Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

User:Zen-master sockpuppet

I've been following the discussion here for over a day and it occured to me to ask Arbor exactly how JereKrischel's changes are "biased wording"? Everything JereKrischel is pointing out about this "research" is true. The article needs more critical sources and every disputed point and disputed word choice should be changed or caveatted. Pristine Clarity 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, everything pointed out is true. The problem is that it's already pointed out in the original text, and pointing the same thing out an additional 15 times in a small text isn't improving readability and distracts the reader from what is actually written. --Zero g 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your response doesn't make sense to me, every occurence of non neutral presentation requires a caveat or re-wording, right? We need to disassociate presentation from conclusivity. In my interpretation this article (and area of "research") is so vastly non scientific and utilizes a minefield of propaganda-esque suggestive language it's staggering. Unfortunately, it is difficult to illustrate just how wrong the way this issue has been presented. Pristine Clarity 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, everything needs to be placed in the proper context which the text in question currently does. If you can't illustrate how wrong (pov) this issue has been presented adding weasel words isn't going to improve the article. While I see room for improvement I'd suggest basing any refutations on expert opinion and keeping repetition to a minimum. --Zero g 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How should someone go about trying to convince you what you consider to be the "proper context" is wrong? "Expert opinion" is not allowed to violate Wikipedia's presentation neutrality policies, right? What you interpret to be "weasel words" are actually necessary caveats, though they don't come anywhere close to conveying the extreme problems with the way this issue is misleadingly structured. Pristine Clarity 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything JereKrischel is pointing out about this "research" is true. That's pretty much the definition of a NPOV/NOR violation. --Rikurzhen 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that an NPOV/NOR violation? Please attempt to defend what others (including critical sources) interpret to be a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? You seem to be confusing "original research" with determinations of presentation neutrality violations? Pristine Clarity 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? --Rikurzhen 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you disagree with my interpretation but that doesn't make it inaccurate, nor an NPOV violation. I am only trying to get you and everyone to see the (extreme) lack of neutral presentation on this issue. Pristine Clarity 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific presentation?

This article does not utilize anything resembling a fair, neutral, nor scientific presentation of the issue. The current version of this article presents this issue as regurgitated from pro Pioneer Fund sources, Wikipedia's neutrality policies should be a much much much higher standard. Given a highly disputed and controversial subject an article should explicitly note each and every disputed point and explain to the reader exactly where the controversy begins. One of the biggest controversies surrounding this subject (that the current version of the article fails to mention) has to do with language, this article absolutely should not exclusively use pro Pioneer Fund sources' word choices. Pristine Clarity 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen Master? --Rikurzhen 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please attempt to explain the current version of this article's vastly unscientific paradigm of presentation? Pristine Clarity 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet, our job is just to report the issues in the accepted language used in the literature.--Nectar 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who has ever criticized this article and area of "research" has been trying to tell you there is no such thing as "accepted language" on anything having to do with this issue. You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim? That can not possibly be neutral. Pristine Clarity 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim Indeed, that's exactly what NPOV requires. --Rikurzhen 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund Research

The Pioneer Fund conspiracy theory of race and intelligence research appears to have originated with a 4-minute ABC News clip from 1994 related to The Bell Curve.[1] Attempts to find documentation about PF being associated with "bias" turned up a single published report which denied that PF caused bias in researchers, but suggested that PF had an influence by who they selected to fund. Are there published accounts to support the claim that the PF connection is not simply a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense, but an actual conspiracy? --Rikurzhen 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the evidence on Pioneer Fund sufficient? And isn't any label of conspiracy necessarily pejorative? In the end, the practical difference between funding biased researchers, and biasing researchers with funding doesn't seem all that much... --JereKrischel 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I'll repeat the NOR in a nutshell to make the point clear. A claim that PF is bad + PF funds R&I doesn't give us R&I research is bad. --Rikurzhen 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
Wait a second...the Pioneer Fund article shows published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements and theories in their citations. The claim that PF=bad PF=R&I > R&I=bad is not original thought at all - it is well published and understood. What do you think isn't already published? What particular synthesis isn't found in the notes and references of the Pioneer Fund article? --JereKrischel 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you think isn't already published? That criticisms of PF can be taken as reflecting badly on the R&I science they support. AFAIK, for example, Tucker argues against this specifically. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a quote from one of the references on the Pioneer Fund page:

He cautions that the Pioneer Fund is "a Fund that was founded by supporters of Hitler's policies against ethnic minorities and handicapped people and that provided money for introducing Nazi propaganda into the United States; it still sponsors research (and projects) that have striking similarities to the work that provided the scientific basis for Nazi measures."[12] Benno Muller-Hill, author of Murderous Science: Crimes against Germany's Ethnic Minorities, echoes Kuhl; Muller-Hill writes that the Death Camps of Hitler's Germany were not the result of a crazed minority of empty-headed bumpkins, but rather "the result of the work of leading scholars of international repute ... Nazi racial policies were the work of trained scholars, not ignorant fanatics" - it was a science gone mad.

http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000042.htm

--JereKrischel 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another specific example of published connections made between Pioneer Fund and the research they support:

The Pioneer Fund has its origins in the eugenics movement of the late 19th century. This branch of science held that mankind could be genetically improved by proper breeding, ideally of white people with other white people. Its founder was Wickliffe Draper, the reclusive and, as it turns out, racist heir to a New England textile fortune. Draper's foundation was established to encourage "racial hygiene" and at points his money helped distribute a 1930s Nazi film on the subject.

