Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Problems with other articles in this "series"

Race and intelligence
History
Research Test data Explanations Interpretations
Media portrayal
Controversies Utility of research Potential for bias
References
This box: view • talk • edit

[edit] Race and intelligence (References)

Main article: Talk:Race and intelligence (References)

This sub-article isn't functioning very well, for one thing, many of the sources cited don't appear in any of the articles in the "series" --another problem is the definition of what articles should be in the series in the first place. As we plan to restructure this article, it will make sense to merge, change and reorganize all of the material in the series. I think that references should be listed inline with the text, since this will make this process easier. The current references system makes fact checking quite difficult, since, after looking at a source I don't know where it was used and in what ways. I also don't know which sources need to be checked and which are just "additional information." Please see the talk page for this article and weigh in on the questions and concerns I've raised there. Thanks!

[edit] Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Main article: Talk:Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

This article is in bad shape for a number of reasons outlined on the talk page. Please weigh in: Talk:Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) 1 Major concerns 1.1 Mostly Snyderman and Rothman 1.2 Misleading title 1.3 No historical content or context 1.4 Tone, selective quoting

[edit] Race and intelligence (explanations)

Main article: Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)

JK is removing a large section of the explanations article that gives argument and counter arguments for the two major views. His claim is that despite being referenced, this is a "straw man". As far as I can tell, it's not the individual items that JK objects to, but the notion that there is a debate in the literature where sides disagree with one another and that we should document their arguments. His argument cites "undue weight" but rather than trying to balance the text (JK did this previously) he has simply removed it. --W. D. Hamilton 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

on the partly-genetic vs environment only divide, each of the 3 major sources makes the same distinction

WSJ - Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.
APA - It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972).
S&R - Respondents were asked to express their opinion of the role of genetic differences in the black-white IQ differential. Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation, compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely due to environmental variation. Twenty-four percent of experts do not believe there are sufficient data to support any reasonable opinion, and 14% did not respond to the question. Eight experts (1%) indicate a belief in an entirely genetic determination.

i think these make it clear that the collective statements recognize the major views as the "partly genetic" and "entirely ... environmental" positions. --W. D. Hamilton 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you cite 3 sources, and ignore the contents of them that don't follow your POV. The fact that there is a debate in the literature does not give you license to characterize it only in the manner of pro-hereditarians. You clearly use some creative interpretation in turning "environment is important" and "partly due", into "environment only" and "partly genetic". Putting up a laundry list of evidence, in order to imply that the pro-hereditarian view has successful counter arguments for the straw-man "environment only", is clearly POV pushing. Your success at turning these articles into meta-analysis research papers worthy of publication elsewhere notwithstanding, you are doing a disservice to the encyclopedic nature of these articles. --JereKrischel 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response is to offer no counter evidence, but to suggest that my plain reading of these texts is a POV push. Where is the wiggle room in the meaning of these texts? They clearly indicate that the two views are 'genes and environment' versus 'environment only'. "environment is important" + "partly due" to genetics --> "partly genetic"; "entirely due to environmental variation" --> "environment only". --W. D. Hamilton 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the positions are "partly-genetic". As you yourself have pointed out in the past, the problem is that people don't agree on the magnitude of the genetic component. Choosing the language of "partly-genetic" to represent your POV, when it could equally apply to either side, is misleading and POV pushing. It is a common rhetorical trick of pro-hereditarians to characterize their opponents as "environment only", when in fact that is not the case. Your "plain" readings of the text are not nearly as plain as you think they are. --JereKrischel 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the positions are "partly-genetic". Ask James Flynn about that. I'm pretty sure he'll say that's wrong. The survey found Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation, compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely due to environmental variation. The position that the "the difference is entirely due to environmental variation" is not compatible with it being "partly-genetic" in any substantial sense. The gap could be 5% genetic but no one would say that it is "partly-genetic". Such a gap would be experimentally indistinguishable from a "environment only" gap -- and that's what these labels are about, describing views on what people believe the experimental data indicates. --W. D. Hamilton 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The 45% you cite did not make any statement as to the proportion of genetic factors. There is no evidence that all 45% of them meant that the gap was 80% genetic, or that all 45% of them meant that the gap was 2% genetic. Since the majority of the issue is what that percentage contribution is, the survey really doesn't give you any strong evidence that the 20-80% genetic position is right, and the <20% genetic position is wrong. You yourself, in claiming that 5% genetic is not "partly-genetic", illustrate the confusion of using the term "partly-genetic". Clearly, the plain english meaning of "partly" does not exclude a very small part, such as 5%, or 1%. Your attempt to use the rhetoric of the pro-hereditarian POV as a way of framing the debate is POV pushing, not amenable to plain interpretations of the english language, and utterly inappropriate. --JereKrischel 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

S&R clearly think that their survey indicates that 45% of those surveyed hold the same view as Arthur Jensen. Sternberg does not dispute this. For those surveyed, the meaning and implication of these terms would be clear. --W. D. Hamilton 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

With clearer questions, perhaps they would be able to assert something stronger than just a thought. Sternberg aside, I do not think that you can rightfully make the assertion that the meaning and implication of the terms used in the multiple choice survey were clear enough to make the distinction you're trying to assert. --JereKrischel 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading over the S&R survey, it seems that we've failed to report the expert opinion that IQ tests are a little more than "somewhat biased" by race, slightly more than "somewhat biased" by socioeconomic status, as well as the discussion about socioeconomic class differences in IQ (where apparently 55%, rather than 45%, believe in the "genetic-environmental" option. Odd that more experts find genetic contributions in socioeconomics, than race, don't you think? Seems like an important addition. --JereKrischel 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd that more experts find genetic contributions in socioeconomics, than race, don't you think? Seems like an important addition. - not odd at all because within race differences are due to genetics and non-shared environment. --W. D. Hamilton 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. It seems that according to the S&R survey, expert opinion believes that socioeconomic status is a better proxy for genetics than "race" is. It's hard to understand why experts would believe that socioeconomic groups are genetically linked more than "racial" groups are. Actually, it's even hard to understand why socioeconomic groups would be genetically linked at all (why would a poor white man from New York have any genetic similarities to a poor black man from Texas?). --JereKrischel 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because "proxy for genetics" is not the same thing as a genetic contribution to group phenotypic differences. --W. D. Hamilton 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Please explain how you would hypothesize the existence of genetic contribution to group phenotypic differences based simply on socioeconomic status. If I understand the racialist POV correctly, the hypothesis is that alleged long periods of historical separation of people caused them to drift genetically from each other. How would that work for socioeconomic status? Genetic drift due to the weight of a pocketbook, or the size of a house? If in fact, the "partly-genetic" hypothesis you want to infer from S&R doesn't really mean that those experts were asserting that there are real and useful genetic differences between races in regards to IQ, what do you think it means? --JereKrischel 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you have a reference by page where S&R think 45% of those surveyed hold the same view as Arthur Jensen? I couldn't find any reference in the S&R survey text to that. --JereKrischel 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

APA - It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). -- What is the negation of "partly due to genetic differences"? That's the other view. --W. D. Hamilton 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please expand your quote a bit - The Genetic Hypothesis. It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). --JereKrischel 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the only hypothesis that includes any genetics, no? It's the partly-genetic hypothesis and the no-genetics hypothesis, no? Where no-genetics = whatever you want to call it, but environment only matches S&R. --W. D. Hamilton 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you yourself said 5% genetic would not be called "partly-genetic". By that very statement you admit that non-racialists can include genetics in their hypothesis, just of a differing amount. --JereKrischel 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

5% wouldn't be detectable (5%*15 points = 0.75 points). It would not affect their hypothesis to find that they overlooked 5% or some such small number. Your argument is simply too sophisticated for its own good. You're generating a controversy that isn't supported by the literature. There are clearly two major views on the role of genetics in race differences, one that posits a partial role for genes and one that posits no role for genes. --W. D. Hamilton 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. There is another major view on the role of genetics in race differences, a view often expressed -> race is not a good proxy for genes. One might as well assert a role for genetics in astrological sign differences. The fact that 5% isn't detectable today, does not mean it will never be so. It may be strong evidence that race is not a good proxy for genes (let's say, if we find a 6% contribution of genetics to differences in IQ by astrological sign, and only a 5% contribution to differences in IQ by race). Your POV is clearly the one asserted, and presented by pro-hereditarians, and the basic framing of your argument is not neutral. --JereKrischel 05:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that response is informative. Your characterization of the "utility of race" debate is likewise off. If you think that races are not a good way to describe human genetic variation, then you may be inclined to conclude for any given phenotype that the probability of a genetic contribution is low (argument made by Gould). This is an argument for the implausibility of a genetic contribution, an environment-only position. --W. D. Hamilton 05:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Asserting that race is not a valid proxy for genetics is not an "environment-only" position. It is a critique of the very framing of the question. Again, please see the above reference regarding lemon juice, water and sugar. --JereKrischel 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way -- what fraction of the literature that debates the cause of group differences consists of proponents of one environmental hypothesis disagreeing with proponents of another environmental hypothesis, and what fraction consists of partly-genetic and environment-only proponents disagreeing with one another? --W. D. Hamilton 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way -- what fraction of the literature that disagrees with the assertion of group differences by "race" consists of critiques of the use of race as a scientific category? In almost every anti-hereditarian critique, this is a primary point. In either case, it would seem that determining that fraction would be original research, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point was rhetorical. The debate is characterized by two major sets of hypotheses. The question of the nature of race is simply a facet, like spearman's hypothesis or transracial adoption is. In almost every anti-hereditarian critique, this is a primary point. -- this appears to concede my point, no? --W. D. Hamilton 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate is characterized in one way by pro-hereditarians, and by another way by anti-racialists. The question of the nature of race is not simply a facet, it is fundamental to the entire question. The fact is that there are numerous anti-hereditarians on intelligence in the context of BGH who are pro-hereditarians in the context of WGH. It is POV pushing to deny them them the complexity of their viewpoint, and insisting that they are simply "environment only". --JereKrischel 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate is characterized in one way by pro-hereditarians, and by another way by anti-racialists. - no, they just have different opinions about these facets. you've offered no evidence that they don't agree about what they disagree on. anti-hereditarians on intelligence in the context of BGH who are pro-hereditarians in the context of WGH - this argument is based on a pun. it's not a problem to be able to explain that partly-genetic about individuals is not identical to partly-genetic about groups, and it's certainly not an argument against the cause of group differences wrt genetics being the central divide in the r&i debate. --W. D. Hamilton 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Having differing opinions on the importance of various "facets" as you call them, is a matter of characterizing the debate. Anti-racialists place a high importance on critiquing the concept of "race", and pro-hereditarians place a high importance on the idea of "partly-genetic" as a fundamentally unassailable position (since even in two random draws of people from the same "race" could find a "partly-genetic" cause to the group difference between the two). Regarding BGH heredtiarians and WGH hereditarians, that is a central divide from the anti-racialist POV. You seem to insist that only one side has the proper view of the debate. Why can't you accept that the question of where the divide lies is not a closed one? --JereKrischel 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're very confused and/or you're extrapolating well beyond what you've read somwhere. Why can't you accept that the question of where the divide lies is not a closed one? - How does that make any sense at all? What literature says the things you are arguing? --W. D. Hamilton 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

First a quick question - are you Razib K, and are you being paid to maintain the R&I articles here? You said gnxp.com was your blog, and it seems like your sole focus here on wikipedia is only R&I articles. I don't mean to pry, but I get the feeling that you are working here in a professional manner, and I think that perhaps to find balance we should have some sort of professional input for the other POV...perhaps a professor or researcher in the field with an anti-racialist POV would have similar access to materials and time as you do to help balance the article. I'm simply an amateur, and came across R&I by accident following the bouncing ball of vandalism from other pages.

