Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 29

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

Points to improve

1One of the "pearls" I reacquainted myself with in this article:

The most widely accepted view among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences among individuals of the same race reflect real, functionally/socially significant, and substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor, g. It is likewise widely believed that average IQ differences among races reflect real and significant differences in the same g factor.

I had to reread this four times to figure out that the "substantially genetic" part was left out of the description of the between-races differences in IQ. This wording leads the unwary reader to think "intelligence researchers agree that differences in IQ are real, mean something functionnally and are substantially genetic, and the same goes with IQ differences between races (I especially like the "likewise")". It says nothing about the controversy, it even manages to go beyond the "expert survey" which says that they favored a "partially genetic" explanation (reading this, one might think the most generally accepted view is one of "substantially genetic" causes). This needs to be rephrased to ensure it is clear the "substantially genetic" explanation does NOT apply to between-races variations.--Ramdrake 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The next paragraph begins: However, it is a matter of debate whether the causes of IQ differences among races are entirely environmental or partly genetic.
Ramdrake, is the parallelism not appropriate? The original formulation included numbers in parentheses to show the parallel explicitly. An extra paragraph break has also been added. Previously, the controversy was described directly after this sentence describing the consensus. Individual differences are substiantially genetic (80%), where the hypothesis about group differences is that they are "partly" genetic (to an unknown extent). --Rikurzhen 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
is the parallelism not appropriate? i guess the answer is no? --Rikurzhen 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2 If the purpose of this article is to show that there are IQ differences between races and that there may be some genetic component to it, can we lose the pat of the discussion about relative brain size? I don't see that it adds anything to the article except maybe to try to demonstrate that Blacks are inferior (which I think is really not the point of this article and racist to boot). If it contributes anything, let's discuss it here.--Ramdrake 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brain size is one of the most carefully studied biological correlates of g. If there were IQ diffs w/o brain size diffs, then that would be noteworthy. The point is that race diffs in g between races has a biological basis. I can't imagine a legitimate claim that it's not relevant. --Rikurzhen 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, but you blunt affirmation The point is that race diffs in g between races has a biological basis is not backed up by evidence or by the expert opinion. At most, the expert opinion agrees that race diffs in g between races may have some biological basis.--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Jensen (1998). You need to keep the term genetic and biologial distinct. BW differences in hypertension are biological, but the degree to which they are due to genetics is a different empirical matter. --Rikurzhen 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, what about sociological, educational, psychological bases? Everybody seems to agree they have something to do with this as well, but your statement (has a biolgical basis) amounts to denying they have anything to do with the observed effect.--Ramdrake 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Neisser 1997 suggests that education/experience affects brain growth.--Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but the prime cause is educational. The biological part is the mechanism by which education may affect IQ (through brain growth).--Ramdrake 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the heritability of brain size is 90% and the brain-size/IQ correlation of .4 is mediated entirely by genetic factors, so education would have to a "Factor X" in the language of Jensen (1998) in order to explain BW brain size differences. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

3 The fact that there are differences in the brain sizes and brain structures of different racial and ethnic groups was well known and widely studied during the 19th century and early 20th century. This fails to take into account that several of those studies were found biased and that to this day, there isn't one good comparative racial study of brain sizes. Thus, presenting it as a well-known "fact" is a misrepresentation.--Ramdrake 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