William H. Tucker, a professor at Rutgers University's Camden campus, wrote a book on Draper and the Pioneer Fund. What he found was an interconnection between almost every academic with a strong racial theory and Pioneer.

"Everywhere I went where there was a scientist who had a racist sensibility, Pioneer had gotten in touch with him," Tucker said.

If Pioneer could not openly fund a cause, Draper, often using the staff from Pioneer, would funnel some of his own money. He gave $350,000 to help William Shockley, the Nobel laureate who invented the transistor, develop his theories about lower black intelligence. When Earnest Sevier Cox of The White American Society wanted to promote his campaign to repatriate American blacks in Africa, the money came out of Draper's pocket.

When Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley sought to prove Shockley's theories, Pioneer funded him. When Wesley Critz George of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill needed to put out an anti-civil rights pamphlet called "Biology of the Race Problem," Draper quietly underwrote the project, sending his staff to arrange the transfer of money.

"It was Pioneer in all but name," Tucker said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/450021.stm

--JereKrischel 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That first quote is from an organization of apocalyptic Christians[2] who aren't citable in a science article.
The second quote states the Pioneer Fund is immoral and funds race and intelligence research, which is different than arguing criticisms of PF affect researchers' results.--Nectar 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that apocalyptic christians cited someone doesn't make the source uncitable (they cite Kuhl and Muller-Hill). Similarly, Tucker's quote, "Everywhere I went where there was a scientist who had a racist sensibility, Pioneer had gotten in touch with him,", is a direct criticism of PF grantees. Again, I'll assert that funding biased researchers is indistinguishable from biasing researchers with funding. In either case, the argument being made (by others, not me), is that the research done by Pioneer Fund grantees has a predetermined racist agenda - whether or not that is because the Pioneer Fund finds racists, and funds them, or finds normal scientists, and encourages them to racist conclusions with the carrot of their funding, is an open question, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nazism Kuhl attributes to R&I research doesn't derive from its support from the PF, which is what we're looking for.
William Tucker's book on the fund is AFAIK the criticism with the most academic influence and summarizes the Pioneer issue here:
If the fund has done no more than provide resources to universities for scientific research of high quality, then Pioneer may have been victimized by an intellectually stultifying pressure to conform to political orthodoxy. On the other hand, if the many grants made by Pioneer—not only to a number of well-known scientists but also to a host of obscure academics [see next paragraph] who similarly maintain that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites—mask other, less laudable goals, then the fund may be hiding an oppressive political agenda behind the protection of academic freedom.[3]
. . .
Of course, neither the existence of an odious agenda on Pioneer's part nor the desire of some grant recipients to assist in promoting it justifies attempts to harass researchers, impede their work, or prevent them from obtaining support from the fund. The sort of treatment accorded to Rushton, for example, by both his own department and the administration at the University of Western Ontario has been nothing short of disgraceful. . . Other Pioneer scientists, such as Jensen and Eysenck, have undergone similar harassment for arriving at politically unpopular conclusions.[4]
A final indication of Pioneer's interest solely in science, according to Weyher, was the fact that the fund has supported "only the top experts." It was true that the fund could cite a list of distinguished researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, and others who could point to accomplishments besides their studies of racial differences. But there is an equally long list of other Pioneer grantees, including Robert Kuttner, Donald Swan, Roger Pearson, Ralph Scott, and Frank McGurk—all obscure academics lacking any major scientific achievements and notable primarily for their contributions to a string of racist and neo-Nazi causes. . . As the Satterfield plan envisioned, the purpose of the former group of grantees has been to provide scientific conclusions that can be offered to dignify the policies advocated by the latter.
This seems to be a criticism of race and intelligence research in the sense expressed in the utility of research section (racists' use of the research results). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nectarflowed (talk • contribs)

[edit conflict]

