Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A second attempt to move ahead 1.1 Discussion of Ground Rules 1.2 Discussion of third bullet point: race as a proxy for genetics 1.2.1 troy duster - sociology 1.3 Example of important citation 1.4 Discussion: OR images/strawman 1.4.1 Conflating positions 1.5 Schwael has question, ideas, problem 1.6 general and specific 2 pg num on footnote 84 3 Request for comment

[edit] A second attempt to move ahead

I know some people were put off by my approach to dealing with this conflict. I want to make one more attempt, and I will try to be clearer about my agenda. My agenda is to come up with specific edits we can all agree would improve the article. My agenda is not meant to exclude any question or any person from this discussion. However, I feel very, very strongly that the only way we will make progress is if we can (1) distinguish between major and minor points of contention, and (2) start by addressing one major point of contention at a time, and resolve any conflict concerning it before moving on to another point of contention. In this process, I also believe we would be more effective if we resolve conflicts between specific active editors one at a time. Earlier I proposed JK and WRN. It need not be these two, it could be any two. I just think it will be easier to do things one at a time. Thus, once a conflict between JK and WRN is resolved, we can address a conflict between Ramdrake and WRN, or between JK and Urthogie, or whatever. Also, once it is clear what two people consider the major contention – the essence of whatever is blocking progress – and we start trying to find a resolution, there is no reason other editors cannot propose solutions. To be clear: I am simply proposing we start with one major point of contention at a time.

I would like to propose a few ground-rules that, based on my reading of these debates, are most essential (in the sense that, unless everyone agrees to these, I do not see that any progress at all will be made:

(1) Our NPOV policy demands that the most hotly debated issues be fully represented in an article.

(2) An article on race and intelligence must provide appropriate background concerning both race and intelligence. This background should be consistent with the linked articles on race and intelligence but need not reproduce everything in those articles, only that which is relevant to this topic (the relationship between the two, or any explanations which try to link the two, or arguments against explanations that link the two).

(3) literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominently in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

(4) Such sources will not be limited to one academic discipline. We agree that psychologists have special expertise on intelligence, but that sociologists and anthropologists as well as evolutionary biologists have expertise on race, and if what they write has entered into debates on race and intelligence, it constitutes an appropriate source for this article.

Doeas anyone disagree with any of these principles? if not, no need to waste time discussing them, we can move on.

Now I would like to propose what I think are major points of contention. Based on my own reading of the debates I have picked four but some of you may tell me one of these is minor, or that I have missed a major source of contention. I do not want to get bogged down in arguments over what is minor and major yet. The first question is, can everyone agree on at least one major point of contention? If so, that is the obvious place to start. here is my short-list:

• What are the methodological debates in the verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence over how one measures the genetic component of inter-group differences, especially since heritability is inappropriate for that. WRN wrote that most of the data is indirect. What are the debates over how to use this indirect data? The article must provide adequate coverage of these debates – but where in the article?

• According to WRN, most respondents to intelligence tests self-identify race. What are the debates in the verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence over whether such self-identification signifies a social group (and to what extent are these social groups different in their socio-economic status), versus a genetic population? In other words, to what extent have people debated what the word “race” actually refers to – an ethnic group, a genetic cluster, a cline, a socio-economic status? Where in the article would we discuss such debates?

• In the verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence, how many answers are there to this question: Is it possible that race can serve as a proxy for a genetic population, without actualy being the proper unit of analysis? If so, why? And what would the "proper unit of analysis" actually be? Where should a discussion of debates concerning these questions go in the article?

• In the verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence, what are the debates over the extent to which the conclusions one reaches about the correlation of race and intelligence depend on choices one can and must make prior to the statistical analysis? Does anyone argue that these choices explain apparent correlations between race and differences in intelligence? If so, it must go into the article - but where?

At least two people have to agree that any one or all of these are indeed major sources of contention. Others are free to suggest other issues as major sources of contention but I beg people only to nominate such questions or points if you think they areally get to the heart of the impasse here.

