Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 32

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

Frequently asked questions

Shouldn't this article be called Race and IQ?
See:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22#The_Huge_Problem_with_this_article:_IQ and Archive_13.


Arbor's issue about the Race assumption

For a long time, we have opened with an assumption about Race being biologically meaningful (or something to that effect—the bulleted assumption in the lead block). I have never liked that. (Not because I disagree. I am certain Race is biologically meaningful. I also think it is politically dangerous.) The reason is kind of subtle, and I am not sure I am able to explain it clearly enough, because there are soooo many ways to be misunderstood in this charged environment. Bear with me.

This article (according to my vision) should be about Race and intelligence. All points-of-view. Including those I disagree with, for example the viewpoint that “Race is a social construct, and all IQ differences between races are the result of environmental effects”. Environmental effects here in the broadest sense, including nutrition (which may vary among races for cultural reasons), education (which may vary among races because of discrimination or learning attitude differences among subcultures), test bias, whatnot. For example, it is a reasonable explanation to posit that “Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other Europeans because of a thousands-years old tradition for book learning”.

I like these kinds of arguments (even though I slowly come to understand that they aren't the full picture), and they certainly are well-published. I think this article should include them. (As it does now, and always has.) In fact, I would like them to be even more visible.

Now, such explanations are explicitly not contingent on an assumption that Race is a biologically meaningful category. And therein lies the rub. The race assumption is simply wrong. It is not the fact that all scholarly discourse about why races differ in intelligence hinges on this assumption. Not even the hereditary position assumes that races are biologically meaningful. The race assumption is made only for the explanation the hereditary correlations are concordant with the social categories of race. So only a single (albeit, I am confident, the correct) POV needs that assumption.

So I say either we remove all other POVs than Rushton–Jensen from this article (which I would oppose vehemently), or we move the contended assumption down to where it belongs, namely to a presentation of the position "IQ is hereditary" + "The genes that cause this correlate with racial categories". As it stands now, the article opens by positing an assumption that is only needed for a single POV. (Even though this POV has strong scholarly support.) Arbor 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the lead block, bulleted assumption, then I agree. I disliked it previously and would welcome a correction or removal of that line. As you say, it is only required for the hereditarian hypothesis of causation. --Rikurzhen 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


fryer and levitt

there's now a section titled "U.S. Black-White gap closing". this is the appropriate place to describe the debate that fryer and levitt have contributed to. in addition to their paper on babies, they have several papers on K,1,2,3... graders. the implications of these data for the cause of the gap should be weaved in -- as other data is -- rather than appended. notably, different authors have different interpretations. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Their argument against the genetic explanation should be in the correct section.Ultramarine 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I did in fact restore their argument, leaving the data described in the section above. Nonetheless, their argument needs to be blended with similar ones to document that it's a general rather than unique claim. --Rikurzhen 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


JKs edits

  • need quote to make the statement "these studies support the partly-genetic hypothesis", also, if we say "reported to" here, we should say it on every study)

Don't need a quote. They disagree about many studies, but most prominently the MTRAS. You can see this clearly by reading the reference.

If we're going to have a statement backed up by a reference with quotes, the statement should be backed up completely by the quotes. Paraphrasing, "People say A, B, and C" with a ref that only quotes them saying A and B, doesn't seem appropriate. Why not just add a quote from the reference to back it up? --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The divergent interpretation of MTRAS is the most obvious, but there are many cases. For example: "There is in fact no good evidence, contrary to Nisbett (2005; and Suzuki & Aronson, 2005), that g is malleable by nonbiological variables."[1] One side says non-malleable --> genetic; other side says mallelable --> not-genetic. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If you say non-malleable --> you are saying that ALL biological variables are genetic. I just don't see that it is the case (disease is a non-genetic, biological variable, for one).--Ramdrake 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making this argument but describing it. However, you are missing the logic. If the only known environmental ways to affect IQ are those that directly affect biology, then this is an argument that the BW gap is due to genetic (based on the assumption that these biological-envionrmental sources of variation are not large enough to account for the entire gap). Nonetheless, the point remains that some studies were are argued to support the cultural hypothesis are also argued to support the genetic hypothesis. --Rikurzhen 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"reported to" for attribution. i added the same twist to the 'genetics' section below it.

I see no such language in that section...can you quote what you mean? --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Other evidence... have also been proposed to indicate a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps and explain how these arose". --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (put proper ref for each section - labeling bias 1 ref, non-cultural environmental factors 2nd ref) -- see discussion in section above
  • move section down one paragraph for general chronological order - chronological order works well when discussing a single topic, but (1) that section contains many subtopics and (2) the last section of that pargraph should be the summarizing paragraph

--Rikurzhen 17:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The last section of the paragraph wasn't summarizing, it was mentioning the other recent study...they seem to go together better. --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the next to last paragraph, which long was the last paragraph, was a summary paragraph. Note that this is in a sub-section of a WP:SS section. This is why I've added the Summary Style tag to the section. It is massively too big, and needs to make much stronger use of summary writing. Appending singular, unreplicated studies/theories to the end of the section is not good encyclopedia writing. New material should be integrated into the existing text, and weighted for notability and relevance. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But you can't make it shorter and NPOV by arbitrarily removing material. What materials need to be removed need to be discussed first, and consensus arrived at.--Ramdrake 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to material that I removed that was important to making the point? Perhaps you should compare the concision used to describe the hereditarian argument to that used to describe the cultural arguments. --Rikurzhen 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A message from your friendly archivist

I hate to archive recent discussion, but the talk page was close to 400 kb and took forever to access! I acknowledge that this may be the most controversial article and therefore it must be very sophisticated, and I acknowledge that to accomplish this the discussion will often have to be complex and lengthy. Much of this simply cannot be avoided. But with all due respect may I make a few suggestions that may lead to less of a need for frequent archiving?