I'm pretty sure that the claim that some researcher (e.g., Jensen, Rushton, etc.) "is racist" is pretty well documented outside of the context of PF. What's not documented in any scholarly literature (AFAIK) is an argument from PF to a criticism of the science of R&I. (Note that calling someone racist is not the same as saying that they are wrong about science.) --Rikurzhen 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a racist is not the same as saying they are wrong about the science...but comparing the research the Pioneer Fund promotes to the discredited "sciences" of phrenology, eugenics, and other Nazi atrocities *is* saying that they are wrong on the science. Again, you may disagree, but I think it is clear that such thoughts (as wrong as they may be, as ad-hominem as they may be) are published, and not OR. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Who exactly funds the researchers that try to prove the culture only hypothesis? I think the article might benefit from a more global view on the money that goes around to the various parties. --Zero g 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - it would be informative if we had the funding trail for all of the research. My guess though, is that it is much like tobacco "research" at the heyday of RJR - you'll have industry funded folk, and then everyone else. This doesn't make the industry folk inherently wrong, of course - skeptics of human causation of global warming are in a tiny minority, but that doesn't discredit their research necessarily. I'd be very interested to see any data on funding, to see if there is an anti-Pioneer Fund out there. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It is well known that the source of funding influences the results of research. This has been shown in many fields.Ultramarine 10:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And frankly, regardless if it has or hasn't influenced specific research, accusations of that nature have been published outside of wikipedia, and are citeable. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, what precisely has and has not been published is at the root of this issue. We have to get it precisely right, and I think that the PF-->bias notions that keeps recurring on the talk page and in the article has not been published (except perhaps the ABC News story I cited). As I said above Are there published accounts to support the claim that the PF connection is not simply a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense, but an actual conspiracy? --Rikurzhen 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking for here, Rikurzhen - any published accounts claiming that the Pioneer Fund is a racist conspiracy are of course in the realm of theory. They can and do present evidence for their theory, but the only way to definitively prove their theory is correct would be direct admissions from the conspirators, right? I think you're going past the requirement for a published citation where someone calls them a conspiracy, and presents whatever evidence they have, into the realm of unreasonable expectations where you demand that their evidence be incontrovertible proof. Were we to hold that same standard for some of the racial science being quoted here, wouldn't we run into the same issue? The r-K selection theory between "races" is published, but should we avoid citing it until there is incontrovertible proof and repeatable experiments that show that it is "actual r-k selection"? --JereKrischel 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the PF connection by itself is enough to taint any of their research, and certainly way more than enough for us to report the possibility of taint. I suggest everyone take a look at the scientific racism article, the crux or key point is the fact that publications have been fabricated to have the veneer or appearance of science but upon closer examination are intentionally misleading propaganda with zero scientific value. Cruxtaposition 11:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Zen-master, if all we have are fringe claims that the APA and intelligence research and genetics communities are all in on a conspiracy, such claims cannot be presented as anything more than fringe without violating NPOV and NOR.--Nectar 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that, given the PF's history and the roster of its fundees, there is legitimate suspicion that it selectively promotes one side of the current debate, for reasons possibly related to its historical position. Whether it does this by supporting specifically one type of research results, or by selectively supporting researchers with a specific mindset, people don't agree on. I believe however that a lot of people agree that there is at least the appearance of bias. I think the blurb in the intro and the PF section at this point cover the issue quite nicely. I wouldn't think it necessary to add anything, but I don't think it's warranted to remove anything on that point.--Ramdrake 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the world of science it's a serious accusation to accuse people of being bribed. Wikipedia shouldn't level that gun unless it's being levelled in the literature. Mainstream scientific opinion creates disciplinary constraints that prevent scientists from believing just whatever they want to (Gordon 1997). Editors who don't like that idea may give preference to figures who have no disciplinary or science-professional constraints, such as the non-notable anti-racist activist currently given prominence in the introduction, but scientific standards would require preference be given to those who have mainstream, scientific credibility (Tucker). Not doing so is an example of Wikipedia promoting minority POVs at the expense of mainstream POVs.--Nectar 06:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, you're unfortunately still missing the point. As I think nobody here will contest, race and intelligence research has ample social ramifications. Thus, it is normal to also give voice to anti-racist viewpoints (as they are involved in the ramifications of the issue), and not just to the "majority" viewpoint of R&I researchers. We must depict all significant viewpoints in the article to respect NPOV, and I think it's been demonstrated time and again this is a very significant viewpoint.
Also, if you'll re-read, the presumption is not one of bribery per se, but of facilitating and encouraging a specific type of scientifically controversial result, either directly or through funding scientists with specific views. And yes, in some cases, scientists can and do believe whatever they want. Rushton's r/K hypothesis has many, many problems with it yet a few scientists still think it's right: paleoclimatological, historical, behavioral evidence all concur to disprove it.--Ramdrake 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, I am sure we understand. The only interesting question is what WP should do with it. The only thing we can do is to attribute the viewpoint you are sketching to somebody else and report it. I suggested Why people believe weird things, where a good part of a chapter is devoted to this argument. What we can not do is to have our presentation influenced by the conclusion. Finally, and tangentially, I could level the charge of "encouraging a specific type of ... result" at every researcher who works under the AAA umbrella. After all, the AAA has gone public with a view of R&I research that is much more explicit than what the Pioneer Fund has ever formulated. By implication, all research associated with the AAA (especially, all research by AAA members) becomes tainted with the same kind of questionable motivation that ostensibly discredits Pioneer-funded results. Pompous rhetorical question: should this silly observation of mine have any consequences for how we present the viewpoints of cultural anthropologists? (Answer: no. That would violate WP:NPOV.) It's a similar debate to whether we need to discredit Gould's POV by saying that he's a communist. We can mention that somebody else (Bernard Davis, for example) has formulated this reservation, and that's all we can do. Arbor 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree. This is why I went and fetched yet another cited reference for what the Pioneer Fund does. That way, it is demonstrably a reported opinion rather than an editorial opinion (which wouldn't do at all in Wikipedia, we agree). My point is, we can't start dismissing reported opinions because they're "not part of the mainstream", or "not based on scientific research". This is a subject that touches deeply in both science and society and where there are two significant, opposite viewpoints (sorry for belaboring the point, I know everybody understands). Not sure where you'e getting at with the AAA. Their statement, AFAIK was mostly that race as it is traditionnally defined was a social, not a biological construct. This is very much in line with Cavalli-Sforza's interpretation of his own results. I don't see how that can introduce a bias.--Ramdrake 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As have been stated many times before, the Pioneer Fund is not only important for possible bias. It is an important part of the history of the research, of how hte the reserach if funded, for media image, policy implications, and so on.Ultramarine 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis vs Conclusion?

