Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates 2 Why doesn't the article simply state "Whites are more intelligent than blacks" 3 Need to archive again! 4 Inuits

Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates

Hello. This is generic message I will be placing on several IQ-related atricles that have touched on Ashkenazim Jew IQ. Much is being written/compared/correlated on wikipedia regarding ashekenazim, much of which is incorrect given most modern research regarding it.

The modern interpreation of Ashkenazim IQ is that Jews have slightly higher verbal and mathematical IQ than the average white population and the same or lower IQ in perceptual and spatial. The below letter, compiled with data and written by Richard Lynn, shows that the IQ of diasporic A. Jews just in Verbal IQ is approximately 107. Not only is this substantially lower than many other studies in the past that relied on flawed non-representative samples and had small sample sizes, but it is merely the verbal IQ. One of the main trends of the A.Jew IQ has been very high verbal, with everything else being at least somewhat lower than that, meaning that this data suggests that the IQ of A.Jews may actually be significantly to slightly lower yet. In any event, most assertions being made on wikipedia are completely offbase and needs to be re-written with the understanding of these more recent studies and extrapolations of the experts in IQ, such as Lynn. I'm writing this in hopes people will take it open themselves to clean up wikis related to Ashkenazim since I really don't want to go to the trouble of running down every wiki and editing it myself.

Lynn has also now compiled a list of European nations/ethnicities and their respective IQs. The Dutch, Germans, and Poles all have approximately the same IQ according to the data as A.Jews, which throws even more monkey wrenchs into the wikis I've been reading, ones that say things like Jews success in field X could be linked to higher IQ. If this were the case, their would be way more German, Dutch, and Polish Nobel laureates. This is just an example. Basically, A.Jews, according to the accepted and recent interpretations, slightly exceed several European ethnicities and are essentially the same as many others. Further, now that Lynn has taken the time to break down IQs by ethnicities, all wikis generally related to IQ should include the data if they cite Ashkenazi IQ in the wiki. It smacks of some kind of racism to only single out A.Jews as an ethnicity and not others when we have the data on others. this seems to be a repeated bias I see on IQ-related wikis.

It should also be noted that both Flynn and Lynn have found that when correcting for the FLynn-effect, the East Asian IQ advantage drops to statistically negligble or close to. Again, this is the recent findings and wikis should reflect such. In any event, here is the cite/info-filled letter.

Dr. Richard Lynn The Intelligence of American Jews Sat Feb 14 01:24:26 2004

The Intelligence of American Jews Dr. Richard Lynn University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland http://www.rlynn.co.uk

Summary. This paper provides new data on the theory that Jews have a higher average level of verbal intelligence than non-Jewish whites. The theory is considered by examining the vocabulary scores of Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others obtained in the American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990-1996. Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence. Jews obtained a significantly higher mean vocabulary score than non-Jewish whites, equivalent to an IQ advantage of 7.5 IQ points. The results confirm previous reports that the verbal IQ of American Jews is higher than that of non-Jewish whites.

Introduction

It has often been asserted that Jews have a higher average level of intelligence than non-Jewish whites of European origin. Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) have written that "Whenever the subject of group differences comes up one of the questions sure to be asked is 'Are Jews really smarter than everyone else?' ” and their answer to this question is an affirmative. Eysenck (1995,p.159) asserted that "As far as Jews are concerned, there is no question that they score very highly on IQ tests". Levin (1997,p.132) has written that “in every society in which they have participated, Jews have eventually been recognised (and disliked for) their exceptional talent”. Seligman (1992, p.133) writes of "the extraordinarily high Jewish g levels”.

Despite these assertions, the purported high IQ of the Jews has never been systematically reviewed and is not even mentioned in recent textbooks on intelligence, such as those of Brody (1992) and Mackintosh (1998).

