Talk:Race and intelligence (utility of research)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Condense and merge back?

This should be condensed and placed in the main article, Race and intelligence. futurebird 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If left a separate article it should talk about what the original purpose of race and intelligence research was, historically, namely a justification for slavery and other racist social policies. futurebird 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This and other such entires should be discussed in the main talk page. --W. D. Hamilton 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources and quotes to use for historical context

The division of Homo sapiens into 3 to 6 race taxons began in the 18th century before the establishment of genetics and evolutionary biology. These disciplines have since shown that human race taxonomy has no scientific basis. Race is thus a flawed social construct that reflects concepts created from prevailing social perceptions without scientific evidence. Have You Ever Seen an Asian/Pacific Islander? Archives of Dermatology HC Williams Vol. 138 No. 5, May 2002

In the ‘pre-genomic’ era race was the surrogate for genetic effects at the population level, and it must follow that molecular research will now largely transform that agenda.

The central message put forward by those championing this updated version of race, wherein molecular data indeed show that genetic variation is discontinuous, represents a minority position, however.

It is perhaps characteristic of the concept of race that it has retained its vitality in the scientific literature during the molecular age while being excluded from the requirement of a definition that meets the usual statistical requirements in epidemiology. From the point of view of the population genetics it is hard to see how progress will be made until this issue is resolved.

To argue that the existence of the ‘races of man’ has been confirmed because of cluster analysis and description of superficial physical differences represents an intervention into public health that remains inadequately justified.

Having argued that we should maintain an open mind in order to make use of what is new and unanticipated in the emerging molecular data, and that strong conclusions are at best premature, let me offer my own (tentative) conclusions. The concept of race is unlikely to have value in public health—not only do the useful population units occur at a smallersize, race drags with it the dead weight of its noxious past. Race, genes, and health—new wine in old bottles? International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:23-25 by Richard S. Cooper, Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine

Researchers frequently failed to differentiate between the concepts of race and ethnicity, to state the context in which these variables were used, to state the study methods used to assess these variables, and to discuss significant study results based on race or ethnicity. Continued professional commitment is needed to ensure the scientific integrity of race and ethnicity as variables.

American Journal of Epidemiology. 159(6):611-619, March 15, 2004. Comstock, R. Dawn 1,2; Castillo, Edward M. 3; Lindsay, Suzanne P. 4

Using race as a proxy for genetic differences limits understandings of the complex interactions among political-economic processes, lived experiences, and human biologies. By moving beyond studies of racialized genetics, we can clarify the processes by which varied and interwoven forms of racialization and racism affect individuals "under the skin." Why genes don't count (for racial differences in health) AH Goodman US Southwest and Mexico Program, School of Natural Science, Hampshire College, Amherst. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 90, Issue 11 1699-1702, 2000


These are all about race in itself. They are outside the scope of this article. They are also just one small part of the rather expansive debate that has occurred surrounding race. --W. D. Hamilton 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed text

Defending Jensen, Detterman (1998, p. 177) wrote

For years, his critics have called him every name in the book and have accused him of all kinds of biases and prejudices. In fact, I have never known anybody with fewer prejudices. The biggest prejudices scientists usually have are those in favor of their own ideas.... However, Jensen has no loyalty whatsoever to any theory or hypothesis even if they come from his own ideas. He would gladly know the truth even if it proved him wrong. In fact, he would be excited to know the truth.[1]


Don't know where to put this. The section of motivations of racism should stay on topic and not go in to rebuttles. futurebird 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jensen is the central target of such claims and his name has been literally identified with it (see Jensenism). The existence of rebuttals is noteworthy, and establishes the existence of the racism claims from the other POV. --W. D. Hamilton 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's way to long. can we make it in to a sentence? Or is it OK now that I took out the quote about Jenson being a Nazi or something (even I thought it was a little over the top.) If we put this back we need to put that quote back for context. futurebird 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can make it into a sentence. I only added the extensive quote b/c the previous rebuttal sentence was removed (true, it wasn't the best sentence). Simply noting that counter-claims are made is sufficient; Detterman is a noteworthy defender because he is respected (wrote the Encarta entry on IQ). --W. D. Hamilton 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to make this seem less like a argument and more like an article. I don't like either quotation, because they are both quite loaded and don't do the best job of characterizing the more rational players in this debate. Also, it's odd, do you think, to have the section of racism filled up mostly with reasons why it can't possibly be racism. I think the counter argument that's there is very rational, making both sides seem like they have good points to make. One rebuttal quote is enough. Let's see what others think. Ok?
futurebird 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Now I see what you said. If you want to throw a sentence in there that'd probably be find too. I should read more carefully! You did say making it a sentence would be fine. And I guess put the "hitler" quote in too? I want to see if I can find something that sounds less hysterical than that...futurebird 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hitler quote is by Jerry Hirsch [1] -- so, not just a random guy but someone how studies "racism in science and society and its intellectual foundations in social science and biology, and its history". So maybe look at his writing. --W. D. Hamilton 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead v body

the lead is out of sync with the body. for example, chris brand is mentioned in the lead but not the body. (coincidently, i question whether brand doesn't represent a fringe view and/or whether he's being properly represented.) per wp:lead, A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead. --W.R.N. 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you replace him with a better example? I'll move the mention of Chris to some place less prominent, in the mean time...futurebird 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wonder (1) if he's one only person who holds the view ascribed to him (if so, then it's not notable) and (2) I wonder if he thinks "race realism" is in itself valuable versus whether he thinks its a means to some end (I don't know). --W.R.N. 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence

Theories of race and intelligence that conclude the average gap in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites are significantly due to genetic differences between Blacks and Whites have been challenged on grounds of their utility.

appears to be too specific. it's about all aspects of the research, not just causal explanations. --W.R.N. 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Theories of race and intelligence have been challenged on grounds of their utility.
How about this? futurebird 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

As conveyed by Gloria Ladson-Billings, the premise of black inferiority is one of those “myths, presuppositions, and received wisdoms that make up the common culture about race and that invariably render blacks and other minorities one down”[2]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Detterman, D. K. (1998). Kings of men: Introduction to a special issue. Intelligence, 26(3), 175-180.
  2. ^ The Premise of Black Inferiority: An Enduring Obstacle Fifty Years Post-Brown by Carla O’Connor Chapter 16

[edit] lee quote

To my knowledge, there are no comparable studies examining the potential genetic basis for the differences in test score achievement between white and Asian and white and Asian-American students. If test score data can serve as an adequate and reliable basis for evaluating potential genetic differences in populations, then perhaps we should undertake empirical studies to determine whether there is a genetic basis for why Asian and Asian American students typically outperform their white counterparts, particularly in the areas of mathematics and science. The very question is absurd, however; and no scholar, to my knowledge, takes it as a topic worthy of empirical investigation. [10]

of course comparable studies have been done, and the topic of e.asian-european differences in science/math have been studied as well. it seems the only part of the quote that's salient is "The very question is absurd". --W.R.N. 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)