One problem with the current version of this article and "research" is it presents the issue extremely conclusively and suggestively. This area of "research" presents this issue using the anti-thesis of the scientific method in my interpretation. Does the current version of this article and do these "researchers" present the issue as a "working hypothesis" or are they attempting to portray everything as conclusive? This entire issue seems presented inside a dichotomy and paradigm that prevents readers from significantly considering alternative/environmental causes, it's as if everything is described in terms of "race" to presuppose that as the cause or main cause. This is a massive violation of neutral presentation.

Plus, the foundation of "race and intelligence" research is IQ testing which is itself fundamentally disputed so I don't see how any conclusions can even be proposed until those disputes are resolved? How can there possibly be "practical consequences", as the first sentence of the current version of this article claims, if the premise and foundation of this research is fundamentally disputed? I think this subject should be re-written, re-organized and re-titled around where the abstract foundation of this subject is so we properly convey where the scientific dispute begins, something like IQ test results disparity could work (I am open to alternative suggestions)? And it's additionally disputed whether current "IQ tests" actually measure the abstract concept of "intelligence". Just because someone named their test "intelligence quotient" doesn't mean it accurately measures intelligence (if even possible). Cruxtaposition 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Zen-master sockpuppet has been blocked.--Nectar 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, where is the evidence that Cruxtaposition is a sock for Zen-master???--Ramdrake 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just based on the recent creation of that account, and the immediate interest in this article. I've never done any sock-puppeting (and don't ever intend to), but I would suppose the smart thing to do would be to create a bunch of accounts randomly in time, use them in different areas for a few months, and have them converge "coincidentally" on articles. Otherwise, it's just too easy to see new accounts pop up after old accounts have been blocked. That being said, although Cruxtaposition's POV represents one extreme, there is merit to some of the concerns - we need to be very careful about how we present the research that is available, so as not to overstate their results. Hopefully some of the pro-hereditarian editors can help us move towards NPOV by "writing for the enemy" a bit - both Rikurzhen and Nectar seem very well educated on the subject, and I believe that they both could do a good job in mellowing out the language, and still presenting the research fairly. --JereKrischel 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read Zen-master repeat his/her same fringe demands over and over again. S/he was blocked by the arbitration committee because s/he wasn't willing to participate productively or within the rules of the community. I understand how you guys feel. I think the vast majority of WP editors are nice people and npov issues are solveable.--Nectar 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll say it again, Nectar, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue, and work together despite our vastly disparate opinions. I hope you will forgive me if any of my comments seem overly harsh or critical - my sincere hope is to express my concerns in such a way that they are understandable and clear, and sometimes that desire for clarity may come across as aggressive and opinionated. I also endeavor to clearly understand your core concerns and issues, and I hope I've demonstrated some level of understanding of your POV. --JereKrischel 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Contributors

I can't help but wonder what the equivalent of this article looks like on the closed Chinese version of the internet (behind that nice Great Red Wall : ). However, I think that it may be a good idea to attach some relevant information in regards to the racial and ethnic makeup of contributors. There is a page here that outlines some of the forms of consistent bias that wikipedia articles are not unknown for. I would personally (like most human beings with an ounce of common sense), would feel more comfortable reading articles like this if I knew that there was at least one black man analysing this information in order to poke holes in it (having this type of an article being the creation of white society only would surely have some effects on its NPOV value).