Once people agree to a small set of major points of contention, we need to decide which one to work on first. I beg, beg, beg people to focus on one at a time and not address all at once. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Trying to keep the comment as short as humanly possible) For the record, I agree with the ground rules. Also for the record, I see some major points and some minor points in there, but let me be the first to say it, I am convinced that we don't all agree on what are the major points and what are the minor points, and I believe this lack of agreement in itself may be a major source of disagreement. Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny here. That's my honest opinion. ALso, for the record, I would take the last question as the most critical (important)one.

SLR, I also took the liberty of doing one minor, consistent change to your set of questions, just so we don't get bogged down on what constitutes the "verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence". Hope you'll forgive me.--Ramdrake 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ramdrake. I have no objection to your edit as long as we all agree on groundrule 2 - that it not only has to come from the verifiable literature on race (or intelligence) but from a part of that literature that either addresses the relationship between the two, or has been cited/is used in published debates concerning the relationship between the two.

Also, I also think it would help a lot if, before anyone writes anything more on this talk page, people think not in terms of expressing what they think, but conrete proposals for editing the article (e.g., "add the following paragraph here" or "create a new section on x here" or "switch these two sections" or "combine these two sections" or "rename this section and add x," and that others respond with improvements to the proposal or counter-proposals. And I have to repeat, I really think it is crucial that we do this one step at a time. So, assuming others agree on the groundrules, the question now, is which point of contention should we address first? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Ground Rules

I have some issues with #3 and #4

(3) literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominently in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence.

I only think it makes sense to do this if we also limit discussion of the heritability of intelligence to those sources that speak explicitly about heredity of intelligence with respect to race. (Not groups or individuals.) Neither of these limits should be too rigid.

Also please see my comments above about the quantity of research on a topic not necessarily being evidence of the validity of that topic as a field of study. futurebird 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, as long as we also comply with NPOV. But I think we are talking at cross-purposes. My point is simply that we gain nothing by going off on tangents. There has been much written concerning heritability in relation to race and intelligence so this is not tangential.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(4) Such sources will not be limited to one academic discipline. We agree that psychologists have special expertise on intelligence, but that sociologists and anthropologists as well as evolutionary biologists have expertise on race, and if what they write has entered into debates on race and intelligence, it constitutes an appropriate source for this article.

I don’t agree with the way you seem to be suggesting that certain disciplines are more “qualified’ for certain aspects of the research. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying here, but I think that a sociologist’s views on race might be just as important as a evolutionary biologist’s views on intelligence. We should avoid calling any of these people “scientists” since that is vague, and rather identify every person by discipline, and institution in the text or the footnotes. I don’t want this limited to academics only—political activists, writers and artists may have valuable and respected opinions. futurebird 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, I have no idea what you are trying to say. My groundrule states that we need to include the views of sociologists and anthropolotists, and you seem to be saing that you do not agree and that we need to include the views of sociologists. But that is precisely what I said so why do you think we are disagreeing? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That said, I think this article should focus on debates among scientists. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, I believe this was written originally to be about the scientific debate, rather than the sociological one. If you're bringing this up, I'd like to know if it's for one of these two reasons: 1)you think the debate should be enlarged or 2)you think the scientific and the societal debates cannot be separated, fof whatever good reason.--Ramdrake 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By putting social context and the science together in one article we will have fewer debates. At least half of the complaints come from readers who are shocked to see this material presented as “pure objective science” outside of the social context. I think we should make the point, of course, that few people view social context as clutter, while others consider it an essential element in these questions. ( I hope I’m not getting to off-topic here.) I generally agree with the principals SLR has outlined. However, they need to be applied evenly, if we don’t want to talk about race as a social construct outside of that literature that speaks about race as a social construct with respect to race and intelligence, then we shouldn’t really bring up heritably of intelligence, or heritability of race, except as it relates to heritability of race and intelligence together. Without both of these restrictions the article won’t be very balanced. futurebird 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, same thing if we use some meta-analyses that fetch far further than just the relationship of race to intelligence (like twinning rates and the size of reproductive organs, to name a couple of infamous examples). Under that heading, it may be a good idea to bring back some of the spin off articles within the main article to ensure we have a better view of the ensemble. The Media Coverage and Utility of Race research seem to me obvious candidates.