presenting it as a well-known "fact" is a misrepresentation. Do you have a reference for that? I know SJ Gould tried to make this point in the MMoM, but it wasn't taken up. The ref for brain size differences between races is the APA report [response by Neisser to comments]. --Rikurzhen 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
SJ Gould did make the point. That it wasn't taken up is your POV, not mine. Also, looking at the APA report (I have it in front of my eyes and read it three times [1]), it says something about a relationship of brain size to IQ, but nothing about race oriented differences in brain sizes. Could you highlight for me the passage where it says there is a difference in brain size between races? Otherwise, I'd rather stick with Gould's debunking, or at least state that racial differences in brain size is an opinion rather than a fact.--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's Neisser's reponse to comments: "Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe." The predicted BW brain size gap is only .4 SD (so it's no surpise that it should less than within group differences, just like IQ). SJ Gould is not a reliable 2ndary source for this topic. That should be perfectly obvious from the scholarly responses to MMoM. --Rikurzhen 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And that pale statement makes the "fact of a Black-White brain size difference widely known since the 19th century"? And since nearly all the scholarly responses for MMoM came from Pioneer Fundees, I should take their word over Gould's? To me, it's a he-said-she-said. These are all opinions since we can come up with someone to contest it.--Ramdrake 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You should take Neisser's opinion over Gould's. Your obsession of PF is clouding your ability to work on this article. Per Sternberg's discussion with Skeptic magazine, science is right or wrong regardless of who did it or how it was funded. Gould's claims in MMoM are roundly criticized, and more important to us are out of the mainstream of scientific opinion. --Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not very NPOV, Rikurzhen - you're making value judgements inappropriately here. Both Gould and Pioneer Fund grantees are criticized - it, as he points out, becomes a he-said-she-said. We should neutrally report on their opinions, and not elevate one or the other to "fact" basd on our own biases. --JereKrischel 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Gould is criticized for being wrong across the board on this topic. MMoM is not a scholarly work, as per below. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
JereKrischel is right: you'd rather take the opinion of Neisser over Gould. I would rather take Gould's over Neisser. We both have our biases, so be it, I can live with mine if you can loive with yours. :) The only way out of this that's NPOV is to report that both statements are opinions.--Ramdrake 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is the basis for making such judgments. Gould is not an authority on IQ research, and his statements in MMoM have been roundly and consistently criticized as uninformed/wrong. If we cannot make that ascertainment then we are surely helpless here. Gould is not a reliable source. His opinions are of the third class WRT NPOV -- tiny minority -- as documented by the respones to MMoM and the survey data of S&R 1987. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Your desire to exclude Gould as wrong based on criticism of him can just as easily apply to any Pioneer Fund grantees - declaring him a non-reliable source based on your characterization of him being fringe, we should be able to do the same regarding Pioneer Fund folks like Lynn who fake IQ scores based on tests which don't map to the same distribution...and so on and so forth. Would you care to exclude anyone who has been accused by anyone else of being "fringe"? I'm sure we can both find multiple references on both sides for those accusations. --JereKrischel 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Gould's MMoM is not a schoarly work on the basis of scholarly criticism of it. Again, this is something that everyone who has previously been a major contributor has agreed on, notably Ultramarine. Your counter point is moot. The only cases where Rushton is referenced in the main text is (1) when he is a co-author with Jensen and (2) to cite him as a supporter of the hereditarian view. --Rikurzhen 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine does not represent my POV, and his agreement does not make the point moot. Your assertion that Gould's MMoM is not a scholarly work can certainly be echoed by folk who have made clear that any Pioneer Fund grantee lives under a cloud of suspicion because of the infamous history of that organization. You really can't have it both ways - if citations of criticism are enough to exclude Gould, there is no reason why citations of criticisms cannot exclude Pioneer Fund grantees. Let's face it, Rikurzhen, this is a controversial topic, and you saying you're right, and me saying I'm right about a particular thing being "fact" or not isn't constructive. NPOV can help us through by guiding us to state the opinions people have, rather than trying to demand that some opinions are "fact" and others are not. It is not unreasonable, in a field of such controversey, to give that sort of soft touch, even if you believe in your "facts" without a doubt. --JereKrischel 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
JK and Ramdrake, if you begin treating Gould as a scholarly source then we can have no debate here. That's simply ludicrous, and you are losing any trust I previously had in you two trying to engage in a scientifically sound debate here. The idea hat Gould should be even comparable in trustworthiness in this issue to Neisser is beyond the pale. Your comments upthread make you look like well-meaning but stubborn amateurs who are trying to make sense of a complex subject using only an extremely skewed understanding of the literature. Like trying to edit Evolution after having read only creationist texts. (It goes without saying that I strongly support the idea of presenting Gould's POV in this article because it is significant and widely publicized. But I thought we all had read up on how Gould's book was received by experts.) Arbor 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbor, I don't think we should be having a debate here, do you? It is not up to the editors to determine what is true and what is not - after all, I could spend pages and pages describing the poor science and shabby methods of luminaries such as Rushton and Lynn (and by association anyone who has cited them), but that really isn't the point, is it? I understand your frustration in not being able to convince me or Ramdrake of 1) the accuracy of your POV, and more importantly 2) that the highest aspiration we should have here is to present the definitive POV. I know it can be terribly frustrating to know in your heart of hearts that you are right - but this isn't about being right. We should not be trying to assert which POV is the most accepted (we certainly couldn't agree on a metric for that), nor should we be trying to denigrate and marginalize people promoting oppositve POV (although mentioning their reception by "experts", or the checkered past of their funding source does seem fair game, so long as it is stated in a neutral manner). This is a controversial topic, and I think the fair, middle ground it to accept that both sides believe they have the "facts", and to represent their beliefs as opinions, not as being right or wrong. It is not an insult to your POV to present the opinions of the experts as their opinions, not as established fact. And as a well-meaning amateur, I must say that I wouldn't dare try to assert my judgement (or make a judgement) between the "trustworthiness" of Gould and Neisser - and I don't think even experts in the field should either. --JereKrischel 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i think also you might not realize that Neisser (1997) is an extension of the APA report. Neisser was the chairman of the committee which wrote the report, and this reference is his response to critics of the report. Amongst the critics were Lynn and Rushton who criticized him for leaving out brain size measurements from the report. Neisser's reponse was to say, yes I see there are brain size measurements, but I don't think they mean what Lynn and Rushton think they mean. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, my point was only extending to Gould's opinion on brain size differences (that there isn't a significant racial difference). Regarding this point and this point only, I am comparing the opinion of a paleontologist and evolutionariy biologist (Gould) with that of a psychologist (Neisser). Of the two, who has the most expertise to address this specific point? I would say Gould, hands down. Please also notice this has nothing to do with what Gould thinks of intelligence testing, whether criticized or not. Do you have any example of a criticism of Gould's book leveled specifically at his opinion of brain size studies?--Ramdrake 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Gould's emprical research expertise is on the evolution "land snails", not human evolution (i.e. physical anthropology). If you dig you'll find discussion of Gould's claim to have correctly recalculated brain size measurements from a historical researcher (Morton), but more importantly, no one regards Gould as having summarized the mainstream opinion (his is criticized for this -- e.g., he makes no mention of MRI in MMoM, and his references are mostly historical), only of having presented his own opinion. This is discussed below. --Rikurzhen 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