Interesting thoughts. I suppose one could use the same sort of analysis as some of the pro-hereditarian camp has done, and discover which "race" is generally better at science, engages in less racism, and more NPOV. Being on the other side (a weak-hereditarian with big problems concerning the arbitrary social "races"), I simply can't buy into the fact that one needs to be of a certain color or ethnicity to create an NPOV article. I believe we are all human, all related, and things like "white society" and "black society" are simply baseless distinctions. Not knowing what your opinion of the article is, requesting that it be vetted by specific "races" actually shows you buy into the pro-hereditarian stance in general, even if you may disagree with specifics.
What would make me a great deal more comfortable is if the partial-genetic influence on intelligence wasn't conflated with social ideas of "race". There is plenty of good science to be done here, and mapping results into racist stereotypes just doesn't seem to help things. --JereKrischel 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (and, FWIW, I'm human, with ancestry and family from every corner of the globe. If you name an ethnicity, I've pretty much got it.)
I generally support Chomsky's opinion on that issue:
I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race." I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.[5]
But figures in this field who don't consider group differences off-limits have included representation from Whites, Jews, Asians, and African Americans (Thomas Sowell [6]).--Nectar 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On the lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" wikipedia article

To me, there is nothing more reflective of the very deep-seated and racially inclined motivations behind this whole blog other than the complete lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" article on wikipedia. Nobody even thought to divorce Racial notions from genetics when contributing to wikipedia. Even within white populations, there are smart people and stupid people - so it would obviously go without saying that there should be an article considering genetics and intelligence that is probably completely independent of race. If possible, totally avoiding any reference to race in such an article would be an indication of the maturity and high level of importance that individuals attribute intelligence in all societies. --Nukemason 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inheritance of intelligence. Please help improving it. Arbor 11:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to this. However, I have had a brief look at the article that you have referred me to and feel that it does not consider certain questions that, perhaps a genetics and intelligence article might (yes, inheritance refers to genetic aquisitions of sorts - but, in the future, not all genetic acquisitions need occur via the mechanisms of inheritance). This is an issue that is covered in the eugenics wiki (briefly, the subsection that concerns eugenics technologies). However, I don't think that certain issues are covered such as *how much* human intelligence can be realistically enhanced (in particular, a point of interest for me has always been about theoretical limitations on human intelligence that are innately tied up with the characteristics of neurons, etc... - currently a hot topic in bio and nano tech). Not so much as a 'point', but rather a smudge.

--Nukemason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation analysis

Immediately available and verifiable information isn't "original" when it's employed in relation to a published argument. Normally it wouldn't be necessary because the editors of an encyclopedia would have professional knowledge of the field, but in this case it's useful for factual statements to constrain interpretation. Making the article less factually informative isn't an appropriate task here.--Nectar 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In this context NOR is probably best thought of as "no original thought", which is how it's characterized at Wikipedia:Verifiability. (The addition does meet the requirements of verifiability policy.)--Nectar 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're here to report the facts, not for "constraining interpretation". That sounds an awful lot like telling the reader what to conclude from the facts. However, I'd be content to let it go if there is a consensus to do so.--Ramdrake 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by using "factual statements to constrain interpretation" is grounding in empirical reality the many and sometimes far-ranging claims that exist in the literature. (We report both claims and facts, but claims are not the same thing as facts.) --Nectar 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, two things - 1) the assertion you were making in the footnote is unclear. I'm assuming you were trying to say that the journals you specifically mentioned did not report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, is that true? 2) Even if they didn't report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, it hardly makes a noteworthy point - 99.9% of Hindu religious texts don't discuss the implications of Jerry Seinfeld on modern mores, but that wouldn't be a worthwhile cite, would it? I exaggerate, of course, but my point is that unless these journal you cited regularly criticized other funding agents, their lack of criticism of the Pioneer Fund isn't really notable, is it? The fact that a movie critic didn't criticize a given movie may be notable, but the fact that they didn't critique a new non-fiction book on the amazon rainforest wouldn't really mean anything, would it? --JereKrischel 