I think we need to be extremely careful to apply the principles outlined above evenly. One question I see cropping up: the relationship several researchers see between race and intelligence is based overwhelmingly on indirect rather than direct evidence (i.e. there is very little, if any direct evidence of a link). Nearly all, if not all indirect evidence of this link would be thrown out because it is not specific to the relationship of race to intelligence that these researchers view (i.e. extrapolating WGH to BGH). Maybe JK and WRN could chime in on this one?--Ramdrake 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you SLR, for your patience. I believe you are doing a good job in helping focus our discussion.

Minor point on #2: "only that which is relevant to this topic (the relationship between the two)." I would rephrase to only that which is relevant to this topic (the relationship, if any, between the two (r&i), or any explanations which try to link the two (r&i)). If there is evidence regarding the validity of using "race" as a proxy for genetics, it deserves treatment in this article if a genetic explanation is being posited.

I agree and will make the change. But, to be NPOV compliant, we need to add "explanations which try to link the two or which challenge the link between the two, i.e. include alternate POVs Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding #3 a slightly more contention - "should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominently in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence." I would argue that discussions regarding the alleged essentialist genetic nature of "race" are appropriate even if not specifically associated with intelligence, if assumptions of a genetic nature of "race" are being used to explain differences. The "cited prominently" clause seems to be a loophole to allow for my point, but I'd like to be more explicit than that. --JereKrischel 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, if it is cited prominently, it is cited prominently, and it is in - this is no loophole, i was careful about my language. However, to draw on any other discussions of race (that do not address r&i or are not cited in discussions of r&i) would violate [[WP:NOR and cannot be allowed. On these talk pages we often refer to primary sources and forward our onw synthetic or analytical claims. These are forbidden from entering articles as they violate NPOV and I think that it is time to end such discussions. We want to make progress in the article, and nothing will go in the article that violates our core principles. Please don't argue back. All you can say is that some discussions of racre should be included because they would not violate NOR and you do not need to say that since I have just said it; on this, we call agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of third bullet point: race as a proxy for genetics

In the verifiable literature on race and/or intelligence, how many answers are there to this question: Is it possible that race can serve as a proxy for a genetic population, without actualy being the proper unit of analysis? If so, why? And what would the "proper unit of analysis" actually be? Where should a discussion of debates concerning these questions go in the article?

I believe the answer to this question lies along several lines. In several sources regarding disease, a specific social category of "race" serves as a proxy for a genetic population for very simple genetic components as a "proper unit". Sickle cell anemia, for example, may be very common among self-identified African Americans as a "race" and therefore a "proper unit", but the same is not true for a defined category of "Sub-saharan Africans" as "race". For a more complex genetic component, like "intelligence", the application of race as a "proper unit" of analysis is even less justifiable.--JereKrischel 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot use the second and third sentences in the article without violating NOR. For the fourth sentence, do you have a Vverifiable Cite sources|source? If not, we cannot put this in the article because it would violate NPOV. I am mentioning these two policieis because our task shoul dnot be to inflate the talk pages endlessly but to improve the article and to improve the article we have to comply with core policies like NOR and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So to answer the question, "race" is a "proper unit" in some very specific contexts (simple genetic components), with some very specific definitions (self-identified U.S.).--JereKrischel 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, the answer must be more specific: in what verifiable sources on race and intelligence is race presented as the proper unit of analysis? in what verifiable sources on race and intelligence is it argued that race is not a proper unit? Not your opinion, Jere, nor your interpretation of primary sources, but established secondary sources. If you have no answer to these questions youa re wasting your time, because we can only add material to the article that does not violate NOR or NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, Lieberman (2001) would be an ecellent source arguing about race not being a proper unit. Rushton (take your pick for years) would be an ecellent source for the contrary contention.--Ramdrake 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To further answer what is a "proper unit" in ideal terms, the answer is a population directly measured based on the genes in question. I don't know of any specific percentages of representativeness called out in the literature for proxies (if it is 80% predictive, is it a good proxy? 60%? 90%?) before they are considered "proper".--JereKrischel 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