4 Snyderman and Rothman (1998) studied both media opinion and media portrayal. --Rikurzhen 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, where does it say the media "misrepresented" the expert "opinion"?--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) --Rikurzhen 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean your source for this, of course, complete with actual quote, please.--Ramdrake 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The source if Snyderman and Rothman 1988, per the page I linked. I don't own the book. --Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but the statement got there somehow. Until it can be verified, I'd keep the call of "misrepresentation" out of the article. For now, it could be just the opinion of whoever read the book, for all we know.--Ramdrake 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How are we miscommunicating? I've read and summarized S&R 1988, which is what you can read here. The thesis of the book is that media portrayal is misleading wrt intelligence research. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, are you saying that you haven't read the book? But you feel in a position where you must edit a sourced statement? Do you have other reasons (like, another reference to a contrary opinion)? Arbor 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be misreading this, but isn't the issue that we simply don't trust Rikurzhen's summary? Having a direct quote would probably help things - no offense Rikurzhen, this isn't to say you don't have the best intentions, but we all have our biases, and they can creep in no matter how vigilant we are. I know Rikurzhen said he didn't own the book, but I assume he has access to it still - or should someone else head to the library and look for the reference? --JereKrischel 08:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

tags

you'll need to point out what specifically is being disputed in the tagged sections. tags aren't useful unless backed up by material from the talk page. i believe my objections to the PF claim (and especially the presentation of the NAACP office quotation) in the "accusations of bias" section are clearly spelled out in a section above. --Rikurzhen 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, JereKrischel, WP:POINT. Improving the factual accuracy is an admirable enterprise. Throwing tags around isn't. Arbor 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, maybe the foofewopinions tag is a bit overlooked. I see a lot of use and abuse of disputed, which claims factual inaccuracy, which (given the super-careful formulations used in this article) often comes off as ludicrous. What many of the editors here seems to be critical of is a perceived skewedness in reporting. Consider using toofewopinions, if that's what you mean—we might become more productive! Here is how it looks. Arbor 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
.
Thanks Arbor, that looks like it may be useful in a place or two. :)--Ramdrake 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to make clearer the disputed facts in my comments, and I'll follow up on details as time permits - I'm not trying to throw them around carelessly, but I believe Rikurzhen served as a good example, and wanted to follow his lead in clearly identifying the areas which are factually disputed (primarly because opinion is presented as fact, both in and out of references). I'll add more later, please see my check-in comments for my initial basis and concerns. --JereKrischel 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

facts and opinions - the opinions that people hold are facts

From WP:RS

  • A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can feel free to assert them.