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The two journals mentioned are responsible for a great fraction of all published reports in this field. Hence, they would be the place to look for the scholarly treatment of PF. --Rikurzhen 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] These two journals are the two that specialize in individual differences psychology/intelligence research and play one of the most prominent roles in determining the course of this area of psychology. American Psychologist, the journal in which the the APA report and one of Flynn's more prominent papers were published in, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which some of Sternberg's more prominent papers are published in, also have no mention of criticism of the fund. The point is that, while some authors claim the criticism of PF is quite important, the criticism of the fund hasn't even been mentioned in relevant journals. (A topic's representation in the literature is considered a prominent measurement of its importance.)--Nectar 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Have any of these journals had anything critical to say about any funding sources? It sounds as if they are focused (and rightfully so) on the work itself, not the funding sources. If that is true, one wouldn't expect them to criticize the Pioneer Fund at all, and the absence of such criticism shouldn't be seen as notable. Can you cite any criticism these journals have had of any funding source? --JereKrischel 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that, while some authors claim the arguments about the Pioneer Fund are important, in the actual field it hasn't been important. (Something that is considered important to a topic would be mentioned in the literature of the topic.)--Nectar 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, without a clear indication that these journals have criticized other funding sources, and have specifically not criticized the Pioneer Fund, it doesn't seem to help make your point - it feels almost as if you're trying to prove a negative. I think it might be fair to make sure criticism of the Pioneer Fund is properly characterized, so as not to lead people to believe that critics are geneticists when they're actually psychologists or vice versa, and I think the same sort of clear indication of sources is important (noting that Rushton is not a biogeneticist, for example). Not to venture too far off track, but this kind of thing is very important when comparing the conclusions of Cavalli-Sforza versus the interpretation of Rushton of C-S's work - one is clearly *not* a geneticist.
Am I correct in understanding your concern? That is, that any criticism sources be properly identified as to whether or not they are activist groups, psychologists, geneticists, professors, students, etc? I think we can make sure we properly identify everyone's background, to give readers a clear indication of what qualifications and specialties they have. --JereKrischel 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the point is to draw a line between anti-racist or anti-hereditarian activists and the actual scientific field. All that needs to be noted is that, contrary to claims by these authors, the criticisms of the PF aren't important to the field.--Nectar 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think making the leap that the criticisms of the Pioneer Fund aren't important to the field is definitely POV pushing. Let the reader decide if they want to make that leap, we shouldn't be making that decision for them. Similarly, although Rushton may only be a psychologist, and not a geneticist, we should let the reader decide if that makes a difference in his credibility.
The real fine line we need to draw, Nectar, on both sides of this, is not to engage in ad hominem attack on sources (even if they do it to each other). Although now that you mention it, a good section on the differences between what geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists think may be interesting - much of the disagreement we have may simply be because of the various interpretations foisted on what we can both agree is real, scientific genetic research. Anyway, I'll ponder how a section like that might be constructed...in the mean time, I think it should be sufficient to clearly indicate, without asserting any conclusion as to credibility, the background of the people making the various assertions (either in the case of Pioneer Fund, or in the case of psychologists interpreting the work of geneticists). --JereKrischel 09:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
My wording above was made stronger to make the potential implications more explicit and is different from the wording used in the article. If psychologists on one side of a debate make the same interpretations as leading geneticists on that side of the debate (e.g. Sternberg and Lewontin or Jensen and Risch) the distinction doesn't seem particularly important. In contrast, in the case of the Pioneer Fund and how researchers who accept grants should be treated, there's significant disagreement between the positions of anti-racists and scientists who are strongly on the environmental side e.g. Sternberg, Flynn, and even Tucker.--Nectar 10:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to assert that psychologists and geneticsts have the exact same interpretations, although significant overlap may be there. Especially with such a sensitive field as race and intelligence, we should make things clear. --JereKrischel 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for these claims: 1. that if there isn't criticism of other funding sources in PAID, Intelligence, et al, then there's no reason to mention that they don't contain criticism of PF. 2. that biologists and psychologists are different.