According to whom? What is your source? Unless you have a verifiable source, your answer is wasting time as it will have no impact on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I beliebe JK is saying he's lacking a reference to determine how predictive needs to be to be considered "good". I'm not directly aware of any source on this either, but I'll look to see if I can find one that's applicable here, or maybe a generally applicable principle.--Ramdrake 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Most pro-racialist arguments tend towards the "it's good enough", without being specific as to how good "good enough" is. They have generally modified their categories over the years, and the latest phase seems to be "Black" = sub-saharan african, "Asian" = east asian, "White" = everyone else. They have especially latched onto the idea of clustering of markers using principal components analysis (arbitrary calculations to attempt a separation of components) showing that using specific markers you can assert something close to the categories of "race" they are fond of, but it has been noted in the literature that the distribution of arbitrary markers does not mean that a) intelligence genes are distributed in the same pattern or b) there is a single set of intelligence genes which varies in a linear fashion (i.e., 50 genes, 1-50, may lead to high intelligence, but 25 other genes, 75-100, may also lead to high intelligence - one pattern may occur in one "race", and another may occur in another "race").--JereKrischel 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this an account WRN agrees with? Is it already represented in the article? If so, there is no need for more discussion. If this is an accurate account and it is not in the article, then we need to put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those arguments have been made somewhere in the literature. Let me just look again at the references I garnered.--Ramdrake 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So where should this discussion occur in the article? I think that we need both a significant section on the various uses and definitions of "race", and that whenever a study is cited, we need to be specific as to what use/definition they are using. If they are not using a single standard definition, we should note that as well (very common in many of the aggregation meta-analyses). --JereKrischel 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific citation Scientific American: These data are now providing answers to several highly emotional and contentious questions: Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment? In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. --JereKrischel 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Another citation: Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3. (Sep., 1998), pp. 632-650., regarding genetics and race, and therefore appropriate to mention in the context of any "genetic hypothesis": The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans. The widespread representation of human "races" as branches on an intraspecific population tree is genetically indefensible and biologically misleading... --JereKrischel 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere,unless these texts go on to address intelligence, or unless these have been cited by people who have published on race and intelligence, we cannot use these two quotes, they violate NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay, and it's relevance to our work on the article is not at all clear. There is a scientific dispute about race which no amount of argument on this talk page will change. Here's Lieberman's published survey results (that look at more than just anthropologists -- I notice someone cited the non-peer reviewd results that are just from anthropologists):

ieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

biologists 16%

developmental psychologists 36%'

physical anthropologists 41%'

cultural anthropologists 53%'

Here's a slightly more expansive previous version of the race subsection from this article:

Racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin and self-identification. Ongoing debate exists over the merit of the concept of 'race', especially from the perspective of genetics. Many scientists argue that common racial classifications are insufficient, inaccurate, or biologically meaningless. For example, Lewontin (1972) argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them.

However, A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003 that Lewontin's conclusion is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. Also some geneticists have claimed that many of these "well-intentioned" statements from some scientists, such as Lewontin, are false and do not "derive from an objective scientific perspective."^[1] They argue instead "that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." It is well known that many alleles vary in frequency across human populations.

In JK's recent comments, I interpret a suggestion that the construction of the article must be done in a way that the objections about race are not just reported but enforced when we describe opposing views. This is not NPOV, and its not how WP articles are written. The less editor input to an article the better. Controversial topics require special attention to minimizing editor input. This topic is not just controversial (like abortion) but taboo -- as in some people morally object to discussing this topic at all.

We can write what people have actually said in objection to the topics discussed. We can't take the principle of their objection and apply it (logically) to the other content of the article. There are further aspects of NPOV that are important to mention b/c they are being impinged on by suggestions in the talk page that I don't have time to go into, but I've begun compiling them here. --WD RIK NEW 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WRN, I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying: because most biologists say that race is biological, it is NPOV to portray it that way. However, I'd like to look again at the numbers you gave:

Lieberman et al. (1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

biologists 16%

developmental psychologists 36%'

physical anthropologists 41%'

cultural anthropologists 53%'

Now, this shows that if you were to write this article from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist, it would definitly not be seen as NPOV to write it that way. I assume Wikipedia's rules say nothing about giving more priority to the biology community over the anthropology community when determining common opinion. I also wonder how white the biology community is comared to the cultural anthropology community. But that's not exactly fair. What's fair is to say what I said yesterday and that is Wikipedia's NPOV rule is flawed because the definition of NPOV can depend completely on the intended audience, and Wikipedia intends its audience to be everyone, so we're kind of painted into a corner. Schwael 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

because most biologists say that race is biological, it is NPOV to portray it that way -- not at all. my point was that just because most anthropologists object to race, that doesn't give us license to treat race as suspect when we describe research that uses race. NPOV and NOR policy alone should establish this, but to refute the claim further, I pointed out that many groups disagree with anthropologists. i was responding the suggestions that editors should ascertain what that definitions of race were used in each study that described in the article and that any finding of discordant definitions be used to remove or alter the description of a study's findings. this would be a violation of NOR. --W.R.N. 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - applying something out of context violates NOR.