  • An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
  • that certain psychological traits have been found to differ by race is a fact about what has been reported. (the person who's opinion it is is described in the footnote; there's not enough room to always say who the authors are inline).
  • that IQ differences vary by race is a fact that scholar seriously disputes.

--Rikurzhen 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that certain psychologial traits "have been found to differ by race" is not a fact - the context required for that statement (what is your definition of "race", for example, were the test subjects representative of this "race"), is a critical bit of information, without which the "fact" being presented is patently disputed. And we can always say that "authors" assert something about results without specifically identifying them by name. --JereKrischel 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The lead block of the article and subsequent section purposefully set out working defintions of race. This is not just background, but setting out the working assumptions of how the article will be described. Per WP:NPOV, it's necessary to make certain assumptions when writing article (about science). (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions) That races refer to groups that people are generally concordant about is one of those assumptions.
I'm not sure what you mean by we can always say that "authors" assert something about results without specifically identifying them by name, but it sounds as if you want to rewrite each sentence to cast doubt on all conclusions. As per below, the assumption that a published finding is suspect is implausible for the healthy writing of an encyclopedia article. --Rikurzhen 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe you're finally understanding NPOV - we should not be asserting disputed "facts" with certainty - there should very well be doubt. Especially considering the contradictory published findings, it certainly does not belong to us to determine what should be portrayed as having no doubt at all. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The nature of race is disputed. The existence of various race differences (which you are calling disputed) are not. The dispute over the nature of race does not make the uncontested findings about race differences not "facts". This was a topic of debate long ago and this was the conclusion we reached. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The existence of various race differences are disputed, if the very utility of race is disputed (Cavalli-Sforza). I'm sorry I wasn't around to join in on your debate a long time ago, but I frankly disagree vehemently with your conclusion, and I think you can hardly expect me to agree to a conclusion I was not a part of simply because it predates my editing on the R&I page. Again, I think we do ourselves the best favor, and honor NPOV, if we simply avoid trying to assert that disputed "facts" are undisputed fact. Let's simply present the opinions of those giving them, with the appropriate citations, and leave the decision of what is "fact" and what is not to the reader. --JereKrischel 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The logic that gets you to saying that conclusions about IQ, etc. differences between races is disputed on the basis of "race" being disputed is not appropriate. It's exactly what "making necessary assumptions" is about. I'm sorry that we're the only once left to have this conversion, but I can't stress enough that your recommendation goes beyond what's reasonable or appropriate. --Rikurzhen 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, since we are so far apart on what "necessary assumptions" should be made, I think it behooves us to abide by NPOV by simply stating what opinions are out there and who has them, rather than trying to make a decision as to what is "fact" and what is not. The entire construction of presenting opinions as opinions, rather than converting them into "facts" is what allows people with wildly divergent viewpoints on a topic to work together - try for a moment to write for the "enemy", and see if you can put yourself into the other set of shoes for a while. I think you are so convinced of being "right" that it is very difficult for you to understand the other point of view. I know I fall victim to this kind of myopia as well at times, so it isn't meant as a slight - we all get stuck once in a while. --JereKrischel 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i can't even remember where this conversation started, so i simply recommend that we stick to specifics. but what i am certain on in the specific is that debate about the nature of race does not impinge upon our descriptions of the existence of race differences in IQ, etc. like creationism and the evolution of horses (the example from NPOV), the race debate is background about which a necessary assumption must be made in order to describe this topic. --Rikurzhen 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate about the nature, or the utility of race is a huge caveat that must not be glossed over. It would be like talking about acts of divine intervention reported by the news without addressing the issue of whether or not there is a god or gods or goddesses. Without presenting the appropriate context (which I believe is absent from much of the article), we are simply asking the witness, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?". --JereKrischel 05:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why we have a whole section titled "race" that describes the background. It's the very first thing after the lead block. --Rikurzhen 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems indeed to be an text-book example of what WP policy advocates. Arbor 08:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Question - how far should our assumptions go? For example, should we simply assume that we're only talking about U.S. blacks, or should we make that context obvious in every example? (I would argue we should specify U.S. blacks when that is the case, but I also understand some of the research does not do a good job of making things clear.) What about laying out in the intro the other caveat of "not every bit of research has used the same working definition of "race", and so therefore may not be applicable in combination?" I'm not entirely averse to listing our assumptions in the intro, and sparing the text, but as it stands I think there are many unwritten assumptions being made (for example, when the APA said it found no "obvious" bias, the assumption that that meant it found that there was no bias of any kind). --JereKrischel 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