My understanding is that: 1. sometimes it important to write about what doesn't exist -- there are other instances in the lead block. in this case, the fact that PF criticism isn't a regular part of scholarly discourse is important to note. 2. i just don't get it. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain (I'll use as simple an analogy as I can):
If there are no policemen at the firestation, is it significant to find that there are no policemen from New York at the fire station? No. You possibly could have generalized from the first observation (if it is repreated often enough, that is) that a fire station is not the place you should normally find policemen to start with.
Likewise, if there is no criticism of any source of funding in those journals, (much less of the Pioneer Fund), maybe that's because that's the wrong place to look for criticism of a source of funding, in which case it is not significant that you won't find criticism of the Pioneer Fund, because you won't find any criticism of a funding source in there to start with.--Ramdrake 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I get that idea, but where else but the scholarly journal should you look for such criticism? I did a quick count of the journal references for this article. Here are the top 4 hits:
  • Intelligence = 34
  • Personality and Individual Differences = 20
  • American Psychologist = 16
  • Science = 9
  • Psychology, Public Policy, and Law = 7
So we're looking in the right place so long as the scholarly literature is the right place to look -- any reason to think it is not? Not finding criticism of PF could mean several things, but one explanation seems obvious. Regardless of the explanation, the fact is certinaly of note. --Rikurzhen 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You'd be looking in the right place if you found one criticism of any funding agency in one of those journals. Then, it would tell you such criticism is rare, but that this isn't just the wrong forum. The first place to look for criticism of any agency is of course in the media and... oh wait! There is criticism of the Pioneer Fund there. :) I would think the scholarly litterature would be the wrong place to look for criticism of funding sources, because a rather large number of scientists know their next year's research grant may come from a different source than this year's (happens all the time - been there, done that), so the last thing they want to do is to speak up against a funding agency, as they really don't want to alienate them unnecessarily. So, in fact, there is a perfectly LOGICAL reason not to find such criticisms in the journals where they publish. As a matter of fact, the last time I heard someone criticize a funding agency, it was through the media (a researcher wanting to investigate the popular appeal of creationist debates was turned down because he "didn't provide appropriate proof of evolution" or some such silliness). Like I said, until you find a criticism of a funding agency in one of those articles, it's a fairly safe bet that these journals are not the correct venue for criticisms of funding agencies.--Ramdrake 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. You're suggesting a remarkable kind of self-censorship. In the environment following the publicatin of The Bell Curve, there was plenty of room to snipe at PF. Again, if not scholarly journals then were should we be looking? Keep in mind the article material in question is the result of the literature search, and you're argument is that we shouldn't mention the lack of mention of PF in these journals. --Rikurzhen 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're conflating criticisms. Following the Bell Curve, there was some academic criticism (of the data and/or its analysis, in journals) and a lot of social and and political criticism (of the motives of the authors, and to some extent of the data and its analysis, in the media mostly). The only thing you have to do to prove me wrong is to find one criticism of any funding agency in anyone of those journals. Until that is done, your demonstration (that PF has no criticism in the scientific journals) has no control group (existence of criticism of a funding agency in a scientific journal). What I advanced earlier was a possible explanation for the failure to find any funding agency criticism in scientific journals. The hypothesis as to the reason may be right or wrong, but so far the fact remains: the absence of PF criticism in scientific journals means something only insofar as one can demonstrate that these journals are an actual forum for such criticism.--Ramdrake 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
According to their Wikipedia articles, several of the Pioneer Fund grantees are on the editorial board of Intelligence.Ultramarine 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The same seems to be true for Personality and Individual Differences. I think that the real question is why these journals do not require disclousre of funding in such a controversial field.Ultramarine 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, what I'm saying is that I don't need to "prove" anything because it's self-evidently interesting that there's no negative discussion of PF in any of these journals. UL, you could try expanding the search to all of ISI &/or Medline, the result will most likely be the same. --Rikurzhen 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There are several articles critical of the fund published in other journals.Ultramarine 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of the articles are critical: [7]Ultramarine 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Ultramarine has found sufficient evidence that the Pioneer Fund has been criticized in scholarly journals (American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 39, No. 1, 44-61 (1995) for example), so the assertion that there is no criticism from the scientific community in the field is obviously refuted. That being said, I think we should make sure we clearly identify those people making both claims, and criticisms. If a psychologist is making a claim, it is important to note their background. Similarly with a geneticist. Rather than try to make a point that one type of person feels one way, another group feels another way, why don't we just identify the people making the assertions and critiques, and let the reader judge if that should have any impact on credibility. Certainly, we shouldn't be deciding for the reader what makes one credible. --JereKrischel 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An accounting of what criticism has been published would be great (and requested by me for some time), but AFAIK none of these are journals in the field (text in the article). --Rikurzhen 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