There have nevertheless been a number of studies of the intelligence of Jews in the United States. Among those who have discussed this question, there is a general consensus on two points. First, that Jews have a higher average IQ than gentile whites (this term is used for non-Jewish whites). Second, that Jews are stronger on verbal ability than on visualization and visual-spatial ability. Beyond this, there is a considerable range of conclusions. A review by MacDonald (1994,p.190) concludes that “taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a performance IQ in the average range”. Storfer (1990,p.314) writes that “Jewish people, considered as a group, tend to excel in some cognitive domains – for example, verbal and numerical ability – but not in others, as witness their unexceptional performance on certain types of spatial or perceptual problems. Storfer concludes that American Jews have an average IQ of about 112 on the Stanford-Binet, largely a test of verbal ability.

Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) reach a similar conclusion “A fair estimate seems to be that Jews in America and Britain have an overall IQ mean somewhere between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean, with the source of the difference concentrated in the verbal component” (1994, p.275). In the sample they analysed, Jews had an average IQ of 112.6 in relation to American whites on four verbal subtests (word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic and mathematics) of the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test). Their estimate of a Jewish advantage of between a half and a full standard deviation is equivalent to an IQ range of 7.5 to 15 IQ points. The estimates proposed by Storfer and Herrnstein and Murray are similar but much lower than that suggested by MacDonald (1994).

Despite the widespread consensus on the high Jewish verbal ability, not all studies have shown that Jews have a higher verbal IQ than gentiles. Furthermore, virtually all the existing studies are unsatisfactory because the samples have been unrepresentative, very small or for other reasons. An early study carried out in the mid-1920s of 702 Jewish and 1030 non-Jewish white 9-13 year olds tested with the Pintner-Cunningham test (a largely verbal test) by Hirsch (1926) found the Jewish children obtained a mean IQ only 1.5 IQ points higher than the gentiles. However, at this time a number of Jewish families spoke Yiddish as their first language and this would have handicapped the children to an unknown extent. A later study by Shuey (1942) of students entering Washington Square College in New York in 1935-7 tested with the American Council Psychological Examination, a test of verbal abilities (with subtests of completion, arithmetic, artificial language, analogies and opposites) found that 764 Jewish freshmen scored 1.2 IQ points below 236 non-Jewish whites. All the students were native born, possibly suggesting that the performance of the Jewish students was unlikely to have been depressed by unfamiliarity with the English language although some of these may still have been speaking Yiddish as their first language.

Furthermore, Jewish and gentile students at this college cannot be regarded as respresentative of their respective communities. A more recent study by Hennessy and Merrifield (1978) with an impressive sample size of 2,985 Jewish, gentile, black and Hispanic college bound high school seniors found a difference of less than 1 IQ point between Jews and gentiles on tests of verbal ability and reasoning but the sample may not have been representative of the populations.

Another problem with a number of the studies that have found that Jews have higher verbal IQs than gentiles is that several of them are based on very small sample sizes. For instance, Seligman (1990, p.130) writes that “Jewish verbal superiority appears unmatched in any other ethnic group. An often-quoted 1970 study performed by the Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research shows Jewish tenth-grade boys with an average verbal IQ equivalent of 112.8 (on the Stanford-Binet metric) about three quarters of a standard deviation above the average for non-Jewish white boys”. This is the Bachman (1970) study in which the number of Jewish boys was 65. In the Herrnstein and Murray (1994) data set in which Jews obtained a mean verbal IQ of 112.6, the sample size was 98 and was not drawn to be nationally representative. There is only one study of the intelligence of American Jews in the last half century which appears to be representative and had a reasonable sample size. This is Backman’s (1972) analysis of the data in Project Talent, a nationwide American survey of the abilities of 18 year olds carried out in 1960. The study had sample sizes of 1,236 Jews and 1,051 white gentiles (in addition to 488 blacks and 150 Orientals). IQs for six factors were calculated. The mean IQs of the Jews in relation to gentile white means of 100 and standard deviations of 15 were as follows: verbal knowledge (described as “a general factor, but primarily a measure of general information” and identifiable with Carroll’s (1993) gc or verbal comprehension factor - 107.8; English language – 99.5; mathematics – 109.7; visual reasoning (“a measure of reasoning with visual forms”) – 91.3; perceptual speed and accuracy – 102.2; memory (short term recall of verbal symbols) – 95.1. These results are consistent with the general consensus that Jews perform well on tests of verbal ability (although not of English language) and mathematics and less well on visual and spatial tests but the verbal IQ of 107.8 is towards the low end of the estimates of Jewish verbal ability suggested by Herrnstein and Murray of an IQ between 107.5 and 115. However, the differences in the IQs for the various abilities are so great as to raise doubts about the results.