test bias

there is no detectable racial bias in IQ tests (textbook fact).

that's what the APA meant by "obvious" bias. they don't mean that non-obvious bias is also known. --Rikurzhen 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You should use the quote from the APA, rather than replacing the word "no detectable" for "obvious". The two are very different. --JereKrischel 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think this is exactly the major problem I have with most of the references - they are subtly asserted as facts with different wording which changes the meaning. Rikurzhen has taken, The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, and turned it into there is no detectable racial bias in IQ tests, which clearly isn't what the quote stated. In fact, the APA did not say anything about there being no detectable bias - they only said that there were no obvious bias - they clearly leave room for closer examination to detect racial bias. --JereKrischel 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you know the literature well enough to reach these conclusions from reason alone. Which is not to say that I might not be ignorant of some vital criticial source. However, a position of default skepticism against the conclusions of (now rather old) scholarly publications is not justified. --Rikurzhen 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
We can certainly avoid the issue by sticking to quotes instead of doing personal paraphrasing - regardless of experience in the field, I can certainly tell the difference between an original quote and a paraphrase which changes its meaning in a subtle way. It will take time to go through all of the subtle bias that has crept into some of the statements of "fact", but I'm sure together we'll be able to remedy the current state of dispute into something much more NPOV. --JereKrischel 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Excecpt you're misreading the APA report, as per below. We certainly can't write an article that consists only of quotations, citations, and linking phrases. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm misreading the APA report at all - claiming that there are no "obvious" biases does not preclude the existence of subtle biases. Conflating their report with others who claim categorically that there are no biases at all is inappropriate, and POV. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You will fail to find a reliable/recent secondary source which claims that there is any evidence for test bias. They will claim that the question of test bias has been long ago resolved. --Rikurzhen 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.),The black-white test score gap(pp. 1-51). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. . Jencks and Phillips conclude that: ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap." (p. 20) Now that I have illustrated to you that there are reliable and recent sources which contest your assertion that the issue is one-sided, are you more amicable to including a healthy dose of skepticism for both sides? --JereKrischel 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Be a bit more careful! That's talking about the hereditarian causal theory, not test bias. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not inerrant, but I'm not clueless either. As per the material from Sternberg's handbooks (below), there's no doubt about the test bias question. --Rikurzhen 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
From Jencks & Phillips: Labeling bias. Labeling bias occurs when tests claim to measure one thing but really measure another. Jencks and Phillips say that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability. Because developed ability depends heavily on environmental characteristics, groups that live in disadvantaged environments will score lower. . I think you're right that we should be careful - "test administration bias" is not the only type of bias that can affect scoring. --JereKrischel 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
See below. --Rikurzhen 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The APA is not the only source. The WSJ report says "Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class." The conclusion of no bias is also reported in S&R 1987. The consensus of the consensus reports is no bias, as described by Jensen (1980). --Rikurzhen 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then Dickens and Flynn (in press B) reaffirmed the conclusion by pointing out against Rushton and Jensen (in press) that the BW gap is in fact "measurement invariant" which means no bias. --Rikurzhen 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original: Several published consensus statements agree that the large difference between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites in the U.S. cannot be attributed to biases in test construction,. Seeing as the APA mentioned does not make that assertion, we should make clear that Gottfredson comes to a particularly different conclusion than the APA - conflating the two very different statements is what makes this statement factually disputed. --JereKrischel 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that your interpretation of "obvious" is mistaken. They mean "obvious" in that people have looked in all the "obvious" places and found nothing. But this is also a case where new results have outdated both statements. The BW gap is measurement invariant, as measured by MGCFA, which is a sophisticated technique not used in the mid 90s. This finding is cited, approvingly, by Dickens and Flynn. We have no good reason to strech out the discussion as you have or to try to drawn distinctions between APA and WSJ. --Rikurzhen 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am very aware of what the word "obvious" means, and I think your statement indicates you do as well - they have looked in all the "obvious" places - which is not the entire universe of places, as I'm sure you'll agree. That leaves room for the existence of bias, as per the APA, in "non-obvious" places, which is different than the categorical claims of other groups which have stated that there are no biases, obvious or subtle. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The opposite of obvious isn't "subtle". ... This game of semantics isn't progressing. The fact remains that all secondary sources which discuss test bias say (in one way or another) that test bias has been examined and never found. They conclude that there is no test bias. You are establishing a false conflict between the APA and WSJ report by suggesting that they reach different conclusions (or essentially by suggesting that the APA reaches a conclusion different than all other reports). Another problem: the way "factor invarance" is being described -- again, unjustified skepticism. Published conclusions are tenatively taken as true facts, unless someone else rebutts them. Having a otherwise critical source acknowledge them is about as established as you can get. --Rikurzhen 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Use whatever opposite you like..."inconspicuous" or "obscure" will suit me just fine as well. Your categorical assertion that no secondary source has concluded that there is *no* test bias is patently false: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm - they particularly talk about labelling bias, even though they disclaim any content bias or methodological bias. Again, you've taken a true statement (there is no content bias), and warped it into a false statement (there is no bias whatsoever). This is really the critical problem I see scattered all throughout this article - important context is missing, and fine, narrow points are expanded to include situtations they did not address at all. --JereKrischel 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reflecting on the title of this section: facts and opinions - the opinions that people hold are facts. If that were true, because Samuel Rowbotham thought the Earth was flat, and talked about it to whoever wanted to listen, that means that the Earth being flat is a fact? I don't think so. The only fact I see is that he believed the Earth is flat. That people have opinions is a fact. That their opinions are automatically facts - well, for your sake and mine, I just hope this isn't true.--Ramdrake 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought he had meant that it is a fact that someone holds an opinion, not that their opinions are also fact removed from the personalization....perhaps I misread. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm also quite sure that's what he meant, but word for word, that's not what was written. I just wanted to make a point that there may be a difference between what someone means and what they say or write.
Read the the text excerpted from WP:RS. Rikurzhen 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