Second, I was asking you to accept that the pro-racialist POV puts a dividing line in one place, and the anti-racialist POV puts a dividing line in another place. I'm sorry if that didn't make sense to you. The literature I cited, which clearly puts a dividing line in a place other than the S&R survey categories, says exactly what I am stating. --JereKrischel 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm nobody you'd know, and it's quite rude to suggest that I'm a paid to write here. When there were four PhD editors working on this article, you wouldn't have been able to sling this kind of material around, but now that it's just me I suppose you'll use whatever debating technique you can to try to make me quit. Your interest in me, rather than in my arguments, doesn't speak well for your seriousness about this. (2) Ask me to accept? You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. You've drawn your own conclusions which are several steps removed from what written in any of the articles you've cited. What you've posted are arguments in a debate, not descriptions of the question being debated. Do you notice that the positive arguments for each side in the explanations subsection in this article are largely non-overlapping? This isn't because they are trying to answer different questions, but because they emphasize different arguments. The APA, WSJ, and S&R surveys are correct in the description of the debate and that debate isn't different than the one being made when arguments are made that there's something wrong with race. --W. D. Hamilton 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My question about your professional interest in this series of articles is simply to note that to gain some balance, we probably need expertise to match yours on the other POV. You have done an admirable job of expressing your expertise, but a poor job of presenting balance. I'm very surprised that you cannot see that the argument being presented in the articles I've cited confound your assertion that the sides are "partly-genetic" and "environment only". At the very best, you may be able to assert a "genetic hypothesis" and an "environmental hypothesis" from some of the literature, but the framing of the debate to make "partly-genetic" the pro-hereditarian POV, rather than doing "partly-environmental" and "genetic only", is simply reflecting the rhetoric of pro-hereditarians only. Your continued reliance on only 3 sources that don't support your position seems confused. --JereKrischel 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"partly-environmental" and "genetic only" - no one believes the gap is "genetic only" - look at the three quotes I listed. "partly-environmental" = "partly genetic" by virtue of additive identity. you may be able to assert a "genetic hypothesis" and an "environmental hypothesis" from some of the literature -- if the only difference between your argument and mine is over the the use of the word partly, then that's a distinction without a difference and not something that should have taken this long to figure out. otoh, if you want to distinguish the "environmental hypothesis" from the "no race" hypothesis as you in the section above, then I would ask why you also believe that In almost every anti-hereditarian critique, this is a primary point. (above). --W. D. Hamilton 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "partly" is awfully important here. It is a distinction with a difference, because it essentially claims the ground between .01%-100% (or 0%-99.99%), and insists that any other interpretation must be claiming the extreme. This is patently untrue. The balanced literature on the topic uses the terms "substantially" to distinguish the two POVs, not "partly". Further, when I say In almost every anti-hereditarian critique, I obviously mean BGH hereditarians who use race as their groupings. The "no race" hypothesis can include those who people who believe that any two arbitrary groups may have a genetic difference between them simply by chance, therefore affirming that there may be a genetic component to the differences between these groups, but denying that this genetic component is because the groups were well chosen. --JereKrischel 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The content and implications of your argument suggest that it is to an inappropriate extent a product of your own thinking, rather than a direct representation of what others have argued in the literature. (1) the suggestion that diminutive contributions from genes (e.g. single digit heritabilities) would constitute a phenotype being "partly genetic" is not an argument that any knowledgeable source would make (and isn't one that you've backed with sources). the sample sizes of a study needed to detect such small effects are prohibitive -- anyone who's seen the raw data from a within group heritability study would understand that such effects could never be detected practically. that is, you'd never be able to demonstrate the existence of such a small genetic contribution, and thus it would appear to be entirely environmental. (2) the suggestion that there can be substantive genetic differences by chance fails for the same reason. IQ is a complex trait (technical term) that appears to be controlled by no or few loci of large effect. rather, there are most likely hundreds of loci of small effect. it becomes exponentially less likely that any substantial genetic differences could exist between groups as the number of loci increases if those groups are truly arbitrary. consider the ratio of heads to tails as you flip a coin; the more times you flip the more unlikely you are to diverge from 50:50. -- Thus, while there could by logic alone exist individuals who hold the beliefs you suggest are possible, I know of no such individuals. In fact, all the evidence discussed supports the view that such individuals do not constitute a signficiant group. --W. D. Hamilton 08:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) the suggestion that single digit heritabilities (if you assert heritability is a measure of "genetic" contribution exclusive of environment) is not "partly-genetic" is only ever expressed in pro-racialist literature. The sources you yourself have cited do not lay out the areas as "partly" anything, but use the term "substantially". Your "partly-genetic" is not a direct representation at all of the racialist/hereditarian position described in most of the literature. (2) You are correct that given more flips of the coin you are likely to reach 50:50, but as you've pointed out in your first response, prohibitive sample sizes make a large number of "flips" impractical. With small sample sizes, it's quite easy to have a bias in one direction or another detected.

I have a difficult time understanding why you want to inaccurately conflate the substantially environmental position with "entirely environmental". Your argument for the impracticality of studies to test the hypothesis as a reason to consider something "entirely environmental" seems to be a logical fallacy, as pointed out in the literature. Just as very few people may argue the "substantially genetic" hypothesis (and as per the APA, no data supports that hypothesis), I'm equally sure that very few people would argue the "entirely environmental" hypothesis (unless you consider somehow the challenges to the categories of "race" as somehow "environmental"). Your insistence that people who believe that the differences are substantially due to environment must be extremists to the degree of "entirely environmental" is POV pushing. --JereKrischel 10:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving ahead

Folks, I just archived a lot of material - because this talk page had become ten times longer than it should be.

Right now, the article is protected. I didn't protect it, but given the HUGE amount of talk going on I think it makes sense to pinpoint and resolve some key conflicts before moving on. The alternative is to keep talking in circles. I personally believe that there is now much more clarity about the differences between JK and WRN. I have two procedural suggestions right now; I hope everyone understands that my only intention is to be constructive in as practical a way as possible. First, I suggest that people stop adding to earlier threads (i.e. the above sections of the talk page), at least for now. Instead, I suggest that we sum up the central points of contention, which are currently addressed in different ways in different sections above, and sum them up and discuss them here. Second, I suggest that the principal contributors to this discussion be limited to JK and WRN. I say this because it is my sense that they represent the most active contributors involved in the conflict and if these two can resolve at least part of the conflict, whatever they come up with will likely be supported my most others and we can all move on. I do not mean to denigrate the value of other people's comments, some of which have been very constructive. And if people see a solution to any of the points of conflict between JK and WRN they should by all means propose it. But I think it is critical that we assiduously refrain from using this page just to express our opinion or to say we agree or disagree with JK or WRN unless the comment clearly proposes a way to satisfy both JK and WRN as a real imporvement to the article in its current state. Otherwise, please refrain from comment.

Here is one of WRN's most recent comments, and it is in response to something JK wrote, so I propose it as a point of departure. Alternatively, I would invite JK and WRN to sum up as consisely as possible what they think are the issues in contention that must be resolved first, and use that as a point of departure.

SLR, i missed when this question was asked, but I think this table represents an original and inaccurate presentation of views about the cause of group differences. On one hand, literature divided along the race (columns) axis is mostly not about intelligence and doesn't claim to be about it. On the other hand, to the extent that literature examining the race question does does claim to have implications for the cause of group differences in intelligence, it does not claim to do so in an orthogonal manner -- rather there is a correspondence between no-race and environment as the one POV and race and genetics as the other POV .... This may not have been clear -- I don't think the question about group differences organizes the article. It just happens to be the issue that is most hotly debated. It's the issue where there's the least agreement and the most contention.

Before I shut up, I have two comments. First, I do not agree with WRN that IF "group differences ... just happens to be the issue that is most hotly debated" THEN this question should not organize the article. It seems to me that our NPOV policy demands that the most hotly debated issues be fully represented in an article. I would agree with WRN only insofar as the fact that debates about the nature of the "groups" being compared should not be the only organizing principle of the article. The title of the article is "race" and "intelligence" and it just seems common sense that before discussing the relationship between race and intelligence, the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. Second, WRN has specific criticisms about how JK proposes to do this. I think JK needs to satisfy WRN's objections in a reasonable way if we are to move on - or, perhaps, WRN, can suggest alternative ways to accomplish this in a way that would satisfy JK, or perhaps others can suggest a way that would satisfy both WRN and JK.

As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence. Can JK and WRN agree at least on this principle? If so, we can then build on it, step by step. As to WRN's criticism of the orthoganality, I have no ideas about this.

At this point I propose to all participants that we wait for both JK and WRN to respond to what I have written, and see if they can at least agree to a process for moving ahead, before others chime in. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, on this one, I will side with Slrubenstein that the best chance we have of resolving this conflict is to resolve all issues one at a time. Why start with Rik and JK? Maybe they've been at it non-stop the longest, maybe they have more complex arguments, maybe it's just dumb luck. However we may feel about this one, I think SLR's plan is the right one. Let's do our very best to stop all asides and let JK and Rik explore their issues with the article - I don't know if they've been stated or restated enough or if they need to be restated once more. If we have to intervene, let it be about those issues and those issues only, please. Our turns will come next. And I agree that if we are to comment, it would be to further try to help resolve these issues, so comments like "I agree with Rik" or "I agree with JK" aren't helpful now as we're not having a straw poll, at least not yet. I think comments that will be helpful are comments which will help develop the issues further and see where some sort of agreement can be reached, and what would be needed to come to an agreement on issues where we don't agree. Maybe it's time for JK and Rik to think along the lines of "if I could only change one thing to the article to make it become as acceptable as possible, what would it be?" Maybe it would help order priorities and see which issues are important and which are really side issues, or daughter issues of the important one(s). Now, I'd like everyone to please make an effort to direct their attention at JK's and Rik's issues with the articles. Our turn to explain our issues will be right next.--Ramdrake 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Said. I'll keep my comments to a minimum and on topic till this is resolved. futurebird 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respectfully...