The existing state of the research literature on the IQ of American Jews is therefore that some studies have shown that their verbal IQ is about the same as that of gentile whites while other studies have shown that it is considerably higher at 107.8 (Backman, 1972), 112.6 (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) and 112.8 (Bachman, 1970). However, the last of two of these studies have sample sizes of fewer than 100. There is room for more data on the IQ of American Jews, and it is to the presentation of this that we now turn.

Method

The American National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in Chicago carries out annual surveys on approximately 1,500 individuals in continental United States (ie. excluding Hawaii and Alaska). The samples are representative of the adult population of those aged 18 years and over except that they exclude those who cannot speak English and those resident in institutions such as prisons and hospitals. Full details of the sampling procedures are given by Davis and Smith (1996).

The NORC surveys collect a vast amount of information about the respondents' opinions on a variety of topics and also on their demographic characteristics such as their income, education, age, ethnic group, religion, etc.etc. The first items of information of particular interest to us are the respondents' religion and ethnic group. An analysis of these enables us to categorise the respondents as Jewish, non-Jewish white, black and other. The second item of interest is the respondents' score on a 10 word vocabulary test. Vocabulary is a good measure of both general intelligence and verbal intelligence. For instance, in the standardisation sample of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) the vocabulary subtest correlates .75 with the Full Scale IQ, more highly than any other subtest (Wechsler,1958) and the Full Scale IQ is widely regarded as a good measure of general intelligence or Spearman’s g (Jensen, 1998). We are therefore able to examine the vocabulary scores as a measure of the verbal and general intelligence of the four religious/ethnic groups.

As noted, the annual NORC surveys are carried out on approximately 1,500 individuals. A single year does not therefore provide many Jews. To rectify this problem we can take the results of a number of years and combine them. This gives rise to a further problem that the vocabulary test has not been administered in every annual survey. From 1990 onwards, the vocabulary test was given in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996. The data collected in these years are used to analyse the vocabulary scores of the four ethnic/racial groups.

Results

The results are shown in Table 1. Reading from left to right, the columns show the numbers in the four groups, the mean vocabulary scores, standard deviations and conventional IQs based on a gentile white mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Thus, expressed in this way, the Jewish group obtains a mean IQ of 107.5, significantly higher than the gentile whites (t=5.82); the blacks obtain a mean IQ of 89.7, significantly lower than that of gentile whites (t=17.89); the “others” obtain a mean IQ of 98.6, not significantly different from that of gentile whites.

Table 1. Vocabulary scores and verbal IQs of American Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others.

Ethnic Group N Mean Sd IQ Jews 150 7.32 2.16 107.5 Gentiles 5300 6.28 2.03 100.0 Blacks 806 4.96 1.94 89.7 Others 219 6.09 2.37 98.6

Discussion

The results provide seven points of interest. First, they confirm the previous studies showing that American Jews have a higher average verbal intelligence level than non-Jewish whites. Second, the 7.5 IQ point Jewish advantage is rather less than that generally proposed and found in the studies reviewed in the introduction finding that Jews have verbal IQs in the range of 110-113 but is closely similar to the figure of 107.8 obtained in the Bachman study which is arguably the most satisfactory of the previous studies in terms of the size and representativeness of the sample.

Third, the present data has strengths in comparison with a number of previous studies in so far as they are based on a nationally representative and reasonably large sample size of 150 Jews and 5,300 gentile whites. The very close similarity between the present result and the Bachman result suggests that the best reading of the verbal IQ of American Jews is 107.5 (present study) or 107.8 (Bachman). These figures are well below previous estimates of Jewish verbal ability.