link to U.S. google scholar:

Negative reviews:

  1. [BOOK] The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund - WH Tucker - 2002
  2. " The American Breed": Nazi eugenics and the origins of the Pioneer Fund. - PA Lombardo - Albany Law Rev, 2002
  3. The Pioneer Fund: Financier of Fascist Research - SJ ROSENTHAL - American Behavioral Scientist, 1995
The negative review (mentioned in my previous post):
American Behavioral Scientist
Seems to be "in the field" --JereKrischel 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That's my #3. There are thousands of "no-name" journals. Has ABS published anything else about R&I? Here's the abstract from this article: Many citations used in The Bell Curve to provide a pseudoscientific veneer for Herrnstein and Murray's academic version of The Turner Diaries for the "cognitive elite" came from advocates of eugenics, whose "research" has been supported by the Pioneer Fund. A Nazi endowment specializing in production of justifications for eugenics since 1937, the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of right-wing foundations, think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and global anti-Communist coalitions. This article combines Domhoff's model (1978) of how the ruling class makes public policy, Knapp and Spector's (1991) model of how and why capitalists build racism, and Oliver Cox's (1948) analysis of how and why capitalists build fascism to show that the U.S. ruling class is laying the political, ideological, economic, and paramilitary groundwork for fascism. Liberal reaction to The Bell Curve and the threat of fascism has mainly taken the form of appeasement. History suggests it is time for a different response. --Rikurzhen 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Another ABS publication on R&I: The Bell Curve: Too Smooth to be True --JereKrischel 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Also "in the field":
That should be sufficient, I think, to make the point. Whether something is a "no-name" journal really isn't something we should be trying to judge, don't you think? --JereKrischel 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As per Nectar below, the journal matters a great deal. As does the actual content of the articles. A cursory review finds that these are not the kind of articles to falsify the claim that "the criticism of the fund has not been an issue in the journals in its field". --Rikurzhen 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The question isn't 'have journals in general published criticism of the PF,' it's 'have journals that are significant to the field of intelligence research/differential psychology published criticism.' Another description would be 'journals that play a significant role in the direction of the field.' For example, the two secondary journals I cited above [American Psychologist and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology] were selected from notable publications in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field.--Nectar 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Nectar, is that "significant to the field of intelligence research" seems to be a subjective POV judgement. Certainly, The American Journal of Psychology, Contemporary Sociology, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, International Journal of Health Services, and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, all are in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field - perhaps not those that you agree with, but notable nonetheless. I think it's a losing proposition to arbitrate who the "notable researchers" are, and which journals in their publication lists are "notable publications". Certainly, as pointed out earlier, some of the journals mentioned have Pioneer Fund grantees on their boards - certainly enough to quash any criticism that may have otherwise been brought up. Instead of trying to draw an OR conclusion (no journals "in the field, and in the publication lists of "notable" researchers" have criticized the Pioneer Fund, therefore such criticism is less credible), let's just report the facts as they are, and clearly identify who is criticising the Pioneer Fund, and who is making assertions of a primarily hereditarian stance (psychologists/biologists/geneticists/pundits). If we're going to try and make a point that a certain journal deigned to criticize the Pioneer Fund, then I think it's important to note if the Pioneer Fund has significant influence on that journal. --JereKrischel 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let's please be careful. Citations have been introduced here from science journals that criticize PF. When those were introduced, it was claimed the journals were not sufficiently close to the field of study. When more citations were found from journals which one could assume were sufficiently close to the field of study, they were deemed not to be influential or significant enough in the field. That unfortunately looks very much like a tactic called "moving the goal post". What is now required if we are to restrict the list of acceptable journals would be a list of journals in the field by an authoritative author not related to the Pioneer Fund. Otherwise, we'll be running in circles.--Ramdrake 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The "goal post" has always been journals in the field, as that's the point that was made in the article. The four journals I've referred to have been demonstrated to be significant to the field. If you can't quantify (quantification is the opposite of subjective) any intelligence researchers - either environmental or hereditarian - who have published intelligence research in those journals than they're not intelligence research journals. Note that Snyderman and Rothman surveyed specialists instead of random figures, so it's not an original concept. It's an extraordinarily bold claim that the specialist journals in which intelligence research is primarily published suddenly lose their position because a portion of their editorial boards are composed of highly-cited researchers WP editors don't like. That's fine to note that portion in the article footnote. (Elsevier's website is malfunctioning, but the editorial board for Intelligence can be viewed in the google cache.[8])--Nectar 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Then, please find a proper cite that says "these are the appropriate journals for the field". Also, once that is done, you would need to demonstrate that these journals accept to publish criticism of funding sources (they may have a policy not to). As for the "extraordinarily bold claim", if journal X has PF fundees on its editorial board, any time an article is submitted to that journal that would be critical to PF would cause those on the editorial board that have ties with PF to be in a potential conflict of interest situation. I don't see anything bold to this statement.--Ramdrake 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The "citation" for which journals publish in intelligence research is represented by intelligence researchers, such as Sternberg and Flynn, publishing intelligence research in those journals. Sternberg and Flynn and other environmental editors also sit on the board of Intelligence. According to you, it would be a conflict of interest for such journals to publish hereditarian articles or criticism of environmental positions. Environmentalists like Sternberg most certainly pull out all the stops in their articles that criticize hereditarian positions, but they haven't deemed the sinister Pioneer Fund Conspiracy noteworthy enough to even mention in passing in any of their many articles in these journals. Anyway, this isn't about leading hereditarians not being blacklisted from journal editorial boards, as you would desire, as the other two journals that are significant to this field that I cited above do not have grantees on their boards, AFAIK, but still haven't discussed the PF Conspiracy.--Nectar 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said is that it would a potential conflict of interest situation for PF fundees on the board of these journals to publish an article criticizing PF. I didn't say anything about an article with a pro-hereditarian or pro-environmental stance. And BTW, we still do need a proper reference (and I mean a litteral reference) as to which journals should be considered "in the field" and which shouldn't. The statement that it is "represented by intelligence researchers, (...) publishing intelligence research in those journals just isn't good enough. Your definition of "journals in the field" seems to basically boil down to about four titles. I'm not sure you appreciate how restrictive a definition that is, for any field of science.--Ramdrake 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)The principle you're proposing is that a journal creates a conflict of interest by having editorial board members who take positions on either side of a debate. It's quite normal for journals to have board members who take positions, and in this case there are board members from both sides of the debate. AFAIK Intelligence and PAID have never been accused of bias.
(2) How could a journal be in intelligence research if it doesn't publish intelligence research or any articles by intelligence researchers? I looked some more. Psychological Review has published note-worthy articles by researchers on both sides, and Science and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law are the fourth and fifth most cited journals in this article, but PF criticism hasn't been mentioned in these journals. That brings the tally to 0 in these 7 journals. If you give an example of note-worthy intelligence research in another journal that you want checked for PF criticism, it can be checked.--Nectar 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you're asserting that citation in a Wikipedia article makes something note-worthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article? I'm sorry, but I don't believe your criteria for what a "note-worthy" journal is makes sense in terms of NPOV. Similarly, a journal, such as Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, may not deal with R&I directly, but it certainly is important as an analysis of the field. I think the principle we should stick to, and implement throughout the article, is clearly indicating the source of criticism or assertion, be it a scholarly journal regarding behavioral sciences, or a psychologist re-interpreting the findings of a geneticist. Trying to come up with criteria for what is and isn't "note-worthy", is definitely OR. --JereKrischel 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)