I can not refrain from comment. I honestly can't say that I trust any user here to make all of these important decisions. But, I do trust the decision of all of the users here, together. What happened to consensus? This isn't an oligarchy. Our strength here is our plurality and diversity. There are not just two sides to this debate, there are twenty or more. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Everyone should be involved. It will be slower, but it will also lead to a better result. I know you're trying to streamline the process, but you're cutting out the work, and the ideas and the insight of a lot of people, even though there are others here, who may not have said as much, but who have been working on this article and following the debate the entire time. I will not stay out of it. I will outline my major concerns shortly. I suggest that all other users do the same. futurebird 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, everyone has been involved. And we have come to an almost unacceptable impass: first talk pages that are over 300 kb wrong - I assure you this is a symptom of a process that is not working - and an important article that is protected. Let's please upt our own egos aside and be practical: most of the talk has been written by JK and WRN. They have long been at loggerheads. If they can reach agreement on certain points, we can move forward and go back to "everyone" participating. But if we keep the process as it was, this article will just stay protected, no resolution to these conflicts will be found, and the talk page will just keep getting archived. My proposal above is just for now. Futurebird, I am sure that you can refrain from commenting for two or three days, is this so injurious to you? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think we have been making progress through this process--I don't see an unacceptable impass, I see people proposing changes and finally asking the right questions about this article. The exact nature of the conflict has become more clear to me than ever through these discussions. I think they have been long, yes, but it's not just a tit-for-tat argument. Some of the time people seem to be really listening to each other and we are adjusting.

Please, have some faith in the process. What we really need are more suggestions and ideas. More outlines. More input. Not just from me but from "fresh eyes" --

If you just want WD and RK to 'work something out' why should it be on 'this talk page? I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I feel as if I'm being told to shut up and go away just at the point that we're starting to get someplace for once. Just be patient, I think that we can reach a consensus. futurebird 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why this talk page? Look at the most recent archive. A little more than a month of discussion and it is over 170 kb, which is almost six times longer than a talk page should be. And most of the discussion is by JK and WRN. That means that there is some impasse between them, and it also means that they way we were going about talking about it was not bringing us any closer to resolving the impasse. I think there are some fundamental conflicts about how to move forward on this page and it is evident simply by looking at the last two archived talk pages that JK and WRN are the most informed and vocal participants in this conflict. It only make sense to try to mediate the conflicts between them to a mutually satisfactory resolution before moving on with other things. I ask you to have faith in the process. Wikipedia has many processes, and the typical process of a talk page with many people participating is only one of Wikipedia's process. It is the process that has dominated this page for years, and if printed out you would see hundreds if not thousands of talk pages on race is real/race isn't none of which had any, any impact at all on the article. What is wrong with suggesting, just for the next few days or week, a different process, one aimed a mediating a conflict? Why can't you have faith in trying something a little different, just for a few days?Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't do that because I don't trust anyone here enough to simply leave this alone. Wikipedia has scared me. I keep uncovering more and more scientific racism creeping in to articles all over the site. (take a look at Latitude, for example, it's even in there!) I don't see enough voices like my own here, and I worry that, if I go, I will return in a few days to find a totally unacceptable "compromise" that still lacks historical context. At that point, I will be cooly brushed off, told that "we've reached a decision without you, thank you very much, please move along." and, in the end, absolutely nothing will change. If there were a greater plurality of voices I would not feel the need to say anything-- But, I think I am in the minority here when it comes to making the case for historical context, making the case for clear distinctions between theories of heritable intelligence and theories of heritable racial intelligence. I hope you can understand that. futurebird 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with futurebird. I cannot assume the responsibility of being the archtype of anti-WRIK. That being said, I greatly respect SLR's focus on addressing root issues, and am embarrassed to have been so caught up in minor points of debate that I had lost focus on the root causes of my disagreements with WRIK. I think we've found the root cause - that WRIK has the perspective of a geneticist, and wishes to frame the issue in terms he understands professionally, and is concerned about the pollution of the article with numerous references to the definition of "race" which would complicate his view. As a layman, I find this approach misleading and unfair, especially given the host of criticism regarding the point throughout the literature. To address the root concerns of WRIK (complications in the article), I suggest that he provide a framework for making clear what studies use what definition of "race", and whether that definition is a consistent one. I think this is a viable compromise, but I do understand that WRIK may not be amenable to it - so far, it seems that no compromise suggestions have been forthcoming from him at all. --JereKrischel 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are responsible. Not solely responsible by any means, and I say this not as a complaint or as a criticism. But you have consistently argued against WRN and you have produced a large portion of talk on this page. That makes you responsible. All I want is a process that will move us forward. I do NOT think that the funal form the article takes or even the final form any resolution to these basic conflicts takes will come exclusively from you and WRN. But it seems so obvious to me that unless you and WRN focus on a few key issues and reach resolution, we will be back at square one: hundreds of KBs of talk produced each montht that only get archived, and an article still protected, unchanging. Talk pages are meant to imporve articles, and I am only trying to be honest when I say that this talk page contains a good deal of information that could perhaps improve the article but the process of improving the article has broken down. I am just trying to propose a practical solution to the current problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, SLR, up until two and a half months ago, I was probably just as responsible as JK and WRN for the length of these debates. Then, for various reasons, I needed to take a break for awhile. However, I'll vouch for the fact that other pages where the talk is just as bulky and advances th article very little abound in Wikipedia. The only thing exceptional about this is the length (time-wise) of this debate. Usually, some editors get fed up or bored, and stop pressing the issue. The ones with the most patience win, which is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not. But I think that by limiting this mediation to only two protagonists, we are missing a vital point. I see, from the writings of several editors, that a real consensus seems to have emerged, which isn't unanimous (a minority of editors seem to agree to disagree). By pitting possibly the two most opposite positions and saying "get to a compromise", maybe we are pushing this article somewhere else than where consensus would lead it, which I don't think is the spirit of Wikipedia. Maybe an alternate solution would be to take stock of the opinions of the emerging consensus and help those editors in the minority accept that changes are being made to improve the article, even though they may disagree with many of them. No one owns wikipedia articles; they go wherever the consensus is, and if consensus changes, articles change too. That is the nature of the Wikipedia beast.

I've refrained from posting any comment since you asked a day or so ago, but honestly I've found myself having opinions and positions which I didn't write down on the talk page, but found minutes or hours later someone else just said exactly what I was thinking. Thus, all things considered, out of respect, I will shut up again for now, but I urge you to reconsider today your request to leave JK and WRN do all the talking for now, and just reopen the floor to all editors. Only then will real consensus be visible, even if this consensus may never be able to achieve unanimity.--Ramdrake 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that any real progress will be made on the article unless we deal with specific, major, points of contention one at a time. And it will be easier to do this if we start by looking at major conflicts between specific editors. This is merely a method to move forward. I feel pretty confident that if we do not do this, people will continue to use this page mostly to express there own views or pursue their own love of debate, and amidst all the noise many valid criticisms and constructive suggestions will be raised and lost to the archive as people spin off on endless tangents or just keep repeating themselves. I personally would rather see the article improve, and am willing to try to make systematic progress even if that involves some self-discipline. However, others may not feel that way. Fine by me. I will just keep archiving - pages should not get over 30 kb. You'd think well-intentioned and intelligent people could resolve specific conflicts with just that amount of talk. Unless they just prefer adding to the talk archives, rather than improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be very helpful to see people comment on the sections below written by JK and I. The problem with each section is a lack of specific details and recommendations. I believe in part that JK and I are talking past one another because of this. I also believe we have departed from the 3 specific issues JK listed as his complaints at the top of the current talk page (save perhaps #3) and which I agreed needed a solution. If that means that #1 and #2 are resolved, maybe that's progress. Here's my top concern about what JK has said -- it suggests an attempt to resolve a conflict in the literature on our own -- to reply or answer or respond or provide information in response to critics of race and intelligence research when we present results about ti. As suggested by JK, I don't see how this isn't WP:SYNT or some related variant of OR. (Note also his suggestion that any research that doesn't give a definition of race that matches his criteria should be excluded -- I assume this is not a well thought out comment -- but it fits with the overall problem.) I believe the most important point I made and that I would like others to consider is when I say that the article should be narrowly tailored, or else it will inevitably violate policy. I know this would could for boring reading, and mostly likely not give sufficient-to-you attention to what you may think is the most crucial criticism of the entire topic (which you may want to emphasize by building it into the structure of the article somehow), but focusing on what people have said and only discussing thing that they say are related to one another a the same time (and making each section of the article likewise focus on topics) is the only way I know to keep the article neutral, sympathetic to what it is describing, and free of the original intellectual input (OR) of its editors. --WD RIK NEW 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a note: "my outline" is the current article outline. This is meant in a good faith, but I'm not sure that everyone (even me) is fully familiar with the actual content of the article. Many of the suggestions below actually exist in the article or the subarticles. --WD RIK NEW 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder, some of the actual controversies which lead to this situation which I objected to were this edit: definitely inappropriate straw man, deletion certainly necessary and this edit: none of the papers cited have a graphic with four curves. synthesis of table information in papers into novel graph clearly OR. --WD RIK NEW 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and global perspective: Who? When? Where? and Why?

My major concern is to set questions of race and intelligence in historical and in global perspective. Early research in to race and intelligence occurred in Europe and the Americas. Much of it was blatantly racist, motivated by the the desire to justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation. Some modern research has been criticized by people, such as Steven Jay Gould, for continuing to do the same thing. Likewise, some modern researchers have been demonized just for asking controversial questions. The involvement of organizations like the Pioneer Fund has not helped matters, since it has caused many people to question the motives of the fund's contemporary grant recipients who do research in this area.

[edit] Can we ask: if 'race science' is science?

We must not write a long scientific journal article, because race and intelligence is not a purely scientific topic. It is also a social and a historical topic. This article should not attempt to prove or disprove one (or more than one) scientific hypothesis on race and intelligence, it should, rather, clearly explain what those hypothesis are, as well has the history of their development, naming the major researchers, and academics who have proposed them. It should give a clear overview of the points of disagreement. To this end, I think that the chart proposed by JK above, separates out most of the finer points of dispute, since it shows what a huge question the utility of "race" is for science. The balance we are seeking in this article involves acknowledging that the "sciencetificness" of even having a debate over these questions is also a major point of contention. And doing this without belittling that perspective as "unscientific."futurebird 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The utility of race does have appliation in the human genome, metabolism, physiology, etc. as far as health and medicine, but comparisons are linked to disease and health risks. Comparing IQ or best color vision or some other trait has no implicit value, but you are right about the social dimension where some people give it value. GetAgrippa 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] organizing principle

if "organizing principle" = "thing you talk about in the article" then I agree and would suggest that already describes the state of the article. the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. -- Here's the salient part of the current article outline. I think we do exactly that, and take the time in sect. 1 to highlight the debate about causes.