  1. when someone is obviously using this just to spout their own POV (and I am NOT pointing any fingers) do not engage, politely ask them to take it to their talk page
  2. if someone seems not to understand your point, give it a day and see if with a fresh mind you can explain it more clearly, rather than (as most writers do) use the act of writing to sort out your thoughts
  3. if two people seem to be going in circles, try to sort out and summarize as concisely as possible the remaining principal points of contention and then immediately archive the preceeding talk
  4. if someone believes they are repeating points they have made several times, even a long time ago, ask yourself whether the issue is adequately addressed in the article itself. If it isn´t, figure out how to do so. If it is, refer the interlocutor to the appropriate section in the article itself rather than rehash the arguments again on the talk page.
  5. PLEASE PLEASE will one of you consider doing some more archiving before September 3? Go over this page and ask, what is really still unresolved (in terms of complying with our main policies, not in terms of resolving the fundamental debate, of course)?

I make these suggestions with a tremendous amount of respect for the principal contributors to this article. I hope that is evident, and I sincerely hope this is constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are welcome, appreciated, and I hope to do well in following them. I know a lot of the dialog ends up seeming like repetition, and very frustrating, but sometimes it's that one phrase a couple of dozen exchanges into it that makes things click, so you really understand what the other person was intending. I've had quite a few of those moments on this page myself, where I finally understood what the core issue was after a very long dialog. Rikurzhen and Nectar and Arbor have all been very patient, understanding, and supportive of improving the article no matter how heated the discussion has gotten, and I do sincerely look forward to continuing our work together. --JereKrischel 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry about my contribution to the talk page glut. --Rikurzhen 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


some background for recent disputes

this text is from a review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience in 2004:

it is mildly impolite to dwell on an obvious fact — individual differences are the rule, not the exception.

It is distinctly impolite to suggest that individual differences in ability have a biological basis3,10. The root fear is that evidence about the brain might be misconstrued as evidence about an individual’s or group’s inherent quality or fitness, in the sense of an immutable social and moral value4,7. Gould concluded10 that there is no reliable evidence for “intelligence as a unitary, rankable, genetically based, and minimally alterable thing in the head”, and even less evidence that intelligence is associated with demographic variables, such as race or social class. For better or worse, however, recent progress in the psychometric, social psychological, cognitive neuroscientific and genetic study of human abilities has been dramatic.

In this review,we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf)11, it is related to analytical intelligence12. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically,Gf is the best predictor of performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct13,14.Conceptions of intelligence(s) and methods to measure them continue to evolve, but there is agreement on many key points; for example, that inte lligence is not fixed, and that test bias does not explain group differences in test scores15. Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is widely realized15–17, and permits some definitive conclusions about the biological bases of intelligence to be drawn.

MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51 (REF. 28; see REF. 29 on interpreting this correlation, and REF. 30 for a meta-analysis)

[summarizing Posthuma et al] They showed that the linkage between volume of grey matter and g is mediated by a common set of genes. Intelligence therefore depends, to some extent, on structural differences in the brain that are under genetic control, indicating a partly neuroanatomical (structural) explanation for the high heritability of intelligence

The fact that intelligence is heritable does not necessarily have implications for the basis of population-group differences. Group differences can potentially be explained in purely environmental terms, even if intelligence is strongly heritable.

The heritability of intelligence also increases with age — as we grow older, our phenotype reflects our genotype more closely.

Intriguingly, the influence of shared family environments on IQ dissipates once children leave home — between adult adoptive relatives, there is a correlation of IQ of –0.01 (REF. 101).