  • International Handbook of Intelligence (2004) edited by Robert J. Sternberg: "the accepted defintions of bias (Jensen, 1980)" [Jensen 1980 reports no test bias for BW gap] ... a review of test bias in Israeli tests finds no evidence of bias, consistent with most reviews.
  • Handbook of intelligence (2000) also edited by Sternberg: section on test bias compares WSJ and APA, finding only difference in extent of explication in APA on the various types of bias which are recognized/tested. Mentions that tests are taken to be "prima facie impartial" --Rikurzhen 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To write that APA and WSJ are reaching different conclusions is OR. There's no reason to list the various defintions of bias (in this Summary Style section, but see the main article [2]), but it suffices to say that all recognized defintions of bias have been tested and none has been found (other than "outcome bias" which is just that the IQ test gives different means). --Rikurzhen 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Jencks and Phillips

moved from article:


Another important issue regarding the explanations of measured IQ differences is the concept of "labeling bias", described by Jencks and Phillips (1998). They insist that there exists a labelling bias in the tests, stating that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability.[1] Their assertion is that non-cultural environmental factors cause gaps measured by the tests, rather than any possible innate difference based on genetics, and to use these tests as a measure of innate difference is misleading and improper.[2]


someone, i hope the author of the site, is very confused. i know of no psychometric basis for ascribing a distinction to developed versus learned ability. the nearest psychometric analogy is to fluid and crystallized g, which is itself controversial. if so, that's not a kind of "test bias" in the sense that applies to BW differences, but to the design of tests in general. --Rikurzhen 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