1 Background information
- 1.1 Race
- 1.2 Intelligence testing
- 1.3 The contemporary debate: results and interpretations
- 1.4 History
2 Average gaps among races
3 Explanations
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Environmental explanations
- 3.3 Genetic explanations
- 3.4 Expert opinion
4 Significance of group IQ differences
5 Public debate and policy implications

so, if there's a dispute about this very specific item, it must be something more subtle that i'm missing. [maybe slow to get to other threads started above.] --WD RIK NEW 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The particular problems I have are the Average gaps among races, since it conflates a number of definitions of "race" (U.S. Black-White gap as self-identified ethnicity, rather than "race"), Explanations, because it does not address the fundamental issue of whether or not "race" is a viable proxy for genetics before trying to find a genetic explanation, nor does it address the fundamental issue of heritability and its problematic and improper use for between group comparisons. Also, throughout the entire set of sections, there is a vast imbalance of citation and argument, without proper context of what definition of "race", or even what definition of "intelligence" they use. I also have a problem with "results and interpretations", because of the POV assertion that the debate has been framed properly into "results and interpretations"...there is also a great deal of controversy on what questions should be asked. --JereKrischel 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

JK, I'd like to ask two things of you one, could you restate this as a list of ordered issues, specifically a bullet-form with the most important issues first and the least important ones last? Second, you state you have a problem with the conflation of various definitions of "race" and not properly addressing the issue of whether or not "race" is a viable proxy for genetics. May I ask you to explain the consequences you see for the article and how you think they could be resolved simply, if at all possible?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my ordered list, most important first:

Explanations is POV pushing because it does not address the fundamental issues of definitions of "race", nor the inapplicability of heritability between groups;
Throughout all sections, there is a vast imbalance of citation and argument, without proper context of what definition of "race" or "intelligence is being used (particularly with images)
Average gaps among races, since it conflates several definitions of "race", as well as multiple proxies for "intelligence"
"results and interpretations", because it ignores the fact that the proper questions to ask are part of the controversy.

I think the only way to solve the issue of conflations of definitions of race is to be specific about which definitions are being used, or if no standard definition is being used. For example, citing Rushton or Lynn, one must clearly state that they do not use standard definitions of race in their aggregation of evidence. Citing other studies which are specific to a single study, as opposed to meta-analyses of multiple studies, we can state their specific definition (U.S. self-identified Black/White, or 1-drop rule Black (such as some german studies of mixed race "black" children of U.S. black servicemen)).

Insofar as addressing the issue of "race" being a viable proxy for genetics, I think that a large section must be devoted to the issue, since it is a primary criticism of racialist hypotheses and the ordering of hierarchies. Similarly, when discussing genetic explanations, it must be very clear when a study is NOT using a genetic definition of "race" (AFAIK, there have been no intelligence studies based on a genetic definition of "race"). Hope that answers your questions! --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These are non-issues. (1) fundamental issues of definitions of "race" play little role in the research literature about the cause of group differences. to the extent that they do, they are offered as a reason to reject genetic explanations in favor of environmental ones. arguments about the inapplicability of heritability between groups are detailed in the section and thus this is moot. (2) without proper context of what definition of "race" or "intelligence is being used (particularly with images) - the definitions of race and the meaning of intelligence are not variables in dispute in the sense that you are implying. the arguments against race and against intelligence do not usually take the form you are suggesting. race is said to be without biological meaning, but it is not commonly suggested that racial labels are so unreliable that they are meaningless as social constructs. the meanings of race and intelligence as they are commonly used in the literature are spelled out in the first sections of the article. i know of no researchers who have gone through the intelligence literature and cataloged incongruities in the racial labels used. the suggestion that such a cataloging is a necessary part of the presentation of this literature, essentially to emphasize what the original authors do not, is not permissible or even prefereable. (3) since it conflates several definitions of "race", as well as multiple proxies for "intelligence" - this follows from 2. the fact that multiple measures of intelligence have been used (IQ tests, achievement tests, reaction time tests, brain size measures) is a feature, not a bug of the research. criticisms of IQ are that it doesn't capture the full meaning of intelligence, or that it has limited practical validity. JKs criticisms appears to be a novel interpretation. (4) because it ignores the fact that the proper questions to ask are part of the controversy. who are we to say what the "proper" questions to ask are. we are reporters, we do not take sides. there's a section of the article titled "utility" where the debate about the appropriateness of asking the questions asked in the literature is described. (*) 1-drop rule Black (such as some german studies of mixed race "black" children of U.S. black servicemen) -- this example unintentionally demonstrates that JK is operating outside the bounds of the reporter-only role that WP editors are to serve, and is instead taking what he believes to be an important point and applying it on his own as a critic of the literature. This particular study, lauded as evidence against a genetic contribution to BW IQ diffs, involves the children of Allied service men and German women born c.a. WWII, where some fathers were obviously of some degree African ancestry where others were predominately of European ancestry. No significant IQ difference was observed between the two sets of children (mixed race and white). JK objects to the language of Black and White, and yet I have to doubt that he's read the original study or read anyone actually criticize it on such grounds. Ironically, the study of interracial children, especially in the context of transracial adoption, is a major data point offered in support of the partly-genetic hypothesis. --WD RIK NEW 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

a primary criticism of racialist hypotheses and the ordering of hierarchies -- a primary criticism of Rushton offered by Lieberman WRT brain size and Rushton's life-history traits matrix, but a single study which does not claim to offer a balanced presentation of arguments, but rather to advance the authors' own POV, does not constitute evidence of the commonality of a criticism or the breadth of topics to which you describe it appyling. the big 3 reviews could offer such evidence, but fail to emphasize arguments about the nature of race. it must be very clear when a study is NOT using a genetic definition of "race" -- who says this? Risch et al (2002) and others have offered explanations for why this kind of thinking if faulty in a biomedical context -- because the social and genetic factors underlying race are nearly completely concordant, any study which seeks to look at a genetic definition of "race" will simply recapitulate the existing race categories, and thus may errantly conclude that phenotypic differences they observe are due to genetics when they could actually be caused by social-environmental factors. AFAIK, there have been no intelligence studies based on a genetic definition of "race" -- there have been studies which makes estimates of individual ancestry (IA) and look to correlate these with IQ. none have used the techniques of DNA genotyping to reliably measure IA, but skin color has been used in dozens of studies as an estimate of IA. --WD RIK NEW 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My response is unfortunately long winded. The one sentence summary: these are criticisms of the research itself, and thus it is beyond our role to try to address these criticisms in the way we describe the research -- doing so is going well beyond summarizing, it's OR. --WD RIK NEW 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you've decided to ask the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" Criticisms of the research itself are notable and deserve significant representation. We cannot simply ignore the context or controversy. This article is not simply a science article, it touches on a plethora of social issues, prejudices, and IMHO misconceptions. We cannot simply limit the scope of our writing to POV research. --JereKrischel 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, do you think that WRN's proposed outline needs to be junked and if so do you have an alternative? Or, given you objections, do you think his outline is servicable but just needs improvement? If so, how would you improve it.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose to JK that WRN's outline can be a starting point with specific improvments: first, expand section 2 so that it has subsections on "gaps" between differently defined groups i.e. disagfregate the different notions of race being used. Second, with all due respect Jere I think your claim that Explanations does not address the fundamental issue of whether or not race is appropriate is unhelpful and will just keep us bogged down. WRN would respond, rightfully I think, that large discussions of criticisms of race are not appropriate to this article. And Jere, it seems to me that your objection has been addressed in the literature in a way that should be incorporated in the "explanation" section. My knowledge of the lit. criticizing race and intelligence is that it doesn't just rehash arguments that race is socially constructed. My sense is that it tries to explain why it appears that race is relevant by looking at the research design and assumptions made in the statistics. This is, indeed, an explanation for the gap between IQ scores between races, but the explanation is that the research design assumed its conclusions. JK, with all due respect I am trying to be constructive. Simply to say that "Well, the problem with explanations is that it assumes that race is real" is niether a constructive nor an accurate position. People who reject the biological relaity of race do have explanations, and what we should try to do is make sure those ecplanations are included (and not just keep arguing "race is real" "no it isn't" - that just is not getting us anywhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that /Proposal 1 is a good place to start, based mostly on the APA report on the subject. I think WRN's outline could be serviceable, but would definitely require specific improvements. Insofar as "race isn't real", I think that a great deal of the literature does rehash arguments that race is socially constructed - I can find you a host of references if you wish, but if you were to take my word, I think you can see why WRN and I are at loggerheads. Addressing the "validity of race" issue makes the dialog complicated.

I would suggest as an alternative compromise that if the "race" issue is to be glossed over, we should use that same gloss on the detailed, point-by-point arguments being made to support the pro-racialist POV. That is to say, if we could reduce the sheer depth of argument and counter argument of "genetic" versus "environmental", and simply reduce those sections to let's say, three examples, pro and con, of each, I think perhaps I wouldn't have so much objection. As it stands now, I feel that providing an exhaustive account of the genetic/environmental debate, without giving some equal measure to the "is race valid" debate, distorts the argument and misleads the reader. --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means presenting each significant side without taking sides, not compromising to an intermediate positions between opposing views. If there is a criticism of some position, you describe the criticism (along with the position being criticized) -- you don't act on the criticism. --WD RIK NEW 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asserting here. I would say that to present each significant side, we should also have to address balance issues - the mere existence of a supporting study, or criticism of that study, or counter-criticism, or counter-counter-criticism, does not seem to indicate to me a need for inclusion. We should be able to find balance here. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rik, I have one specific question for you relating to the way the article is organized now: it makes two very controversial assumptions at the very start. If one is to reject any part of those assumptions, do you think the consequences for the debate are properly explained in the article?--Ramdrake 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that has been answered in the literature. It's been asked by Sternberg et al 2005, but they don't seem to spell out any direct conclusions (other than to be skeptical of everything and) other than to separately support an environmental explanation. Until Ultramarine recently destroyed the content, the article said this:

It is also common to argue that both "race" and "intelligence" are arbitrary social constructions. Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research Sternberg 2005:

the final argument (studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends) is of course well described as the "utility" question, citing Sternberg. --WD RIK NEW 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As per my talk above, I think there is a difficulty when the proportion of detailed references being used is overwhelmingly an attempt to promote the pro-racialist POV. We should probably prune the article to sample just a few pro/con arguments for the various POVs, instead of going into exhaustive detail in the direction of one POV. --JereKrischel 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV demands that we present each side in the detail commensurate to its representation in the literature. The sub-articles are the proper place for detailed examination of what's been published. Rather than being supported by NPOV, your suggestion is directly contradicted by it. I hope others will find time to comment on this because it is one of the three topics listed by JK as needed to be discussed. --WD RIK NEW 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your metric for how representative something is in the literature is not congruent with mine. Rushton, who is by all means a prolific writer, does not force us to detail all of his statements, studies and positions simply because he has written more articles. There are very clear statements by the APA and other groups that there simply is no evidence for the genetic hypothesis. MacKenzie details the matter quite clearly in his description of the "Hereditarian fallacy". The note that others have made here that racialism is pseudo-science is quite a valid one in many ways, and limiting one's view to racialist literature, or falsely claiming support for the racialist position by citing literature that does not support the claims of a racial hierarchy (for example, citations of Cavalli-Sforza), is quite POV pushing. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(WD, I'm only jumping in because you asked for input.)

NPOV demands that we present each side in the detail commensurate to its representation in the literature.

What if there is "little literature" because the topic isn't considered fit for study? I'm thinking about things like aliens, for example. This is like saying that a lot of 'science articles' say aliens exist in area 51 and because few 'science articles' bother to say they don't exist we ought to then have an article in the wikipedia that pushes the POV that aliens exist in area 51. The dismissive tone of the mainstream literature speaks for itself.

Rather than being supported by NPOV, your suggestion is directly contradicted by it.

