordingly. Hope it's more to your liking.--Ramdrake 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That looks better. "Complete overlap" would mean the curves cover the identical space, one placed precisely on top of the other. That would be true for any groups that have identical average IQs and IQ distributions.--Admissions 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite what "complete overlap" means, but that's alright. "Complete overlap" would mean the two curves have exactly the same range in abscissa. It doesn't say anything about the comparison of ordinate values for the same abscissa value. But your comment, at the very least, is a good indication of what the wording might be interpreted as.
Duh-on me! If one were to say the "curves completely overlap", then your interpretation is right. My interpretation would correspond to the wording that the "curves' ranges completely overlap". My boo... so glad Rikurzhen prodded me to change it.--Ramdrake 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, are there any sources for this overlap? As Rikurzhen pointed out there may not be any Australian natives with IQs in the 180+ range. African Americans have white admixture which complicates the issue. While at it, are the means correctly shown in the bellcurve picture? I believe they differ for the various races. --Zero g 12:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
By definition, the IQ curves are population distribution curves, so any population should have representatives at all levels of the curve. And it is clear that if you parcel out the population in small enough groups (racial or otherwise), gaps may appear in the curves for the smaller groups. But the construct of the curve is such that the basic assumption is that there are no gaps, thus you are very unlikely to find a source to affirm the absence of gap (or complete range overlap). Conversely, so far, I haven't seen a single report of a population where any gap in the IQ curve was measured. And as far as anybody has been able to ascertain, the means are shown correctly on the current graph, and may even be very slightly overstated (it depends on one's POV).--Ramdrake 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Using that reasoning there'd be 200+ IQ dogs. Asuming some intelligence genes are unique to specific populations, like the genes for a black skin color is unique among Africans, there logically is a boundary for each race if you exclude members of mixed race. Next it would be rather easy to determine the existance of 180+ IQ native Africans and Australians, and if such data is available it would be nice to include to make the point. As far as I can tell the means are all the same in the graph. --Zero g 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

there are several cites for the "levels" formulation. the bell curve "levels" there are: <75, 75-90, 90-110, 110-125, >125. --Rikurzhen 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier on this thread, the highest level of intelligence attainable by humans is (according to my readings) either 196+ or 200+ (depending on where you want to set the limit of what's measurable in IQs). This is for the entire human population, and has not been shown to differ for any subpopulation so far. Your assumption that "some intelligence genes are unique to specific populations" has not been demonstrated yet, and is just that. Also, BTW, the polygene responsible for dark skin is not unique to Africans (Aboriginal Australians and a few other Pacific peoples also have dark skin). And no, it wouldn't be easy to determine 180+ IQs in these populations, no more than it is anywhere else in the world: first of all, such a high IQ is exceedingly rare (I'll let someone else calculate the odds) and second, the vast majority of IQ tests just can't test that high (or at least become unreliable in this high IQ range). Lastly, just out of curiousity, how do you read the bell curve graph to get the impression the means are all the same?--Ramdrake 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Since many IQ tests use multiple choice it's well possible for a retard to score 200 which contributes to a bellcurve shape. Possibly this deserves mentioning. Regarding skin color, you're correct, but it's a sharply contrasted genetic difference among races. Purely theoretical it could apply to intelligence genes as well. Unless there's valid research proving different it might be wise to not make such bold statements. Regarding the curve, I was using the wrong term, I'm refering to the standard deviation, which according to the article is 14.7 for whites and 13.0 for blacks. I don't believe this is shown correctly in the graph. If so it should be adjusted, because it implies there are more whites with very low IQs than currently shown. --Zero g 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Showing a variable SD is aesthetically very unappealing. It also matters very little except at the extremes, where a normal fails to describe the true distribution anyway. --Rikurzhen 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So the article is showing an incorrect graph because it's more aesthetically appealing? I find that odd to say the least. I strongly suggest using the unappealing but correct graph. --Zero g 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The graph is modeled on a publication by Gottfredson. The further complication is that we do not have reliable SDs for groups other than Blacks and Whites. Keeping SD=15 is the best solution for that graph. The latter graph (IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png) uses more precise SDs. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ramdrake, although that's how IQ works in theory, in practice it does not work that way. the gaussian assumption operates only at the level of setting the scoring criteria based on a standardization sample. after that, anyone is free to score as high as the test might actually go. at least in the U.S., the population tends to have many more people w/ high/low IQ than would occur if the distrubtion were gaussian (normal). --Rikurzhen 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And you, Rikurzhen, are absolutely right that the Gaussian curve is just an approximation; the high/low end statistical weights are higher than a Gaussian would predict, not only in the States but pretty much everywhere IQ tests are being widely used. However, each test is usually made to target a specific range (depending on which test one looks at), so may not all be appropriate to measure the high range. But I digress; the fact that the high and low ends have larger weight distribution than a Gaussian would predict is what makes me believe it is very likely that the ranges of the IQ curves overlap completely.--Ramdrake 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This SD graph is only really showing two things, mean value and a visual representation that IQ's vary amongst the races (though inaccurate at how much). To be honest, I don't really understand the purpose of showing a normal curve. These equal standard deviations suggest that Asians are unequivically the superior race, in terms of intelligence, along with their deserved highest mean IQ. However, though Asians do have the highest mean IQ standard deviation amongst caucasians SD is greater meaning the graph should show a higher amount of caucasians in the ~140 range albeit a higher amount in the 50's. Therefore Asians are not clearly more intelligent in all aspects since caucasians produce more geniuses. If you don't agree with my facts imagine any other scenario or that guys issue with blacks being misrepresented. So, reminding you of the name of the article, this graph seems to be more of a misrepresentation of the facts than a simple table showing the mean data. It's more harmful than it is useful. I'd like to see it deleted or changed. 207.216.213.121 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)RoosterCogburn