but if by "innate" they mean hereditary, then there's something terribly wrong in this description. whether a person's abilities arose from genetic or envionrmental sources can't be ascertained on an individual level. --Rikurzhen 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

there are many definitions of test bias. most of those relevant to the BW gap are described in the sub article here: Race_and_intelligence_(Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation)#Test_bias --Rikurzhen 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is quite clear from Jencks and Phillips - the U.S. BW gap may not have content bias, or methodology bias, but labeling bias is critical to the pro-hereditarian POV. If you cannot assert that once you get rid of content bias and methodology bias, there is nothing left but genetics, their position is untenable. And considering that on the subject of heridiability, they state, ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap." (p. 20), it seems that there is a strong admonition against the belief that once content and methodology are controlled for, there is nothing but genetics left over. In any case, it is a distortion to assert that because people have not found cultural bias in tests that there is no bias whatsoever there. --JereKrischel 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, seriously, there's something completely odd about this description -- like 1+1=3 odd. You'll want to see the original to get the real meaning.

No one thinks that eliminating test bias means that the BW gap is genetic. The modal anti-hereditarian view can be ascribed to Flynn, who is a very respectable scholar. He does not believe there is test bias, and yet he also doesn't believe that the BW gap is caused by genetics. If there were test bias, then it would mean that the BW gap is not a gap in intelligence, but a problem with the tests. --Rikurzhen 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are pro-hereditarians who assert that once cultural and other bias is taken into account, the only thing left is genetics. Again, I think you're not addressing test bias in a specific enough fashion - Flynn may very well believe there is no cultural bias, or methodlological bias, but may understand that there is a labelling bias. Take note of the mention of labelling bias, and how that in the case of the BW gap, asserting that the results are from innate differences is not the mainstream POV - Jencks and Phillips say that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability. There very well may be a problem with the tests' ability to measure innate ability, rather than developed ability. This kind of problem is critical to the discussion of R&I, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I know of no hereditarian proponents how have made such a claim. Certainly Jensen has not. Such a claim would be naive and stupid. For example, SES differences would be be next prima facie explanation. (2) "Labeling bias" is a term that's new to me, possibly a neologism of J&P, but as described it is something fundamentally different than the kind of test bias described in other secondary sources. (3) There's something fundamentally not correct about what the web page is describing. The most likely explanation is that the author has misrepresented the views of J&P. An alternative explanation is that this is a dumbed-down explanation of Gf and Gc. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


btw the definition of cultural bias is: if people from different cultures score differently despite possessing the relevant skills and abilities to the same extent, then the IQ test is culturally biased. it doesn't have to do with culture affecting skills. and it's not the same as cultural load. --Rikurzhen 07:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JK you really need to stop added the web-site material that purports to describe what Jencks calls "labeling bias" to the articles. We need to first ascertain what Jencks actually means. A scholarly secondary source which describes Jencks's views and their relationship to other views is essential. You are describing "labeling bias" as related to "cultural bias" but that is (as far as I can tell) absolutely wrong. --Rikurzhen 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous other sources discussing Jencks' "labeling bias" on google scholar. I only put it as "related" to cultural-bias due to the original section heading, which has now been changed to "Explanations". I've removed the note regarding its relation to cultural bias - hopefully that is sufficient. --JereKrischel 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through them and they appear to be book reviews. The "labeling bias" argument appears to be a kind of argument for "culture only", and so would go in that section. However, there are myriad individual arguments for the "culture only" position. We do not have the space in a summary style subsection to enumerate them. What's needed is evidence that "labeling bias" is considered important by anyone other than Jencks. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think 'labeling bias' is particularly distinct from 'culture only', and I apologize for conflating the two earlier by writing they had a relationship - I was trying to fit it into the section heading, and the more appropriate move was to change the heading. It certainly seems that Jencks is well cited by others, so I would say we've gotten our secondary sources there. I've put back the section, and modified the prior section to be more specific. --JereKrischel 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A book review is not the kind of citation we need to establish relevance. Some people's ideas don't get taken up. This appears to be true of Jencks' labeling bias idea. He does not seem to have published about it elsewhere, nor does anyone else appear to have published about it in any kind of literature review (or introduction/disucssion section of primary source). I again searched the 2000 and 2004 Sternberg edited Handbooks of Intelligence -- there was mention of Jencks name only in the 2000 book, but only in reference to a 1972 paper and to a chapter about test score convergence -- there was no mention of "labeling bias". Not all new ideas are taken up, and the "labeling bias" idea appears to be an idea unique to Jencks, at least in his formulation. (As I noted, it may have some relationship to Gf and Gc.) --Rikurzhen 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to Google Scholar, he is cited several times, in different journals as well as in book reviews, I would say often enough to keep the passage on the main page. I think the fact that this concept is not mentioned in your reference book is of little import; after all, there are structures that even Gray's Anatomy (the book, not the TV show :) ) doesn't discuss.--Ramdrake 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out which papers you think establish the importance of "labeling bias". As per my comments above, my reading of the literature finds no adoption of the concept. And of course, textbooks are exactly the kind of criteria we need to establish what is important and what is not. "Labeling bias" obviously didn't make it into the APA and WSJ reports as the term was invented many years later, so all we are left with is text books, etc. --Rikurzhen 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Circular Illogic/False Tautology