How so? I don't follow your argument here. futurebird 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you didn't mean to equate the views expressed in this article with pseudoscience. NPOV has guidelines to deal with pseudoscience and other problems of public/expert disagreement. NPOV argues for a proportional representation between the literature and the content of articles, with majority and minority views being represented. Removing content that summarizes the literature is not a a way to achieve NPOV, at least based on my reading of Arbcom decisions. --WD RIK NEW 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think many of the views expressed in this article are pseudoscience. Pruning content that excessively details one POV is appropriate. --JereKrischel 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rik, I believe the third position JK is referring to is something like given the controversy surrounding a valid scientific definition of "race", this pre-empts the question of "what causes the racial differences in intelligence" to start with. I believe he means (or can be correctly interpreted as meaning) that the third option isn't a question: it's just a constatation that the question isn't valid. JK, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this. Rik, I believe you acknowledge the existence of this position, but only as questioning the utility of race, or of race research. I believe JK sees it as a much, much more fundamental issue, that pre-empts the entire question from being asked. Could this be part of what's at the core of the issue? And if so, do you see a way to resolve this difference of world-views?--Ramdrake 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think we need to acknowledge two debates, both contentious, that ought not be conflated: (1) race, defined a given way, does or does not have a bearing on intelligence, and (2) race has a bearing on intelligence, but we debate what we mean by race.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try again, the way I read this both statements seem to say the same thing to me.

race, defined a given way, does or does not have a bearing on intelligence

(which given way?)

race has a bearing on intelligence, but we debate what we mean by race

which to me comes down to race, depending on which way you define it.

Could you please re-explain?--Ramdrake 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race and its malcontents

various suggestions, notably a long section by JK above, need to be addressed.

first, when a paper makes a criticism, our duty is to describe that criticism, not to act on it or to try to address it ourselves. important example -- JK claims that published criticisms of race research claim that the definitions of race used are not clear or that they vary from study to study. more broadly, you might say (as the article currently does) that criticisms claim that "race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless". However, making this claim in the abstract doesn't mean that we must then note the definition of race used in every subsequent study we describe. The reason is that the subsequent studies we describe do not make the point of having a particular definition of race that they distinguish from other definitions. We can only describe actual debates, not synthesized ones. We can't try to answer questions that are posed by not answered in the literature.

second and related, unless it is demonstrated otherwise by the kind of direct citation we need to not violate NOR, "race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article. based on everything i've read, it isn't an answer to the question of what causes group differences in intelligence of particular note outside of it being a motivation for answering that environment is the cause. This gets to the point raised by SLR: As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

third, critics of race have counter critics, and the actual outcome of these debate is clearly in flux/not settled. even if you disagreed with my first two points, this point remains. we are obliged to not take sides in that debate. the only way to do this is to have each topic discussed in this article be as narrowly tailored as possible. if the literature being discussed doesn't make note of definitions of race being used, then a narrow tailoring suggests that we do not either. it's at this point that SLR's suggested (quote above) becomes critical.

i'm afraid i haven't explain this clearly enough, but i wanted to avoid particular examples as much as possible that might be distracting. --WD RIK NEW 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Second and related, unless it is demonstrated otherwise by the kind of direct citation we need to not violate NOR, "race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article.

I think there are more than enough citations and quotations to make this significant. This isn't about point and counter point anyway. It is about presenting all significant viewpoints. I think we need to avoid having and article that appears like a debate, present each case clearly and leave it at that.

Should we do this, we should also limit all literature about heritability of intelligence to those studies that speak explicitly to heritability of intelligence as it relates to race, not "groups" or individuals. I don't know if this is such a good idea-- I think we should try to do this though. Shall we start making a list of what must be culled as a result of this restriction? futurebird 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Futurebird, I think we would have to do as you suggest to comply with WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] glossing over race

To reply to some of WRIK's points:

However, making this claim in the abstract doesn't mean that we must then note the definition of race used in every subsequent study we describe.

Actually, I think it does. To cite studies as supporting one another, or supporting a particular POV, we must give the critical context of "race" to clearly differentiate what is actually being described. Of course, WRIK is right, many pro-racialist studies studiously ignore this issue, and I can understand why he would want to ignore it as well - if Rushton were to explicitly state the numerous definitions and conflations of the term "race" he used in his studies, one might question the validity of his work. And in fact, many do, specifically on that basis. I believe it is not NPOV to ignore the question of "race" regarding a cited study, simply because the study does either a poor job or no job at all of clarifying the question.

The reason is that the subsequent studies we describe do not make the point of having a particular definition of race that they distinguish from other definitions.

Perhaps we shouldn't cite studies that don't have a particular definition. This seems to be a red flag for an unreliable source, and a common problem with much of the pro-racialist literature (that they liberally cite studies that do not use the same definitions).

"race doesn't exist" (or similar) isn't a significant alternative answer to the various questions that we describe answers to in this article.

Which is why I'm asserting that the questions being posed are violating NPOV by ignoring the critical component of "race". As a geneticist, you've found a structure that fits your worldview - things are either caused by genetics, or the environment. This is not an NPOV way of framing the issues regarding "race" and intelligence.

Regarding a point by SLR: As a first step in this direction, I propose that literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominantly in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

I would agree with the caveat that explicit critiques of racialist scientists and their findings cited here should be allowed, even if those critiques are not predominantly in the context of "Intelligence". As mentioned before, the logical conclusion to this guideline would be to exclude any "supporting" evidence that does not explicitly discuss race and intelligence (for example, intelligence heritability studies that don't address BGH, or race studies that don't address intelligence). Unfortunately, with prominent names like Rushton, who attaches dozens of variables to a racial-hierarchy, including intelligence, garners criticism from all quarters.

Lastly, as per WRIK - the only way to do this is to have each topic discussed in this article be as narrowly tailored as possible.

I would assert that to be as narrowly tailored as possible, we must be as specific about the usage of "race" in any given study. Otherwise, we are actually implying a broad application that is not true or proper. --JereKrischel 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As a geneticist, you've found a structure that fits your worldview - things are either caused by genetics, or the environment. This is not an NPOV way of framing the issues regarding "race" and intelligence. -- When the question is what causes race differences in intelligence this is the way that the debate is described in the literature. I've cited the major review papers (APA, WSJ, and S&R) in support of this way of characterizing it. I came to believe that this is the way the debate is characterized in the literature by reading these sources and then seeing that others agree. You've cited papers which talk about race in the content of psychology in general or even race in the content of intelligence, but they do not support your position -- you have inaccurately interpreted them as supporting a view that they do not actually endorse. My confidence in you being incorrect and me being correct is not shaken by the suggestion that being educated in genetics gives me a world view that precludes me from understanding this literature. Consider the Sternberg paper you cited -- this one is most on topic -- here is the abstract:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

A number of claims are made, but none of them are that "race is a social construction with no scientific definition" is a third answer to the question of what causes group differences. As the abstract reads, they instead use this to question the utility of the research. The further conclude against there being evidence for a genetic contribution to group differences, arguing against certain evidence being sufficient. No where do they say they are making a new conclusion. --- I'd like others to look at this issue closely, look at the literature itself, and look for reviews which actually say that a *third* hypothesis for the cause of group differences is that race doesn't exist. If I'm correct, you will find that they do not exist, and that arguments about race are actually arguments that environmental/social rather than genetic factors are the cause of observed score differences. --WD RIK NEW 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point again, due to your world-view and desire to frame the debate in conformance with that world-view. You are framing the question as "show me a third hypothesis that says the cause of group differences is that race doesn't exist". This is an improper statement of the question. The fact that race does not exist does not mean it is a "third hypothesis", it means that the question being asked is being challenged itself. Much like, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" can be challenged as an improper question, "Are racial differences in IQ genetic, yes or no?" is an improper question. There is a whole host of implication and assumption in the question of wife beating, just as there is in the question of racial differences. --JereKrischel 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Outline

This outline is more what I had in mine. The outline above makes a lot of assumptions and the history is not prominent enough.futurebird 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

0 Intro

1 History

1.1 Race

1.2 Intelligence testing

1.3 ~~Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race~~

2 Contemporary questions

2.1 Race

2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis

2.1.2 Validity of "race"

2.2 Intelligence testing

2.2.1 The psychometric approach

2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence

2.2.3 Cultural variation

2.2.4 Developmental progressions

2.3 Average gaps among races

2.4 Explanations

2.4.1 Environmental factors

2.4.1.1 Test bias

2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests

2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors

2.4.1.4 Culture factors

2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications

2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence

2.4.3 ~~Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views~~ (Reword? Ideas?)

2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences

2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

Futurebird, with all due respect, why do you propose another outline rather than work with the outline WRN proposed, above? If you do not like his outline you can explain why. But he has made a proposal and people should respond to it, explain why it is completely bad and justify proposing an alternative, or accept it as a working start and propose improvements. WRN has been working on this a long time and whether we agree with him or not, I assure you that his views merit serious attention and we need to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history section in his outline is prominent enough. I worked with both WD and RK's outlines as a base for this outline. I tried to combine those outlines while, at the same time, addressing the concerns I have been voicing about historical context. futurebird 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, would JK and WRN please comment on this outline? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Also, Futurebird, could you see if/how you would incorporate my comments on WRN's outline into yours (it is in my reponse to JK's comments on WRN's outline Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about the revised outline

Looks good except the section "1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race", which seems to misconstrue current research.--Urthogie 20:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In the historical context I don't see how this is a problem, but I agree, we might want a better title for 2.4.3 -- ideas? --futurebird 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replace 1.3 with "History of race and intelligence research" and...2.4.3....why is that even there? Is there a single hereditarian scientist who think intelligence results from skin color? I'd say remove 2.4.3 (as well as its subsections), and change 1.3 in the way I just mentioned. Also, everything from 2.4.1.5 and on should not be under 2.4! They're not explanations.--Urthogie 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of people like Murray, who said that they had somehow statistically eliminated "social factors" and still found a gap. I thought that their point was that the gap must be a result of genetic factors tied to race, however it might be defined, the gap between the bell curves is then supposed to be a function of the racial grouping. I know that not many scientists have said this, but what is the purpose then, of all of these attempts to 'control for environmental factors'? futurebird 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, though, in any case. futurebird 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The bell curve argues for a genetic/biological basis to intelligence, and it also argues that this is the reason for gaps between "races"-- ie theyre saying that those from sub-saharan africa are less likely to have whatever genetic factor causes intelligence. They are not arguing that the skin itself causes the intelligence, but rather that the areas associated with the races are also genetically associated with certain levels of intelligence.

