User talk:Plusdown/RaceIQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article overhaul

OK, I have been thinking about this article. As it stands, it is, frankly, abominable. It is an almost unsalvageable mush of POV and counter-POV, and also lays itself open to drive-by troll edits, particularly because of its structure. Moreover, it includes a lot of material which, while perhaps relevant, does not really need to be included here because it is dealt with in detail elsewhere. And it also seems to lose the plot somewhere, in that it seems to take as its main topic 'the genetic hypothesis regarding correlations between race and IQ', which is actually not what the title suggests the article should be about. I therefore propose restructuring the article something as follows:

[edit] Introduction

The question of whether there is a meaningful correlation between race and intelligence, and the causes of such a correlation if it exists, is one which is hotly debated both in the scholarly literature and in the public sphere.

  • Briefly mention why it is important, and
  • Explain the layout of the article

[edit] History

Discuss, briefly, the history of research into the problem. Try to avoid enumerating arguments in detail here, because they will have their place later on. Just facts and milestones: 'in 1256, St. William of Nairobi published his treatise De Nationis, which outlined the idea that all races are equally blessed by the Christian god; while Prester John liked the book, St. William was crucified by the Teutonic knights'.

[edit] Data

In essence, we have to recognise that whether we view race as a biological reality or a social category, and whether we accept IQ tests as valid measures of intelligence or as silly bits of paper, there is a definite empirical correlation between race, as naively defined, and IQ test results. Arguments as to why this correlation is illusory (because, say, race doesn't exist, or IQ doesn't measure intelligence, or whatever) can be included later.

Here, we report only the data from the literature.

As far as the data goes, the best source to use would probably be the APA report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns', because:

  • it is comparatively recent
  • it is comparatively neutral
  • it is compiled by a professional body which operates directly in the field of psychometrics

I stress, a 'data' section should contain only data, and not analysis, interpretation, argumentation, counter-argumentation, or anything else. Just the results.

  • The most obvious question is, what's the point of a "data" section? This is not a research paper, Wikipedia should not include sections exclusively devoted to "data", it is an encyclopaedia, it should rely on secondary and tertiary sources and not primary sources, which a "data" section would represent. Secondary data can be included within the discussion to illustrate a point. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. As an encyclopaedia Wikipedia needs to give the various points of view and conclusions of experts, i.e. the various theories that can be used to explain any observed [scientific] phenomenon. We should discuss the theories and not the data, I don't think anyone denies that there is a test score gap, the question is whether this gap is explained by socio-environmental factors (as scientists believe) or by a combination of socio-environmental and genetic factors (as pseudo-scientists believe). That's the discussion and that's what the article should be about. Alun (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental interpretations

Include here interpretations which (obviously) regard environmental factors as being of primary importance in explaining the results contained in the 'data' section. Importantly, to accept environmental explanations of measured differences between, say, African Americans and Americans of European descent, one doesn't have to believe that race is a social construct (although many people do). The nature of race doesn't enter the picture here: these interpretations take race as a given, but argue that it is not genetic differences between races which cause the problem, so much as social differences (those who regard race to be meaningless can be dealt with later: especially since one coherently can regard race as biologically meaningingless, while still regarding intelligence as being hereditary and measured by IQ!). The arguments in both this section and the one below also implicitly assume that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence (i.e. there's no point arguing that, say, malnourishment causes lower IQ scores unless one thinks that IQ scores measure something interesting enough to bother explaining - no-one suggests it's a measure of nutrition).

There should be no 'criticism' subsection here containing hereditarians' criticisms of the views outlined: rather, if such criticisms are notable, they should be included in the paragraph dealing with the interpretation being criticised; is it the Manual of Style which says that these separate 'criticism' sections should be avoided where possible?

[edit] Hereditarian interpretations

Here, interpretations which argue that between-group differences are hereditary. Mostly Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson, etc. The Bell Curve is more about how important IQ is in determining the course of one's life, than it is a detailed argument that the link between race and intelligence is genetically mediated. Hence the proper place to mention it would be later (see below).

Again, criticisms of these interpretations should not be in a separate section, but included with the views being criticised. And of supreme importance here is to avoid political criticism: in other words, it doesn't matter if Rushton runs the Pioneer Fund, or if Gottfredson got photographed wearing a Klan hood (she didn't, of course): if their research has been published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals - which in most cases it has, certainly their most important studies - then it merits inclusion as a serious scientific point of view, and only scholarly criticisms should be included in this section (the politics stuff should come later on).

Genetic hypothesis [1] --Jagz (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other interpretations

Here, we have other notable interpretations, which seem mostly to come from non-psychologists (psychologists seem to opt for one or the other of the schools above).

For example, Gould's argument that IQ measures nothing real, and is a bit of statistical conjury. There are others with similar views, but Gould's is probably the best, and most notable, example.

Also important to mention here is the view of many anthropologists (and others), that 'race' isn't a biologically meaningful categorisation of human beings, and so any attribution of between-group differences to genes would be fallacious.

Again, criticisms of each of these point of view should be woven into their own paragraphs, not separated out, because that attracts drive-by trolling.

[edit] Controversy

Obviously, this topic has some very deep political implications, whichever way the evidence points. Hence there has been heated political debate about the research itself.

Because the debate has occurred more in the public sphere than in the scholarly literature, it is often on a different 'level' to the scholarly debate.

To be mentioned here would be 19th century pseudoscience relating to this topic, and how it has been discredited. Then, how opponents of the genetic hypothesis often regard that hypothesis as being a modern form of scientific racism, etc. All the usual arguments about eugenics, the fact that the Pioneer Fund has given money to overtly political projects, Hitler, etc., should come here. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the scholarly debate; if Lynn supports eugenics, that's his prerogative...but that has nothing to do with his results on, say, the differences in IQ between different countries, which need to be criticised on the level of methodology, etc. (to do otherwise is fallacious, and to group political criticism with scientific results in the article is to perpetuate the fallacy).

Mention how the media gives support primarily to environmental interpretations (and not a little attention to Gould). Then, the Snyderman study suggesting that this support is primarily politically informed and has not much to do with the facts, along with a brief mention that the study has been criticised, and a link to the article on the study itself.

The Bell Curve controversy.

The James Watson controversy.

Anything else relevant.

[edit] General comments

I realise that the above structure may seem to resemble the existing article quite a bit: and, to be fair, it does. However, I think it is different in a number of respects:

  • The current article seems to convey the idea that it is primarily about the 'genetic hypothesis'. It shouldn't be: that hypothesis might be the most provocative, but it isn't the only one. The article is about the correlation between race and intelligence, whether it is meaningful, and what might cause it.
  • By starting again, one can eliminate much of the mush without having to make a conscious decision to do so.

[edit] another attempt like this

User:Nick_Connolly/RaceIQ --Legalleft (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)