Ramdrake, above in #2 you posted this:

"If the purpose of this article is to show that there are IQ differences between races and that there may be some genetic component..."

You rightly go on to criticize the brain size argument but there are even more fundamental problems. That sentence fragment is a false tautology, describing the issue incompletely as "IQ differences between races" already errantly presupposes there is a "genetic component" because the words "races" and "genetic" are related and subconsciously implicate each other. A neutral encyclopedia has to describe and frame each issue using words that can't possibly induce a jumping to conclusion. Given that the words "races" and "genetic" have related meaning in this context your sentence is basically saying "If the purpose of this article is to show X then X may be a component of X" which seems like infinitely confusing and circular doublespeak.

Additionally, the word "may" is ambiguous as it also means "give permission" which would be incorrect in this context, "might" is much better. Also, the word "show" seems needlessly conclusive, wouldn't it be better to say "If the purpose of this article is to report on X..."? Awareness of Language 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

relevant policy

copied here by Rikurzhen 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I understand the policy, I simply don't believe that your vilification of Gould is any more appropriate than an automatic removal of anyone associated with the Pioneer Fund (for example, if we consider anyone associated with the Pioneer Fund as not an independent secondary source, are there any out there that agree with the pro-hereditarian stance in the same way?). The idea that there is bias in testing between "races", and that there is not any bias, is controversial, debatable, and you cannot rationally accept the arguments that denigrate one side if you're not also willing to accept the arguments that denigrate the other. The disagreement we have here is nowhere near global warming, or creationism in scope, and the analogy to such really falls flat.
That being said, I greatly appreciate your patience in discussing the issue. I believe I understand your general concern (regarding inserting doubt), but I think you will have to agree that allowing doubt to exist, and both sides to be presented in a sympathetic, and neutral manner, is the heart of NPOV. I know we can get there together, but I think the first step will be to let go of trying to marginalize the characters on either side of the debate. --JereKrischel 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
re: test bias -- I'm guessing you haven't read what I've written above. --Rikurzhen 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From the ArbCom on Global Warming

2) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. However, this does not imply that all competing points of view deserve equal consideration in an article.

8) Since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate content, we cannot regard all references as equally valid and give them all equal weight. Editors should exercise care in the selection and use of references. The closer a reference is to current peer reviewed work, the better. Balance must also be attained by properly labeling and attributing significant dissenting views (where they exist).

Making necessary assumptions

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

Beware false authority

Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, college textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. High school and middle school textbooks, however, do not try to be authoritative and they are subject to political approval.

from RS

  • Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
  • Find out what other people say about your sources.
  • Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
  • A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view.
  • Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus
  • In science, avoid citing the popular press

What is an independent secondary source?

Independent secondary sources:

  • Have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes;
  • Have not collaborated;
  • May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them.

Even given the same primary sources, different analysts may come to different conclusions about the facts being reported. In practice, many secondary sources find and use different primary sources in the course of their research. Conscious biases, unconscious biases, and errors are not always self-evident. The best way to expose them is to cross-check with another secondary source.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERace_and_intelligence_Archive_29_ff8a.html"