Also, looking at your outline again I have another criticism to make. While the current article is focused too much on the science, yours seems to focus too much on the history. A compromise would be to organize by subject. History should be a subsection of views on race, not the other way around. I would have to oppose any outline like this that isn't organized around subject matter. And it seems like the page itself has been updated since last time I was here... what specifically is your criticism of the current organization? It already includes History in the background info.--Urthogie 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I meant to imply by intelligence as a function of race. There is a lot more to race than skin color. If it can function as a useful genetic grouping for science (and that is debatable) then what I'm getting at is the ideas that even if the world were free of racism and everyone had equal opportunity and we had the perfect objective method for measuring intelligence you'd find that these racial grouping would not come out equal and that the differences in intelligence would be significant enough to merit attention with regards to public policy. That is the idea that I was trying to get at with the title "race as a function of intelligence" what else could it be called? futurebird 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you were operating with a mistaken impression of what "function" means. If intelligence were a function of race we could predict someone's intelligence just by knowing their race-- something which is obviously impossible (and the hereditarians would acknowledge this). The idea that you're trying to get at would be called a biological/genetic explanation of differences between race groups.--Urthogie 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the intelligence of a racial genetic group somehow being a function of that grouping by race. And the idea is that there are some kinds of limits to where the intelligence might fall predicted in some significant way by that grouping using race. futurebird 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the justification for a historical narrative of this article as compared to the organization given to science articles, even controversial ones with long histories of controversy (e.g. evolution). --WD RIK NEW 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because evolution's history as an idea does not add any controversy to the idea. It's controversial solely because of its content. Darwin wasn't a racist, while early race and intelligence researchers were in fact scientific racists. Race and intelligence is thus especially controversial because of its historical context.--Urthogie 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article isn't limited to science. futurebird 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm going to have to retract what I said a bit. The article already does seem to cover history in the background info section... whats the problem?--Urthogie 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The order and the size of the sections, and the way that they relate to each other. futurebird 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?--Urthogie 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't want to clutter up this section too much. I'm going to wait to see what others think. I written quite a lot about this and I agree we need to find a compromise. It's not going to help if I restate the entire case here. Why don't you construct a new outline (don't edit this one anymore) and try to balance the three that have been proposed on this page already? Let's get the ideas out there. Sound good? futurebird 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not express an opinion on what is the exact preferably outline, since I be influenced by what material is added and difficult to determine in advance. However, the subject is certainly not limited to some kind of snapshot of current state of the genetic vs. environmental debate. The subject includes the very long history on views of races and intelligence, like the Roman Repulic viewed the white barbarians as poor slaves due to their stupidity. It also includes how these views have been used to justify policies, like genocides and slavery, historically and now. It also includes a discussion and history regarding by who and why these views are advocated, researched, and funded.Ultramarine 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the only changes I would make to this article

The outline actually seems to address the history concisely. It has a concise number of sections as well. Here's what I would suggest being added:

Add more background information, like define what heredity is... this article needs to be more understandable for those outside of science.
Make it clear that just as there is no "race" gene discovered, there is no "intelligence" gene discovered as of yet either.
Avoid presenting findings as fact. State that they are findings, and in case of relatively unestablished findings and controversial ones, make clear who found them.
The effect of (self-)racism and inequality on intelligence development.
The effect of the womb environment and premature birth on childhood development.
The effect of vitamin D defficiency because of melanin in a cold environment
A discussion of how fast intelligence changes over time, and how many generations it would take to equalize the gap.

The article is honestly pretty scholarly, and to be honest it suffers less from policy and guideline problems than your average non-featured article.--Urthogie 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many of these 'scholarly sources' represent a small minority, even among supporters of the idea of heritable intelligence. They are researchers who propose that races ( ie. Black, White, Asian etc.) are valid genetic groups and the differences in IQ scores between different races represent genetic inferiorities and superiorities in intelligence for races of humans. This article has been deftly written to conflate the idea of heritable intelligence (one, that while still debated, is at least respected in mainstream science) with the idea of a heritable racial intelligence.

I'm cheered to find that after reading this article you still feel that discussing a "narrowing gap" is even option! I see in this essay a strong current to discourage that type of thinking, and that current is given undue weight. (I'm not saying that the possibility should not be mentioned, but should it be the focus here? Should it be so prominent?) A heavier focus on the history of this topic is required to explain why these questions are so interesting to people at all, and why they are the focus of so much attention and debate. The article says that the ideas are controversial, but it fails to explain why they are controversial. It's not just because of the scientific methodology, it is the context in which these discussion are occurring: western societies which are still in the process of emerging from hundreds of years of scientific racism.--futurebird 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on environment

My personal view is that the dfferences are substantially cultural, social, and environmental. I believe if there are any genetic causes they're minor enough that they can be fixed in a few generations. I seriously advise against modifying the article organization, as it seems its a bit POV to make history get its own section, when its really part of the background.

I got tired of editing this article, but if you want to be a soldier, here's some material (ammunition?) for you:

IQ of poor hispanic kids raised 2-3 points over a short period of time simply by giving them vitamins.[1]
Breastfeeding caused "An 8.3 point advantage (over half a standard deviation) in IQ remained even after adjustment for differences between groups in mother's education and social class". Blacks rarely breastfeed: [2]. This graph underexaggerates the effect the breastfeeding discrepancy has on the IQ gap, because:

the study on breastfeeding actually requires that the breastmilk is a significant part of the diet, which is very rare for black infants in comparison to other "races".
Its a graph of only in-hospital breastfeeding. When people are in the hospital they're more likely to do whats good for their baby than what they'd do unwatched at home.[3]
Many of these IQ studies have been based on people born several years ago, sometimes even decades ago. As you can see from the upward moving graph, the discrepancy was even higher then.
For more info on breast-feeding and race/ethnicity, do this simple google search. Make sure to only use the authoritative sources.

Several studies, such as this one have found that lead poisoning at a degree of 10 µg/dL caused an average 5.8 point IQ decline. Blacks have always had more exposer to lead than white on average[4], although for kids born today today the issue is largely negligible. However it's still significant because many of these IQ tests were performed on people in periods when lead poisoning was much more prevalent.

One thing to note is that this is a significant factor even if environment is controlled for by twin studies or adoption studies, because the early home environment has the greatest affect.

I'll add more as I find it. Message me on my talk page if you need more "ammo".--Urthogie 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

None of this ammo is any good since using it would violate WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jensen (1998) has a lengthy discussion of non-genetic biological factors that could contribute to the BW gap. I used that text to write Race_and_intelligence_(Explanations)#Nongenetic_biological_factors long ago. There hasn't been much done with it since. Jensen is a very prolific writer and he may have written about this in other texts which could be used to expand the section. --WD RIK NEW 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Health and intelligence may be the venue for some of this. --WD RIK NEW 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflating 'heritable intelligence' and 'heritable racial intelligence'

I really think that you are making some good points here, and the sources are interesting, however, it's not really the claims about the heritability of intelligence that bother me in this article.

Credible scientists have done research that support heritably of intelligence-- So, I think, for our readers, that should be an open question-- we don't want to convince people one way or the other. We'll present the evidence and they can decide.

But, what we cannot do, and what the article does now, with its present structure, is conflate the idea of a heritable intelligence and a heritable racial intelligence. Do you see what I mean by that? There is credible research about some aspect of intelligence being heritable, perhaps that research is wrong, but it's not our place to say, really. We just present the facts.

What there is very little of (unless funded by the Pioneer Fund) is research that suggests that there is some aspect of race that is also a genetic component in heritable intelligence. That is: "race as a function of intelligence." In the article, as it is written now, research that talks about the heritability of intelligence is used to support the this idea that heritable intelligence is a function of race. That is, it's pushing the marginal POV that some races are inferior to others. This is what I find so intolerable about the present structure. It's very hard to tell that this is going on-- until you start looking at these things through the lens of history, then the intentions are crystal clear.

I hope that I'm making sense. I'm not dismissing you evidence for a strong influence of environment-- In fact we ought to use it, along with any credible evince that intelligence may be inherited. And we need to isolate all of this credible science from the marginal scientific racism, rather than using credible science as evidence that is meant to bolster claims of scientific racism.

I hope this makes sense. futurebird 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"race as a function of intelligence." simply doesn't exist as a credible hypothesis-- even among those who work for the Pioneer Fund. The question is what the IQ differences between groups mean and what causes them. "race as a function of intelligence" is pure, unscientific racism, the type produced by the KKK and white supremacy groups, and is not even part of the scientific debate.

Imagine there was a gene for intelligence (as of yet, no single gene or group of genes has been discovered directly). Hereditarians argue that this gene would be unequally distributed between groups from certain geographic areas.

Just about all of the research in this article is done on scientific grounds... its basically all mainstream science. It may not appear mainstream because it's probably the biggest taboo in public life. Unfortunately, even if "race" is a non-scientific concept (I certainly believe so), and "intelligence" is a non-scientific concept, there are still huge questions that have to be answeered... how do we explain the fact that tests that control for environment find significant gaps between people of different ancestries? This is where we have to decide on a hypothesis: either environmental, mixed, or genetic.

The hypothesis of an inheritable ability to score well on IQ tests (controlling for environment) is pretty rock solid. It's not just a few scientists who have shown this, but rather many scientists from all points of view producing pretty overwhelming evidence.

To summarize, we can't really avoid this debate by claiming "race" and "intelligence" aren't scientific.--Urthogie 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"race as a function of intelligence." simply doesn't exist as a credible hypothesis-- even among those who work for the Pioneer Fund.

Okay, now I'm just confused. Becuase, if this was the case, then the article would only mention environmental factors in intelligence and not mention genetics at all. (I'm not saying it should do this) What is the point of bringing up genetics in a article on race and intelligence except to frame intelligence as something that is fixed for various races through genetics? Isn't that the point here? If it is the point could we at least say so, plainly? futurebird 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Pioneer Fund researchers are trying to demonstrate "intelligence as a function of race" rather than the reverse.--Ramdrake 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant. futurebird 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No they're not... they're trying to demonstrate that average intelligence differs between groups. they wouldn't say for example, that being an albino african raises intelligence, as this racist functional idea would suggest.--Urthogie 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, they are trying to demontrate that average IQ test score differences are due to genetics and not environment.Ultramarine 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it closely, they really are trying to say that some "races" are genetically smarter or dumber than others-- and that the average gaps in intelligence will not be closed completely, even with more eduction, better heath care, cultural changes and an end to racism and stereotypes. futurebird 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no contradiction involved in what you're saying here and what I'm saying above. The genetic explanation does not imply that intelligence is a function of race, merely that a gene is more common in a given "race".--Urthogie 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, interesting studies you added above. I will add them to Health and intelligence and other articles as they get unprotected.Ultramarine 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article as well, for reasons I wrote.--Urthogie 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Lahn