Four, an average verbal IQ of 107.5 would confer a considerable advantage for American Jews in obtaining success in professional work. There would be approximately four times as many Jews with IQs above 130, compared with gentile whites. This may provide a plausible explain for the 4.8 over-representation of Jews listed in American reference books of the successful such as Who’s Who, American Men and Women of Science, The Directory of Directors, The Directory of Medical Specialists and the like and calculated by Weyl (1989).

Five, the small difference of 1.4 IQ points between the non-Jewish whites and the “other” category is not statistically significant or very informative. The category is largely made up of Hispanics and Asians, which are themselves a heterogeneous category. Hispanics have mean IQs below whites (e.g. Herrnstein and Murray,1994), East Asians have about the same IQ as whites (Flynn, 1992) or slightly higher than whites (Lynn,1995), while South Asians have mean IQs lower than those of whites according to the calculations of Flynn (1992). Aggregating these groups produces a combined mean very close to that of non-Jewish whites.

Six, despite some three quarters of a century of research and quite a number of papers on the intelligence of American Jews there is still a lot of useful research to be done on this question. Probably the best approach would be to analyse Jewish abilities in terms of the construct of g and of the eight second order cognitive factors in the taxonomy of intelligence proposed by Carroll (1993) and the similar taxonomy advanced by McGrew and Flanagan (1998). These second order factors are fluid intelligence (reasoning), crystallized intelligence (verbal comprehension and knowledge), general memory and learning, visualization, broad retrieval ability, cognitive speed and processing speed. Probably all that can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence at present is that Jews have high crystallized intelligence (verbal ability) of which the vocabulary test used in the present study is a good measure and that on this ability their IQ in relation to gentile whites is approximately 107.5. The Backman (1972) provides IQs for several of the second order factors (given in the introduction to this paper) but these are so variable and in some instances so low as to raise doubts about their credibility. It is difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a non-verbal reasoning IQ of 91.3, and at the same time a mathematical IQ (“quantitative reasoning” in the McGrew and Flanagan taxonomy) of 109.7. It is also difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a verbal IQ of 107.8 while at the same time having a short term verbal memory IQ of 95.1. These results are in need of checking and replication. At present it is doubtful whether any conclusion can be reached about the intelligence of American Jews except that their verbal intelligence or, if this is preferred, their gc (crystallized intelligence) is about 107.5.

And here is a link to the list of White ethnicities IQs: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html Ernham 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article simply state "Whites are more intelligent than blacks"

[Note to people reading the above - I don't personally believe that whites are more intelligent than blacks] The main 2 contributors to this article seems to be Rikurzhen. Whenever other users dispute the results/studies we are told the following:

"Worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size. In the United States, Black-White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests.[1] The magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlates with the extent to which those subtests measures g,[2] which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability[3] The rising heritability of IQ with age (within all races; on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20% in infants, rises to 40% in middle childhood, and peaks at 80% in adulthood); and the virtual disappearance (~0.0) by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (for example, family income, education, and home environment), making adopted siblings no more similar in IQ than strangers[4]

US comparisons of both parents to children and siblings to each other finds regression to differing means for different races (85 for Blacks and 100 for Whites) across the entire range of IQs,[5] despite the fact that siblings are matched for shared environment and genetic heritage, with regression unaffected by family socioeconomic status and generation examined"

according to Jensen.

But then we are told by Rikurzhen that these results are 'taken as non-disputed by default'. I.E:

We are told too that race exists and correlates well from the cultural concept to the genetic ones, and this is the mainstream opinion and can be taken as fact.

We are told too that IQ tests are a good measurement of intellegence and are not biased culturally, and this is the mainstream and essentially undisputed opinion., and too can be taken as fact.

We are told that the statistical elements are not disputed.

Well, either all these things are true or they are not.