the difference between an SD of 13 (circles) and an SD of 15 (lines) isn't big enough at the tails to bother with the effect it has at the median. --Rikurzhen 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on RFC

"Is there a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals?"

On the face of it, no there is no distinction. To classify The American Journal of Psychology, American Behavioral Scientist, and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences as "generalist journals" makes no sense when compared to journals such as Science and Nature (less extreme examples make sense also). I can imagine being able to identify the more generalist and more specialist of any pairwise comparison of two journals, but I can't imagine any classification rule existing for classifying journals as either "generalist" or "specialist".

That being said, the real question is whether:

  1. "Criticism of the Pioneer Fund (PF) has been limited to some general journals, and hasn't been raised in the specialist journals that deal with intelligence research regularly" is a fact, and
  2. (if this is true) what does that say about the status of the PF, and PF funded scientists, within the community of scientists.

Part of the methods for supporting this statement are described by one editor thusly: Journals deemed "specialist" in the field were validated using a citation analysis technique comparing the relative frequency of two words in their abstracts: target word "IQ" and control word "influence". There was no cross-check using another pair of words (such as "intelligence" and a known common word like "results"). Using "IQ" vs. "g" vs. "intelligence" deserves defending, and an explanation of this whole endevour probably ought to have a methods section, and a results section, and an introduction and a discussion, in short I think it qualifies as Original Research.

As for what this statement would mean about the status of the FP within "science", I disagree with the unstated assumption (?) that "specialist" journals are more authoritative about their research areas than are "generalist" journals. Journals which focus on a narrow research topic may be described as minor journals. The most prestigious journals are also the most generalist. This is no accident. A paper on a specialized topic, if sufficiently important and well-done, will appear in a more "generalist" journal than a less generally relevant, or less conclusive or elegant paper on the same topic.

The second question version is:

"Can editors decide which journals are "specialist" enough and use such decisions to assert that opinions (such as criticism) published in journals other than these is somehow less important or notable - even if the topic in question is a "meta" topic that is not ever directly addressed by any specialist journals."

Many of the same comments apply. I just don't see how to resolve editorial debates about how to address the role of PF funding in this article. But neither do I think that resolving this issue of what's a "generalist" or "specialist" journal holds the key to progress on the issue. Hope this helps. Pete.Hurd 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Bogus arguments

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define “intelligence” according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005). - IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg, 1998,1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).