A reference should be made of the Science rebuttal to Lahn in Science 22 December 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5807, p. 1872. BRUCE LAHN PROFILE: Links Between Brain Genes, Evolution, and Cognition Challenged Michael Balter for NPOV. Rushton also addressed it in: Rushton JP, Vernon PA, Bons TA. No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head circumference or altruism. Biol Lett. 2007 Jan 23; I noted the debate is framed as an American issue but is that neccessarily true: Psychol Rep. 2006 Aug;99(1):191-6. Association of race and color with mean IQ across nations.Templer DI, Arikawa H. I came across this article which I think exemplifies the perspective issue in this kind of research:Cooper RS. Race and IQ: Molecular genetics as deus ex machina. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):71-6. PMID: 15641923 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. This is an excellent article by the way! Kudos to all the authors! It is well referenced and generally balanced. It maybe too much detail for an encyclopedia. I noted in the Talk that original research was an issue and I hope that has been eliminated as an issue. GetAgrippa 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see the move to reorganize the article in Talk. A good idea considering it is really an offshoot of Intelligence. I think the article could easily turn into a quagmire of peer reviewed publications of differing opinion that support or refute any given contention. I think the move above to frame the issues and problems inherent is a good move.GetAgrippa 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to explain why there is a difference in IQ and race maybe an aside. It reminds me of research on age related effects on cognitive and spatial function-by your thirties there are significant effects, but is it significant. If you look at a hundred years of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, economics and literature and the age of their significant work you see it is 31-40 years of age-many were productive till their eighties. The question I have is the difference in IQ and race significant and is there another parameter of productivity or success that would be an objective measure to determine that any difference means anything in the real world. As I recollect IQ test correlate well with verbal abilities but also are a measure of productivity. GetAgrippa 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on differences of organ sizes (including brain) in blacks and whites and its relationship to metabolism. : Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;83(5):1062-7.Small organs with a high metabolic rate explain lower resting energy expenditure in African American than in white adults.Gallagher D, Albu J, He Q, Heshka S, Boxt L, Krasnow N, Elia M. The relationship of intelligence to brain size may have another dimension of differences in metabolism. GetAgrippa 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GetAgrippa, it seems to me that there is no way to draw on this literature in this context without violating WP:NOR. Are there secondary sources that have made connections between these findings and specific debates on race and intelligence? If so, can you single those out? otherwise, I would suggest that some of the articles may be appropriate to incorporate into the article on race, others into the article on intelligence, but here we have to be careful about NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am talking out loud. I am not familiar with this literature so I am exploring. It is OR because I am trying to make heads or tails of the literature. I find the kinds of questions being asked of interest. I can appreciate understanding differences in races for health and medical interest, but this is a dimension I see driven by bias. I am glad to see a number of authors suggesting a NPOV. GetAgrippa 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pg num on footnote 84

thanks. it's pointless as it is now.--Hollerbackgril 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

This article has been protected for nine days and there have been practically no specific proposals for moving ahead. This talk page is 139 kb long - 100 kb too long - and I have recently archived over 200 kb of talk! This is more than enough discussion to resolve any one issue. It can only mean that people are repeating themselves, keep raising tangents, or are adding talk that is not constructive. I have thus put in a request for comments here. 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Following the appropriate format :

Statements by editors involved in the dispute no more than three sentences, please.

"practically no specific proposals" In fact there are quite a few proposals on the table, we can't seem to agree to change anything. I feel that one user is standing in the way of us moving forward, arguing at length about every proposed change. futurebird 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is unbalanced: it espouses closely the POV of psychologists specialized in intelligence, but seems to be far less detailed on the wide opposition coming from anthropological and biological sciences (to name just two fields). Negociation-wise, the editors seem to keep talking past each other; while there seems to be a majority opinion, it is in a deadlock with the opposite opinion and real consensus seems unattainable. Both this article and several of the propositions in the talk page have issues of NOR and NPOV, with no obvious point of proper balance that has reached significant agreement.--Ramdrake 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO, Ramdrake's concern is not the reason why the page is locked, and by itself is a perfectly valid concern that could be settled by normal editing. The reason the page as locked I as understand the issue is best explained in this thread. Despite suggestions of "majority opinion", NOR and NPOV can only be maintained on this topic by avoiding grand schemes of analysis and presentation, and instead sticking to a narrowly-tailored presentation of the competing POVs found in the literature, one topic at a time. --WD RIK NEW 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WRN insists on framing the debate along pro-racialist lines, and resists every attempt to provide more context to the citations he makes, or to the article as a whole. His attachment to the article as is (which he has spent nearly 4 years editing as User:Rikurzhen) is very strong, and he has been unable to entertain or provide any compromise suggestions. The page was locked due to a low-level edit war between WRN and myself, and I believe the primary contention is how to frame the debate, with WRN insisting that the topic should be narrowly limited to "are the observed differences between races in intelligence of genetic or environmental origin", and other editors demanding a more holistic treatment of the subject. --JereKrischel 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

To start out with, consider JK's last sentence just above. The obvious solution is to discuss Race and Intelligence as a general subject in one article, and Racial differences in intelligence in another. it would not be a POV fork, if only because there would be quite a lot of disputed points to be discussed on each of the two pages, but it would at least have a more identifiable focus. DGG 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the talk page should be locked for a month or so too while heads cool down --Kevin Murray 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any precedent for this. Is it allowed? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think time will make any difference here, Kevin. This isn't not a matter of "heads cooling down" --everyone has been remarkably civil. If we wait too long people may leave, and the article will remain in its present state. Then new people will find it raise the issue again... and this cycle will never end. We need to make a clean break from that pattern. Do you have any other suggestions? futurebird 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is civility, but I don't think that minds are being changed, and are not likely to be without surgery. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, as an opposite approach to the action-call for by Slrubenstein. I think that this article will be a constant source of frustration as it is inherently emotionally charged. This knowledge can be a weapon for bigots but also a tool for those who want to build a more tolerant society. It may explain why many simplistic social programs fail. At this point I'm fairly satisfied that the article presents both sides, since no one seems satisfied but no one is seeking drastic measures. I had mentioned that we might build a replacement article somewhere, which would demonstrate the ideas mentioned here -- in essence a prototype. Perhaps in someone's personal space etc. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Breaking the article in to smaller parts will just leave a bunch of little orphans which will be highly susceptible to constant AfD attacks. The individual AfD debates will most likely draw a lot of politically-correct support for deletion and defenders will be painted as racist no matter what the motivation for preserving the article. Along with the practicality of Slrubenstein's suggestion, we must face the realities of politics within the WP infrastructure. Please keep the article together. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One constant problem on Wikipedia is that someone starts a very specific article, e.g., "The Aggressive Behavior of Klingons," in the absence of articles on "Aggressive Behavior" and on "Klingons." To make up for the background information that the missing canopy articles should provide, more and more is packed into the single article. There is a canopy article on Race, and I believe there is a canopy article on Intelligence, but there is no canopy article on Factors that influence IQ test results. Before looking at the correlations between assignments to [racial] categories and measurements resulting from the administration of [intelligence tests], I for one would like a general article that looks at factors that may influence intelligence in otherwise closely matched groups, e.g., epigenetic factors, nurture in infancy (social as well as material), childhood socialization and education, nutrition (during formative periods and during the testing period), etc., etc. P0M 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Intelligence quotient and tell me how much of your idea of Factors that influence IQ test results it meets. I suspect it already has most of the content you expect.--Ramdrake 17:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't what I expected at all. It seems that a lot of the content is related to racist ideas, or trying to set things up so that people who see it will think that this is real science. I mean I can see that you are just trying to be fair and show all of the sides of the debate, but this article is one sided. I wanted to edit it, but it is locked. Why is it locked? I though that wikipedia was open? This all seems unfair to me. Jamal 69.3.244.201 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamal, can you be more specific? The reason why the article is protected (locked) is specifically so people can't just drop-in and make radical deletions etc. without forming a consensus with other editors first. This discussion page is the forum through which you should express your concerns and try to build a consensus for change. If you bring some new or better information the administrator will probably work with you to make the article better. Good luck and welcome to the discussion. --Kevin Murray 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the underlying problem here is that some people, in their zeal to comply with two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:V, are not sensitive enough to issues of the third core policy, WP:NPOV - and that others, who are zealous about NPOV, are not sensitive enough to our NOR policy. I am convinced that NPOV and NOR/V are not in conflict in this article; I am convinced that it is possible to write an article that is fully compliant with all policies. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JereKrischel, this means exploring the controversies only insofar as they exist in the published literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses, but also trade presses if by acknowledged scholars in relevant fields. RIK, this means including academic literatures that do address race & intelligence debates that you seem resistant to acknowledge, especially in sociology and anthropology. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JereKrischel, this means being very careful to avoid forwarding our own synthetic claims even if based on published sources. I believe Jere made just this mistake towards the end of this section. But RIK, I believe Jere was citing an entirely acceptable source in this section. I think if RIK can be more attentive to NPOV and Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JK more attentive to NOR, we will make much more progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change intro picture

This maybe a scholarly article but I think you are missing your audience. I still have a high schooler (senior) and I asked her to look at the article. She said the first thing that grabbed her eye was the disparity in the bright colored bell curves-Black vs White. From that point her assumption is the article is about disparities in the black race. The article touches on Race but she said it is really about the black race. If that is your goal then change the article to Black race or Sub-Saharan African descendants and intelligence. She also said the article is too long. The Evolution article had the same problem of being graduate level and not a general encyclopedic article (that is changing). This is not a peer-reviewed journal or forum for academic debate but an encyclopedia. Try and remember that with the move for improvements. GetAgrippa 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the split we are discussing above will help with both of these problems a great deal. This is some really useful feedback. I think that the graphic needs more context. The image of a Bell Curve split was made famous by Charles Murray and The Bell Curve and surrounding controversy-- I think the graphic belongs in the main article, but it ought to be clear that the graphic itself has been a source of debate.

I'm glad that they have switch from the graph with curves for other races, since that was based on original research and it gave the impression that race and intelligence research has been about something other than "an investigation of the negro" this may have changed a little in recent years, but, historically it has really been primarily about a black vs. white divide-- We just need to be upfront about this even if it is uncomfortable to explain.

I also think two curves make sense becuase showing a bell curve for Hispanic people in an article about race is just silly-- some hispanic people identify as white and other identify as black, it's not a "race," it's an ethnicity.futurebird 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GetAgrippa's characterization and suggestion. (1) The four curve image should be restored. (2) Summary style should be tightened up further, with less detail in this article and more in the subarticles. --W.R.N. 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think GetAgrippa suggested that the OR four curve image should be restored. I believe the criticism was that the article was too focused on Black inferiority (maybe there should be a Race and intelligence (Black inferiority) page, where people who assert specific hierarchies like Rushton and Jensen can have some detail). Summary style should also be observed within references - too many times, argument and editorialization is going on inside refs. --JereKrischel 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the ~~slander~~ libel about Jensen, I'll bring up the 4 curve image again. Here are two images, which if any violate NOR and why? Compare and contrast. --W.R.N. 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, "Hispanics" isn't and never was a "race" but an ethnicity. Right there and then, inclusion of that particular curve is a misconstrusion(Eng?). Also, could you point to a specific URL which would present a figure which you feel is the closest to that 4-curve chart? As close to the research world as possible, of course. Just want to see how it compares. If not a URL, maybe a scan of a book could be temporarily uploaded for comparison purposes (don't want to break any wikirules there, just want to have an opportunity to compare by myself)--Ramdrake 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN reconstructed the curves from a Gottfredson chart that was very complex - he eliminated a great deal of it, and moved the two curves together. He went further on to add additional curves not on the graph based on data in the same figure. I don't have the URL off hand for the Gottfredson paper, but I'll look for it.