If they are true, I suggest Rikurzhen 'be bold' and write in the body of the article the above quote with the 'fact' that as it is not disputed by scientific mainstream opinion plus the obvious conclusion that would be drawn: Blacks are less intelligent than whites and it is for genetic reasons, and this is the mainstream undisputed scientific opinion. As for people like me who totally disagree with this assertion - we do nothing. Let the article stand and see the reaction.

I know I can't do that. I've found enough evidence that nearly all of these "facts" are indeed disputed if you take the time to build your own literature on the subject. Of course if one reads mostly the articles of Lynn, Rushton and Jensen (although they are notorious in the field), you can certainly get the converse impression that all of these are incontrovertible "fact". I'm finding it "just ain't so".

My point exactly (I think you missed the point of my argument - I absolute do NOT believe blacks are less smart than whites!). Of course, I and you believe they are not facts but as soon as there is any discussion here, they are presented as such. Dissenter X says 'but there is no proven correlation between IQ and intelligence (or whatever)' and it's shot back: 'yes, there is, it's observable, it's mainsteam scientific opinion, they can be taken as non-disputed by default etc.' I just want the contributers who insist these things within the discussion to be essentially facts to show the courage of their convictions and put it in the article.

I don't think I missed the point of your argument - I just can't bring myself to the point of irony over these kinds of subjects. What I found to be the only thing that works is for us to do our own research and go look for the literature that demonstrate that the "mainstream" opinion isn't really mainstream.--Ramdrake 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange discussion, Macgruder. Anyway, as to the claim that this article has been written by Rik and myself, I am afraid I cannot take that credit. My edits to this article have been minimal, far less than at least 10 other editors. I mainly implemented the references system, which may account for a number of edits. Sometimes I revert a vandal or move a comma about. I am slightly more active on the talk page, but also far less than at least 10 other editors. I wish I knew more about the area so that I could be a more useful contributor. Arbor 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as to your list of purported mainstream opinions, I don't think this article claims that the view that "race exists" is mainstream opinion. In fact, the article (and moreso Race which Rik is on of the main contributors to) goes as far as to give you hard numbers on how many scientists in different areas disagree with it. Arbor 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Arbor. I've edited my original post to reflect that. But, this is exactly what I mean. The article gives a somewhat (not I think totally) balanced view but I find discussion here almost impossible. As soon as anything is said regarding 'facts' versus 'results' it's comment after comment after comment that this is the mainstream opinion, and anything that Jensen (taking an example) says is widely accepted, can be 'taken as non-disputed by default' and is therefore fact. 'JereKrischel' makes extremely pertinent comments yet they just get stonewalled this way. This is the important point I'm making. Certain users seem to have such a dogmatic approach to the discussion that it is effectively stifled. This article just seems to be a war of attrition. Take this exchange, where I point out the authors of a particular study state very clearly that a result fails to capture the complexities of the results, in seeming contradiction to what the wikipedia article says:

Quote 'me':

"In the article it says: "Roth et al. 2001 found that the recent U.S. Black-White gap in g is 1.1 sd, similar to characterization of the historical U.S. Black-White gap." but the Study itself says: "However the 1 standard deviation summary of group differences fails to capture many of the complexities in estimating ethnic group differences in employment settings."

Quote 'reply':

"The sentence is an argument made in the on-going Flynn, R&J, Murray debate. ... but I recall all three cite Roth and agree that the conclusion of that paper is a 1.1 SD gap and that the historical BW gap is around 1.1 SD. --- The reason why it's not important, however, is that the gap is measured in terms of g, which is extracted away from the considerations that Roth is mentioning there. It is the gap in g that concerns Flynn et al."

Apart from barely making sense, this essentially says that because some researchers took a different viewpoint from the author himself we can still state 'the author found...'. It really makes me feel I can't trust any of the citations and quotes in the article at all. In a field of research as tangled as this, with intertwined citations etc, this constantly repeated idea that certain results are effectively 'facts' like the earth going round the sun is stifling of real discussion. I think my point is pertinent - if the discussion is so dogmatic then the article should be. If the article demonstrates that there is in fact a lot of controversy in this field then certain people who are discussing here should respect what the word 'fact' really means. Macgruder 14:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Need to archive again!