Further more, IQ is not a fixed quantity; it can be raised (It is not as difficult to rise, as it is to maintain). This has been demonstrated numerously through studies involving environmental stimulation.

Examples of such studies:

In 1987 Wynand de Wet (now Dr. de Wet), did his practical research for an M.Ed. (Psychology) degree on the Audiblox program at a school for the deaf in South Africa. The subject of the research project concerned the optimization of intelligence actualization by using Audiblox. Twenty-four children with learning problems participated in the study, and were divided into 3 groups.

The children in Group A received Audiblox tuition. The children were tutored simultaneously in a group by means of the Persepto for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987. The first edition of the group application of the Audiblox program was followed. No diagnostic testing was done beforehand.

The children in Group B received remedial education. They were tested beforehand and based on the diagnosis each child received individualized tuition on a one-on-one basis for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987.

The children in Group C were submitted to non-cognitive activities for 27.5 hours during this period.

All 24 children were tested before and after on the Starren Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal Scale (SSON), a non-verbal IQ test that can be used for deaf children. Dr. de Wet reported that he could do nearly all the Audiblox exercises without adaptations, except the auditory exercises. Because he had to use sign-language, the children could not close their eyes. The average scores of the three groups on the SSON test were as follows:

Average IQ's before intervention, after intervention, and general Increase

IQ scores Group A (Audiblox group): 101.125 - - 112.750 - - 11.625 Group B (Remedial group): 107.125 - - 116.250 - - 9.125 Group C (Non-cognitive): 104.250 - - 108.875 - - 4.625

Reference: De Wet, W., The Optimization of Intelligence Actualization by Using Audiblox (M.Ed. (Psychology) Thesis: University of Pretoria, 1989).

http://www.yale.edu/rjsternberg/

Robert J. Sternberg (b. 8 December 1949) is a psychologist and psychometrician and the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He was formerly IBM Professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University and the President of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Sternberg has also been the editor or co-editor of well over 50 psychological Journals.

Sternberg is also the author or coauthor of several college-level textbooks in psychology:

• In Search of the Human Mind, now in its second edition (1998) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is a full-length introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint both of the evolution of organisms and the evolution of ideas. The textbook emphasizes the importance of the dialectic in how ideas evolve. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Pathways to Psychology, now in its second edition (2000) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is an abbreviated introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint of the multiple pathways that converge on an understanding of psychology—multiple theoretical paradigms, multiple methodologies, multiple styles of learning. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Cognitive Psychology is now in its second edition (1999) with a new, second edition to be published for 1999 by Harcourt Brace College Publishers. It is an introduction to cognitive psychology suitable for courses such as cognitive psychology and cognition. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and emphasizes the importance of intelligence as an integrating concept in the study of intelligence. This text comes with a brief instructor’s manual and with a test bank. •

• Introduction to Psychology is now in its first edition (1997) and is published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers in their College Outline Series. This text is intended as a review of psychology, and is suitable as an ancillary for students taking the introductory course, or as a review for students studying for various examinations, such as the Advanced Placement psychology text or the GRE Advanced Test in psychology.

- Also, IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, The Bell curve wars, 1995). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire population together as a single body. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

-In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to achieve less academically and perform poorly on conventional Psychometric tests.

-Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates. http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html


Problems with classification

I don't understand why is it that African American get to represent all people of african descent and all black people. I think this is a very americocentric view to look at race and intelligence. Perhaps the article can be revised to reflect this. I know the article says black mean people of african descent lving in america, but african americans make up less than 5% of the entire black population so it is a very poor sample and highly inaccurate to say any stat regarding IQ in regards to the black race by using a small sample cluster group who live as a minority under white oppression. Now I'm not going to talk about my suspicons of why this article seems to pick very specfic clusters in its sample, but the artic;le needs to be revised. Having American Chinese represent all Chinese as IQ is also bias. What about all the Chinese who don't get into America because they are illeterate or have no education etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.31.232.210 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected. Please discuss in talk how to resolve content disputes. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit this article, but note that it currently reads as facts rather than opinions. For this article to be compliant with WP:NPOV, POVs have to be attributed rather than asserted. The article as it stands now, deserves the {{POV}} tag and a lot of work from dedicated editors to fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