Insofar as Jensen and claims of black inferiority in intelligence, see IQ and Race: A Discussion of Some Confusions Paul Gomberg Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 3. (Apr., 1975), pp. 258-266. - The current outbreak of controversy stems from the paper by Arthur R. Jensen in the Harvard Educational Review arguing that the evidence points to the conclusion that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. --JereKrischel 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inferiority is a moral concept. Intellectual inferiority elides the within group variation. Randomly libeling researchers on the talk page is hardly a way to productively discuss the content of this article. --W.R.N. 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inferiority is quantitative and means lower rank. From the Latin comparative for infra ("below" or "under"). JK is not libeling Jensen, just citing sources. "He argues that in some ways the American black is intellectually inferior to the American white." [5] See also "Who Are the Academic Proponents of the Theory of Inferior IQs of Black People?" Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 10 (Winter 1995-96): 18-19. Jokestress 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original graph, on page 43. --JereKrischel 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three editions of the figure in the relevant form. (1) [6] (p.8) (2) [7] (p.26) and (3) [8] (p.43). All of the data is spelled out in a single figure. Contrast with the global warming chart, which compiles 10 different studies. --W.R.N. 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the temperature studies use the same definition of Celsius and Fahrenheit. No standard definition of "race" was in Gottfredson's original 1997 article "Why g Matters". Also, was the original global warming chart in some study with only 2 of the lines drawn? --JereKrischel 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, how about just reproducing the table and/or the two-curve diagram? Neither would violate OR, as long as they were properly attributed (such as the current-two curve diagram looks to be now). However, I still don't know what to make of "Hispanics". And comparing to what another article did may or may not be relevant, as they too may have erred in interpreting Wiki-rules.--Ramdrake 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) The table and the curve are identical (nearly so, there's some problems with the originals that FB and I discovered) in their content. Tables don't make for good images, but curves do. (2) Hispanic is used in the conventional sense. It's used that way in innumerable studies in many fields, not just this one. If we can't use the common sense meaning of words when published studies we're cited do, we have a problem. (Note, I understand that a great deal of genetic and social variability is contained within the category, which I believe is noted in the article.) (3) I'm not saying they both can't be OR, but the curves are clearly "less OR" than the temp data. Arguing for OR in this case seems to be without precedent, but I am willing to be proven wrong. --W.R.N. 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :) I was just trying to suggest the simplest possible solution which coudn't conceivably be called OR or synthesis. While I acknowledge that pictures make much better images than tables, have you given a thought that the 4-curve graph may be just too evocative for the good of the article? And while I recognize that Hispanics have been used in a number of studies already, I think their inclusion in a graph or table in this article needs possibly a simple caveat. JK's main objection is the conflation of definitions of "race" together, and defintions of "race" with "groups", with "ethnicities", you name it. I think we should support resolving the conflation, especially in cases where it is easy and simple to do so. Doesn't that make sense to you?--Ramdrake 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to "shout". I obviously was heated for reasons other than you. I'm not sure what your suggestion entails. The main points of the chart are to show that while groups cluster at different points, there's huge within group variability, the curves overlap a great deal, and there are individuals from each group at all common levels of IQ. The reason for included more than just BW curves is to show that there is more to the discussion than BW differences -- though granted they do make-up a solid plurality of the material. You don't need to know much about the nature of race for these points to be made, and I don't see any disagreement with them in the literature. At least to me they seem to be the most important take-away message. --W.R.N. 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "main point" of the chart is that it fundamentally frames the question into the acceptance of racial categories as valid. A better graph would probably include known environmental factors that show how close things are once certain variables are taken into account, and simply label the remaining difference as "unexplained". --JereKrischel 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a graph from the Columbia University Teachers College and Northwest University study, which found a 15-point BW IQ gap, but found 52% of that gap to be accounted for by poverty factors, and 28% accounted for by other social and economic differences, leaving a "statistically insignificant" 3 point gap. I'll see if I can find the original study. --JereKrischel 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia/Northwestern curves

Their calculation for the IQ gap between Black and white on the WPPSI Full-scale IQ included the following curves:

Control	gap (1SD approx 15)
Control for ethnicity/gender/birthweight/Neonatal health index	17.76
Add control for family and neighborhood economic status	8.45
Add control for family structure and maternal characteristics	7.83
Add control for maternal parenting behavior	3.42

The year for the scores was 1991, the age of the children was 5.

--JereKrischel 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about the cause of the gap. Using children also introduces issues of age-change. Here's the intro sentence from a recent SciAm article: This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. There's no need to confuse the issue at stage 1. --W.R.N. 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to report the raw gap, as Gottfredson is doing, without context. Since we have good, sourced data on the causes of the gap, a proper intro image would reflect that. --JereKrischel 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, you got a link for that study? If you can send me a little more data I can make a nice graphic for this information. I think it'd help a lot in the environment section of the article. futurebird 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap other than that's its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. The existence of a phenotypic gap is an entirely different question than its cause. For example, why not plot the scores from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, since adoption controls for all aspects of family effects? Of course we shouldn't. --W.R.N. 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this fairly recent study showed very clearly very important factors based on SES...you still have 3.42 points to explain, of course...and the Minnesota study has problems beyond the scope of this talk page: At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. --JereKrischel 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) you are ignoring my first criticisms and trying to argue about the data. such arguments are irrelevant to the point. (2) but on the data, this kind of analysis has been discussed in the sub-article on explanations: if you combine a large number of variables, you can get a proxy for biological-parental IQ which obviously eliminates IQ difference. --W.R.N. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) the Northwestern/Columbia study clearly shows that it isn't "just" SES, but simply mostly SES. I don't see what your argument is with the study results, but perhaps you could provide a reference which directly criticizes that study. (2) You're assuming a lot about intelligence there, and confusing causalities. --JereKrischel 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This study is about the cause of the gap. There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap, except that its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. Further, presentation of data using children also introduces issues of age-change that are not just controversial but hardly discussed in the literature. No figure about the cause of the gap can possible lead the article as there is simply no scholarly consensus for such a presentation. An argument that the gap is wholly or almost completely due to SES would undeniably be presenting a POV that doesn't have sufficient scholarly support. Contrast with This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. -- text from a magazine that is noted as historically antagonistic to everything IQ. The only possible lead image is something showing the IQ test score gap. Per getagrippa's daughter's comment, making it just about blacks and whites is unnecessarily narrow. --W.R.N. 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) As per age change, are you concerned that Gottfredson does not indicate the age of those tested? (2) Do you have a source which disputes the Northwestern/Columbia findings, or is this your own opinion that their study is flawed? (3) Citing a passage from a magazine is certainly permissible, but drawing up a graph to give it some sort of false authority is misleading. Picking one point in time to illustrate a 15-point BW gap misleads on the basis of the Flynn effect, which would show some significant variability.

In all honesty, I think you're trying to rationalize your POV pushing image, and are having a hard time sounding consistent when presented with a image that contradicts your POV, but is just as notable, reliable, and apparently even more well sourced. I have significant doubts about your ability to remain open-minded on this issue, but I'm open to any compromise suggestions you may have. --JereKrischel 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think you're misconstruing GetAgrippa's daughter's criticism - the fact that most of the citations are focused on the B-W gap seems to be related to racialist preconceptions. A more broad treatment of how ideas of race and intelligence have intersected historically, to justify racism for and against various groups over time, would be preferable to the narrow focus the article has now. --JereKrischel 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troubling reliability

In "Desegregating Gifted Education", p145, Gottfredson cites her 1997 article in Intelligence as the source for her graph (she says, "Adapted from"). However, in her 1997 article, there are no racial data. I'm going to follow the bouncing ball to Gottfredson 2003b to see if there are more clues there. --JereKrischel 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in all of her 2003 papers she listed [9], and could not find any indication of where she got her data from for her citation. Any help in finding the actual source of data Gottfredson used would be appreciated. At this point, Gottfredson seems to have simply picked numbers out of a hat. Any inclusion of the graph should require both the years of data for the WAIS scores, as well as the specific definitions of race used. --JereKrischel 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK are you speaking strictly against the inclusion of the Gottfredson graph, or questioning its use as the introduction graph to the article? While there can't really be arguments against the inclusion fo the Gottfredson graph (let's put aside the issue of the origin of her data), its use as the introductory graph may be questioned and a graph such as you sggest (if it can be found in the existing literature) might indeed be preferable. However, I believe we need to differentiate our objections here. The Gottfredson graph can certainly be included; its position can certainly be debated, but I wouldn't want issues confused.--Ramdrake 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The major problem, by the way, with adding the other curves is that the data for the curves shown are from a 1981 WAIS study and the "data" for "hispanics" and "asians" is from a "study" I still have not been able to track down-- we have no idea if the tests, were comparable, and Gottfredson herself didn't include all four curves, most likely because she realized that comparing data in that manner would make an already tenuous study laughable. I see no need to rehash this further, we've been through all of this when the image was up for deletion. The new version is an improvement, in so far as it is an accurate representation of a study done 26 years ago. So, it is, at least, at the level where it can be used in an article, but sources must be cited and it must be clear how old the data are. I'd recommend citing WAIS directly, since that study is more respected than anything Gottfredson has ever written.futurebird 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think the opening image should relate to the opening paragraph. I would be OK with this graph being used if there is some mention of the bell curve controversy in the caption. I think we should choose the image after we have the text ready. The ere many valid reasons to objecting to the use of the bell curves as the opening graphic. (That said I think it's rather silly to hide this image, you can see it as a snapshot of cultural differences, the ridiculousness of IQ tests, social inequity and the effects of racism, or black inferiority. If the article is balanced, it won't make the image seem like it's saying just one thing.(another reason to cite WAIS as the source rather than Gottfredson.)futurebird 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do object to including the Gottfredson graph if it is not reliable. So far, the numbers being presented are simply numbers she's reporting, without attributing her sources properly (unless someone can find Gottfredson 2003b and any data tables or citations there).

I assume that finding an original study, rather than a meta-analysis, is preferable for making citations. Although I could possibly understand where my detective work may be considered "OR"...the line on that seems a bit fuzzy, since we're supposed to make sure things are verifiable... --JereKrischel 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, the two black and white bell curves she uses are from WAIS. It is as reliable as any intelligence test that's 25 years old could be. The numbers for "asians" and "hispanics" are of unknown origin-- and I agree we ought not include them until we know where they came from.futurebird 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Things are verifiable if they are published in verifiable sources. This is OR, but moreover it's pursuing the advancement of a particular POV. AFAIK, the "main points" aren't contested. Trying to figure out whether the curves should be a pixel to the right or left isn't worthwhile. --W.R.N. 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about finding out whether the curves should be a pixel one way or another, it is about proper attribution. At this point, we can only verify that Gottfredson said something, and cannot verify the definition of race used in the original study, nor even the original study scores. This important context should be prominent if we are to include the image. Also, AFAIK, WAIS is just a test - without information on when that test was administered, or how they divided people up into various "races", we don't have proper context. --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. futurebird 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. -- That's not how WP works. --W.R.N. 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should accept data published from unreliable sources, WRN? --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are using a pun on reliable source. --W.R.N. 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There still is no answer to the question about where the "asian" and "hispanic" data came from... That said-- I feel we are being side tracked, here. Let's stay civil. JK, could you please let me know where to look for the data so I can work on a new bell curve graphic for the "environmental" explanations section? In the mean time, let's tackle that intro. futurebird 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. Certainly Gottfredson's assertions would be more credible if they were supported by additional sources, including the one she should have cited. --JereKrischel 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a pun on "Exceptional claims". The definition of exceptional claims is about claims that run counter to majority opinions. --W.R.N. 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the APA report, the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category. - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. None of them are internally homogeneous. --JereKrischel 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERace_and_intelligence_Archive_45_75eb.html"