We are now at 100 kb, three times the recommended length. Can Magruder, Ramdrake, Rikurzhen, and Arbor agree as to what can now be archived - immediately? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sections I believe we can archive for now. We can always bring them back if we find we need them:

1 Failed "good article" nomination

3 secondary sources to establish notability

3.1 blair

5 Stanley Porteus

7 environment = culture

8 converging data?

9 doubt about B-W-EA diiffrences

10 A message from your friendly archivist

11 some background for recent disputes

14 Radical Suggestion

--Ramdrake 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Inuits

One of the Pioneer Fund's books, Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis, points to how Inuits have larger brains than east asians, although extremely slightly, and have abnormally high IQ's for a hunter-gatherer populations, especially how their IQs remained relatively the same since even the 1930's. This supposedly lends credit to the idea that colder climates equals a bigger brain.

.........However, Rushton and the like ignore one crucial factor: Their diet. Inuits eat almost entirely fish, and it's a proven fact that a steady diet of fish can raise a person's IQ. I'll give you an idea of how much fish they eat.

Inuits, oddly, have darker skin than east asians, despite living in such cold climates. You'd almost expect them to have nordic skintones, eye coloration, and hair color. However, what makes their skin so dark? The vitamin D from the fish they eat. Not only that, but young Inuit children have very pale skin, with prominent, rosy red cheeks. Of course the darker skin color is partly genetic, but this gene once again comes from their high consumption of fish. The darker skin that comes with age is mostly due to both these genes and the vitamin D. Another thing to note about how much fish they eat are people who are half-white and half-inuit- outside of skeletal and facial features, their skin tone shows barely any evidence of Inuit admixture. Thus, the Pioneer Fund's assessment is dubious and has barely any credibility to claim victory for colder climates.

Do you have any reliable source backing your claim that "it is a proven fact that a steady diet of fish can raise a person's IQ"? Actually I would like to see references for all your claims, such as the fact that their skin is dark due to Vitamin D, and not just the fact that being constantly outdoors could darken their skin, especially due to the amplifying affects of snow. Also please remember to sign your comments :) AmitDeshwar 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

...and even if the anon user was able to convince you, it's still original research. Please don't engage in debates that try to debate the veracity of explanations or viewpoints. The only way to work on this page is to point to published material in notable publications and opine that this POV or that is underrepresented. Wikipedia is a primary source, not a conference. We do not engage in scholarly peer review. Arbor 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Arbor, but I'll nevertheless put in my twopence' worth: considering that at the latitude the Inuit live, the night lasts months at a time and that even in the height of summer, the temperature doesn't go high enough (except for a very few days) to dwell outside in anything less than full clothing, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that whatever complexion the Inuit have is not due to exposure of the skin to the sun. There, I shaddup.--Ramdrake 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand no original research, but this is the talk section, and it's not affecting the main article.

On the human skin color article, I quote:

"Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years, the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned white to adapt to fit the formula given above--with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to turn white to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones."

Oh, and here's my example of fish raising IQ: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002852.html Research comes from Environmental Health Perspectives, a well-known and credible scientific journal.

Second of all, if the UV ray reflection would cause their skin to darken so much, wouldn't we expect the same of europeans who lived in the ice age? Oh, but europeans farther north have nordic skin tone. Another point to make about your UV ray theory is that the albedo caused by the sun shining on the snow would have to be extremely bright to affect skin color at all, and to even get that bright would easily blind a person. And yes, I know about signing my comments, but I've never gotten around to registering, so sorry about that.

This discussion is very clearly off-topic at this point (because it debates the merits of the Rushton racial hypothesis rather than the article itself). I did archive it, but another editor restored it. Is there a good reason to keep it, as it is a prime example of what Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOT)?--Ramdrake 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't apply to talk pages. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page : you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page. --Zero g 12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake that this discussion is off-topic (and getting inane). Mor eimportant, the page is now 108 kb long, when the ideal for talk pages is more like 30. Folks, do some archiving please. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)