jossi, "the Earth is round" doesn't require attribution. unquestioned facts, such as the existence of group IQ differences, are presented as such. opinions, such as the various theories to explain the differences, are attributed. see the external links section for a collection of review articles which will make the consensus/controversy breakdown clear. --Rikurzhen 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a reason for that. The sample size in the study of the roundness of the earth was 1. This corresponds with the number of recorded earths: 1. So the sample was in fact 100% of the population in question leading to a Standard deviation of zero. For this article to have the 'fact' equally well grounded we could I suppose remove the problem of the definition of group and sample size by restating it thus: "It is an unquestioned fact that there exist group IQ differences. A study of groups A, B, C, and D showed that group A scored X points over group C. Group A consisted of U.S. 12 individuals who labelled themselves as Asian-Americans. etc" The problem would seem to come from labelling a tiny group - as pointed out below the only group well represented in the study shown in the graph were whites. I agree with Rikurzhen here, and so I'm sure he'll agree that the diagram should more clearly represent this fact, and thus we should relabel the diagram to correspond with it: remove the labels White, Black, Asian and Hispanic (in order of sample size, and label them A, B, C, D). In the footnotes, explain what A, B, C, and D mean. (e.g. 12 individuals who labelled themselves Hispanic, and took IQ test Z in 1981). This would be totally NPOV. Macgruder 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
fyi - the pov tag was being added by Zen-master, who has a problem with this topic to the extent that it keeps him from being able to behave within the bounds of WP policy. his opinions should not be construed as reasonable or informed. --Rikurzhen 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Group IQ differences" is an incomplete and misleading description, there exists an abstract IQ test result disparity, the cause or causes for the disparity are unknown/disputed. Words such as "race" and "group" that emphasize just one among many possible data correlation possibilities should not be used to describe the abstract disparity, "Nutritional IQ differences" describes the exact same abstract disparity. I (Zen-master) was not the one adding the pov tag. Wait a Second 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a big problem with much of the article is the idea that there are "unquestioned facts" - on our own time, with our own opinions, I think there is common ground between people like myself and Rikurzhen in regards to what the data shows and could possibly mean. However, "the existence of group IQ differences" is not an "unquestioned fact" - it is begging the question as to what groups we're talking about. Certainly, one could consider the specific results of specific groups actually tested as an example of "group IQ differences", but extrapolating that to represent a larger group is more problematic, and not so unquestionable. And regardless of Zen-master's behavior issues, such personal problems of his do not necessarily mean we should discount his opinions as unreasonable or ill-informed - his method of expressing hiimself may be crude and in need of improvement, but I certainly must agree that there is a problem with the article presenting things as "unquestioned facts", when in actuality the context of these "facts" is highly questionable. --JereKrischel 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JK, come now. The APA and WSJ statements present a firm grounding of "unquestioned facts" at their intersection. I don't see where your point about extrapolation is aimed, but certainly not at this article, which is well qualifed with clauses about which populations are being described. --Rikurzhen 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The question as to whether the populations being described from the studies accurately represents the populations being asserted is an open question, don't you think? --JereKrischel 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
By the same token then, the AAA statement should be considered "unquestionable fact", and its statement that races are really nothing more than social constructs should make the point of this article moot. Or is it more reasonable to considered all such statements as no more than the informed opinion of a large consensus of people rather than incontrovertible fact (in which case Jossi is right and this article needs some rewriting to make in compliant)?--Ramdrake 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, you can't write an article by pre-fixing "the mainstream scientific view is" before every non-controversial claim. Compare to evolution or global warming. If you or anyone else has specific criticisms, you should outline them on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Jossi used a fraction of the time you or I have used to look at this article. Still, currently jossi is preventing us from rewriting the article. Let's make him remove the ban. Apart from that, I am all for (and so is everybody else here) finding out what is fact and what is opinion. That's my only reason for hanging out here. We are doing a very good job, better than on any other WP article I can think of. Arbor 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbor, no offense, but we should not be trying to find out what is fact here - we should be reporting on opinions of both sides of the issue to leave the matter in an NPOV state. From the standpoint of searching for truth, I agree with your motivation, and exercise that in my own life, but as odd as it may seem, that doesn't seem to be the point of Wikipedia. If it isn't already clearly agreed to as fact, we should simply report the claim and its source - and certainly there is a lot of "fact" stated in the article that is highly contested given the misleading context into which it is stated. We should be here not to determine what is fact and what is opinion, but to report on opinions here clearly, with attribution, and in proper context. I think we are currently failing a bit on all three counts. --JereKrischel 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JK, my comment to Ramdrake applies here too. you can't write an article by pre-fixing "the mainstream scientific view is" before every non-controversial claim. Compare to evolution or global warming. If you or anyone else has specific criticisms, you should outline them on the talk page. FYI - WP:NPOV requires editors to make distinctions between mainstream, minority, and fringe views. Thus far, we have treated most causal theories as if they were each mainstream. The personal views of Zen-master/anonIP, even when backed by primary source citations, are obviously fringe/singular. --Rikurzhen 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of the causal theories are not mainstream - consider this, can you name a pro-hereditarian published that wasn't funded by the Pioneer Fund? On the other hand, how many organizations on the anti-hereditarian view exist? I would suggest you look at it like global warming - skeptics may in fact be doing the better science, but their views are considered fringe. Similarly, although you may believe pro-hereditarians are doing the better science, their views are not mainstream in the scientific community at all. Perhaps unjustifiably so, but true nonetheless. --JereKrischel 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JK, I'm not simply reporting my personal opinion -- which would be worthless to building this WP article. See Snyderman and Rothman (1987) -- described in the "expert opinion" section. According to these authors, the majority view among people knowledgable about IQ is that BW IQ differences are caused by both genes and environment. As described in that section of the article, several researchers who hold the "entirely environmental" view have acknowledged that they hold a "minority" view. Correction above: I should have used the term "majority" rather than "mainstream", which is what WP:NPOV says. --Rikurzhen 05:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's what WSJ says: There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. ... Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. I should be, and I hope is, what we report also. --Rikurzhen 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
See http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psychol/Psychology/Skeptic.htm, Rikurzhen. Herrnstein and Murray present what they consider to be the consensus of scholars working in the field of intelligence. Snyderman and Rothman (The IQ Controversy) present similar data... You can hardly expect anyone to agree that such a particular sample yields a "fact" - it is clearly opinion of the authors, and should be represented as such. Not to mention the fact that science is not done by consensus (note, I do recognize that point is cross-purpose of my original assertion) :). Here's an extended quote from the article I mentioned:

Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ.

I think the rest of it is very interesting as well, and hope you read it. Considering the significant challenge to the claims of "mainstream" by pro-hereditarians who believe in racial differences, I find it hard to consider such work as even "majority" - unless we have a neutral party do the survey, and identify the population and formulate the questions to eliminate bias, you have a self-fullfilling prophecy, I think. --JereKrischel 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JK, I can't understand what you hope to accomplish with the argument you just presented. I'm quite certain that the article currently follows NPOV in describing the results of S&Rs survey as what it is. But I'm also certain that your expression of skepticism about their result is unsupportable with regard to building a WP article. If we could directly substitute our own judgments for those of experts (when such judgments are available to us) then that would set us on a very slippery slope. I don't believe the IPCC report is unbiased, so I'll not take it into account when writing an article on global warming. --Rikurzhen 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would rephrase that as, the IPCC report is the opinion of the IPCC, so I'll not refer to it as "fact" when writing an article on global warming...does that make my point clearer? The skepticism I have is not a reason to categorize any argument as unsupportable - but it is important to assert who has what opinion, rather than try to assert what is fact and what isn't. That's the heart of NPOV, I think. --JereKrischel 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sternberg is only part right. There is an quantative relationship between within group and between group heritabilities (Jensen 1998). ... Rather than answering my reply, let focus on specific discussions about the article. I can understand if you and Ramdrake would like to poke holes in the article, but please think about WP policy while you do it. --Rikurzhen 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe my comment stands. Specific discussions? See global warming as a model. You can't prefix every textbook-type "fact" with a prefix about it being uncontested. The material in WSJ are top candidates. --Rikurzhen 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand you regarding the WSJ - it seems that Skeptic magazine clearly makes the point that the "facts" you wish to state are in fact contested, and should be expressed as cited opinions. Added the disputed tag to other sections as well, following your example, Rikurzhen - good find on that tag. --JereKrischel 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(1) It's not useful if it's not spelled out. (2) Sternberg doesn't support their claim, but rather makes a case against vote-counting in science. (3) We'll get no where talking in generalities, but if we must -- you're generally wrong. (4) Discuss specifics, because generalities aren't getting us anywhere. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Rikurzhen, I think I see a source of confusion. Caveatting something as a "fringe" view is very different than the extreme degree of mischaracterization and exclusion of those alternative views that is happening in the current version of this article. And how should we go about trying to prove to you these alternative views are in fact not "fringe"? Science is completely intertwined, "race and intelligence research" does not exist in a vacuum, criticism should be allowed to come from related fields. The word "fringe" seems like it has the errant effect of discouraging a serious mental consideration of an alternative viewpoint. It seems contradictory for you to claim that Zen-master's views are "personal" while at the same time stating "even when backed by primary source citations"? My views (Zen-master) come from an interpretation of those contradictory primary sources. Wait a Second 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also probably time to remind people that Zen master's thesis consistently fails the test of WP:NOR. The primary vs. secondary sources discussion above only reinforces the ease with which WP:NOR can be violated when we don't take care to mind the distinction between an original vs published synthesis of primary data. For example, none of us has the technical sophistication of a psychometrican, and yet that would be required to fully/critically comprehend most of the primary-source IQ data. --Rikurzhen 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Rikurzhen, I think you might be confused about Wikipedia's "No original research" policy, that only applies to not creating your own sources, interpreting an article to be violating the principle of neutral presentation is an entirely different issue. The concepts of neutral presentation and the scientific method are much higher standards than any source. Science generally is presented as a "working hypothesis" which can be refuted, but for some reason "race and intelligence research" is presented as an induced or absolute conclusion, this subtly but massively violates the principle of neutrality. Neutral presentation requires us to report on what researchers are investigating from the standpoint that the cause or causes for an issue are unknown, only then can possible working hypotheses be proposed. When this issue is incompletely framed around "race" it jumps the gun and errantly puts the conclusion cart before the presentation neutrality horse. Please try to understand there are valid alternative and abstract ways of thinking about and mentally framing this issue, escape the dichotomy. Wait a Second 13:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I for one am very taken aback at jossi's protection. I have placed a message on his talk page to get him to clarify his reasons. An edit war with an anon vandal shouldn't be the reason for such heavy-handed measures, there are much better ways to handle that on WP. I suggest the sensible editors quickly agree that there is not reason that this pages is protected from us, right? We would like to keep the vandals out, but the rest of us are doing an exemplary job at using the WP infrastructure to construct what I think is a model WP article, and protection at this stage is just disruptive. No matter our disputes, I suggest we all agree to move to unprotection or semiprotection and then proceed as usual. If one of "us" disagrees, please let us hear the reason. Arbor 12:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have tried to read up on the rules a bit more. Jossi asks us to resolve "the content dispute". With whom? (1) I assume he means "our" content dispute with anon user (who may or not be Zen-master, who is blocked from this page). By nature of anonymity, there is no way for us to resolve such a dispute and we are screwed. I seriously have no idea what steps he wants us to take before we can humbly request unprotection. (2) Does he mean the content dispute among the contributing editors? He cannot. We are behaving extremely well (it's a royal pleasure to edit this page sometime!), and if jossi is blocking that then we need to take much more complicated steps. We are discussing content all the time here, and ought to just continue doing that. We don't need protection for that. Does he want us to continue filling the talk page with another 300kB of well-reasoned discussion before we can humbly ask for unprotection again? Arbor 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no matter how heated the debate is on the talk page, and no matter how serious the disagreement is (especially considering how serious it is), I think it speaks volumes that we don't revert each other any more often than we currently do. If this measure is based on a revert war with the anon, semiprotection is what is needed; if it is a preventive measure because on the heat of the current debates, I think we're all mature enough to keep the debate mostly on the talk page and not let the stability of the article suffer overmuch.--Ramdrake 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The "anons" are also contributors, and should be encouraged and welcome to editing Wikipedia. In looking at the history I see that their edits are summarily deleted without discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What you call "the anons" is User talk:70.68.206.90. The talk page is full of requests from other editors to stop vandalising the R&I page unless he wants to be banned. I would be happy if that policy were implemented, instead of you protecting the page. Arbor 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to questions about the protection, placed on my talk page) Please note that the protection was due to edit waring not because of POV. POV is not grounds for protection. NPOV does not mean just providing sources. I means writing from a neutral point of view, describing and attributing POVs rather than asserting them. A well refrenced article, as this one is, can still be in violation of NPOV, which I believe is this case here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, if there is interest in continuing with editing, without edit waring please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The edit warring is between us and an anonymous vandal. (My case for vandalism is based on the warnings on his talk page User_talk:70.68.206.90.) Exactly how should we phrase our request? I fail to understand the grounds for protection. The edit warring is made by two parties: (1) an anon vandal, and (2) us, who revert him. Should we pledge to stop reverting him? I don't understand what is asked of us. Arbor 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The anon and collaborating names are most likely sockpuppets of Zen master. The recommended escalation step is WP:RFCU. --Rikurzhen 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the WP:RFPP. If somebody would look over the phrasing and edit it, please do so. Jossi, if you protection was based on edit warring, not on a POV accusation, then perhaps the next time it would be a good idea not not conflate the two by starting a section about Protection by accusing us of POV in the second paragraph. I consider the protection debate over and eagerly await unprotection, If (independently from that) you want to continue debating POV, then I am eager to do so. I suggest you use anther headline for that. Arbor 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I (Zen-master) was not the anon adding the pov tag. Have you and everyone read the recently posted above massive amount of critical sources? If you want to continue debating that is a good starting point. Given contradictory sources the principle of neutral presentation prevents us from describing a subject using only one sides methods, language and paradigm. The misleading concept of "expert opinion" is not anywhere close to being enough to permit the exclusion of contradictory allegations and sources. If you truly believe something to be false you should want to refute it, rather than exclude or unchallenge it. To be neutral you have to mentally risk the possibility your "conclusions" are wrong. Wait a Second 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Arbor 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chart, the curves, the colors, the heaviness