we should be able to agree to treat this material as they do --Rikurzhen 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in regards to the quote, The fact that intelligence is heritable does not necessarily have implications for the basis of population-group differences. Group differences can potentially be explained in purely environmental terms, even if intelligence is strongly heritable., I heartily agree. The problem comes when you assert that the research shows a B-W-EA pattern -> as mentioned in other quotes, there are arguments that it has better correlation with latitude than anything else. You can assert that groups differ on brain size, and that brain size may correlate to intelligence even (although as pointed out, there is controversey even on that point), but to assert that the differences are measured across a specific pattern is where the interpretation of the data comes into question. I don't think anyone is trying to say that there is a 0% genetic influence on intelligence - but there is significant disagreement as to the statistics being interpreted in such a way to indicate that there is a genetic influence on intelligence caused by specific racial categories, as well as the magnitude of such an influence. Let's say they did a double-blind random study, and found that in fact .0001pt of difference between races could be found, and they even found the particular gene that created that difference. Has the pro-hereditarian camp won? Well, arguably so, since regardless of how minute, they've proven a difference based on "race". Has the environmentalist camp won? Well, arguably so, since regardless of the difference, they've shown only a minute one.
I guess the controversy may be because each side is taking the weakest straw man of the other to bash. Jensen et.al. want to criticize environmentalists as being 0% genetic-100% environment. Environmentalists consider the point won every time they shrink the gap, by whatever means of control or explanation, and consider every bit of progress they make as an essential refutation of the hereditarian view, when in fact no hereditarian is asserting that it is 100% genetic-0% environment. Our difficulty then, is presenting the quotes from these two camps, who are at cross-purposes and inherently disparaging of the merits of the other side.
On a side note, I wonder what would happen if they did the "perfect" study, and found the racial differences as both real and significant, but in a completely different order (say, W-EA-B). I guess in the end we should all just hope for enough interbreeding to make any "racial" distinction moot, and then we can argue about which side bread should be buttered on :). --JereKrischel 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
JK, all that matters about brain size is that Neisser agrees that there are differences. That it is correlated with climate is a wholly different level of controversy, not of importance to this discussion. That IQ is correlated with brain size is, as per the text from the review above, non controversial. Likewise, there is no disagreement about the heritability of IQ among the common conditions encountered in the developed world. For more extreme conditions, the expectation is reduced heritbility, which has been borne out in limited testing. You cannot chose to dillute noncontroversial findings on the basis of tangentially related disagreementets. You can elaborate on them, but doing so in the context of the genetics explanation section would be inappropriate for reasons we could go into. They are elaborated on in the main article being summarized. I highly recommend reading the review article, which is linked in the brain size discussion. --Rikurzhen 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't controversial to assert that there are brain size differences between population groups, but to assert they map to race does seem controversial. Therein lies the problem - you can take a few trivial assertions (brain size varies between some populations, iq correlates to brain size, iq is heritable), and come to an unsupported interpretation based on a unspoken assumption (iq is related to race since the population differences are mapped to race). Now, I can't stop Jensen from making unacceptable assumptions about the data we might agree on, but we certainly can't treat his peculiar interpretation as unadulterated fact. There is no basis to assert as fact a worldwide BW difference for every age, region, socioeconomic status, occupation, etc - one may come to that conclusion from looking at and interpreting the data, but it is not an undisputed conclusion. Perhaps if we put in something to the effect of, "if you assume that these studies actually map to race, and exclude studies that contradict each other, the data show...etc...etc..etc...", since the primary criticism it seems is one of falsely asserting difference by ignoring unfavorable result sets and improperly mapping brain size studies to race instead of climate zone. I guess I'm looking for a way to make sure that on such a disputed issue, both sides are presented as opinion in a sympathetic light. --JereKrischel 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) to assert they map to race does seem controversial. - maybe incindiary, but not controversial (remember we work with the assumption that race is meaningful enough for people to talk about and use in research; anything that varies geographically is going to vary by race); (2) worldwide BW difference for every age, region, socioeconomic status, occupation, etc -- actually, it's only been studied as such in the U.S., but my reading of the lit. is that there is no mainstream debate about this, and I see none in the responses to Jensen's claiming it is so; (3) improperly mapping brain size studies to race instead of climate zone. -- sounds like you are going beyond what has been written about this, focus on the secondary source of Neisser (aka the APA report); (4) on such a disputed issue, both sides are presented as opinion in a sympathetic light -- the proponents of the environmentalist position, such as Flynn, do not buttress their position by denying facts which are maninstream and otherwise undisputed. you should not try to do it for them. what's important to keep in mind is that the facts are largely undisputed, only the interpretation of how they matter for the BWEA gap differ. this should be easy enough to accomodate in the text, if it is not already doing so sufficiently. (5) the Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004 review (in conjunction with the APA and WSJ reports) establish most of the claims which you are otherwise claiming to be controversial (e.g., that brain size does differ by race). the remaining ones you are claiming to be controverisal w/o references to support that claim. --Rikurzhen 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was disputed by Michael Peters of the University of Guelph. Looked for his name in the article but it doesn't appear. 'The facts are largely undisputed'. That looks like a freudian slip to me :-) Macgruder 10:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? The only online paper I found was [2] and (unless I am reading too fast) does not question the brain size/race corellation. Instead it strongly argues against the explanation from brain size for the racial IQ gap, which we all agree we should acknowledge. Stuff like like As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size. Seems to be a perfect example of the stuff Rik is talking about: critical expert does not question racial IQ gap, nor brain size difference. Both are facts. Instead, he points out that these things may not be correlated. (I did not use much time for checking and may be completely wrong. Please find a specific reference to speed this up.) Arbor 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I also found this one: [3] which does question the brain size-race correlation (and whether it is a "significant" difference from the statistical viewpoint). In addition, this paper includes comments from about a half-dozen other researchers. It makes me think that the brain size-race correlation is indeed disputed (and it also seems to dispute the brain size-IQ correlation).--Ramdrake 12:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)