Does it not seem obvious to anyone else that the first chart which appears mostly dark purple is, by its choice of colors, both suggestive and misleading? Whenever there are several datums, one of which overlies the next, and the next, and so on. The common practice is to present the overlying data in a light, transparent color. The reason for this, it allows the data just under it to be more easily viewed. And the next datum under the second data should be of a darker color and so on. This allows a person to more easily observe the data such a chart presents. Having dark purple as the overlying data is uncommon practice and exactly opposite to what any college class would tell you to do when you wish to present 4 curves each under the other. Terryeo 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You could offer to redraw it. The main goal was to avoid a skin-color/curve-color match, which could upset some people. Various attempts to redrawn the graph have been made. My last attempt is: . I'm not skilled enough in SVG to get the curves filled transparently w/o nasty artifacts. --Rikurzhen 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To present an information on top of another information, make the bottom most information darkest in color and least transparent and make the top most information lightest in color and most transparent. Terryeo 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it's a noticeable improvement in clarity. --Rikurzhen 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why is that "colors" aren't light/dark. In the original image, each of the colors appears to be of approx. equal luminosity. But it might be possible to make the top curves more transparent and the bottom curves less. --Rikurzhen 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should leave it to Terryeo. Do whatever you think improves the graph. Arbor 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERace_and_intelligence_Archive_28_b26b.html"