Short version: I'm suggesting that ignoring the important context of what definition of "race" is used by various meta-studies being cited is misleading, and I have given citations from the literature to that effect. I answered the question of regarding "proper units", and "Where should a discussion of debates concerning these questions go in the article?" Could you answer that same question, WRN? Or is your citation regarding the survey of beliefs of "biological races" some sort of assertion as to "proper units", and your implication that the definition of "race" shouldn't be mentioned prominently? --JereKrischel 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, with all due respect, you need to review our NOR policy. What you suggests violates NOR. By the way, please do not interpret what I am saying to mean that there can be no critical discussion of race, especially as a social construct, in this article. I believe there is a lot out there that does not violate NOR (e.g. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. With all due respect, you are wasting your own time and everyone's times by rehashing quotes we are forbidden to include because of Wikipedia policy. If you want to improve the article, find quotes we can include. I am certain they are out there. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I'm suggesting - could you be more specific? I'm not asking that we do any original research, I'm suggesting that in citing specific research we be specific about what definitions they are using of "race", if they are using any single standard definition. I've given a specific citation for why experts in the field believe that without such context we are being misleading, and essentially identified what could be considered a "best practice", much like it is a best practice to cite not only the author of a study, but the year of its publication. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the quotes I have provided be included in the article, but to answer your questions regarding "race as a valid proxy", I thought it important to give you opinions from the literature, not opinions from my own head. Does that clear up my intention? --JereKrischel 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

SLR, I think there is an issue here which needs to be addressed. The meta-analyses of the racialist position have called upon such arguments to try to make their point. Similar far-reaching analyses have not (or rarely) been made by the other position because they see race and intelligence as separate subjects. However, I don't see how to address this issue without entering the debate ourselves, which is even less acceptable. Nevertheless we would be lacking in terms of NPOV presentation to allow for one side to present arguments which are remote from the strict analysis of the race-intelligence putatitve relationship while the other side is limited because some arguments about race (and chiefly the vailidity thereof) have not been specifically applied to intelligence. One side risks breaking NOR (by making synthetic associations which aren't necessarily found in literature), the other NPOV and balanced presentation (by allowing one side far more arguments than the other because they've historically done meta-analyses that the other side says aren't valid or at least are shaky to start with). So, which is better to risk, I ask of you?--Ramdrake 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- meta-analysis <> review. Also, the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2. includes many reviews that argue for and against a genetic contribution to the BW gap. They've been used extensively in building this article, and may provide more use for further work. --WD RIK NEW 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I do not disagree with your opening point, nor do I think there is any risk of a clash between NOR and NPOV. On the contrary, I think we can comply with both. But to do so requries being careful about our use of sources concerning the social construction of race. If there is a classic study of the social construction of race, or studies of the relationship between race and SES, that have been drawn on in debates concerning race and intelligence, of course they ar relevant and do not violate NOR. But it is the editor's responsibility to establish the chain (e.g. Smith, writing about race and intelligence, draws on Jones' study of race and SES). The only risk of violating NOR is as you say by making synthetic claims not found in the literature. This is indeed a clear violation of NOR. But don't you agree with me that these synthetic claims do exist in the literature? My point is, unless we find and focus on those sources, we will stay stuck. I even named one prominent source. it is dated but still cited. I am sure there are other such sources that make the appropriate synthetic claims necessary for NPOV. My point is simple: we must find and use those sources and anyone who keeps bringing in any others is just wasting time unconstructively. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we can avoid any problems of synthetic claims by simply being more thorough in our citations of studies. When we look at a single source, be it a single study, or a complex meta-analysis, we can provide the important context of what definition of "race" they use, if any. If the study does not use a single standard definition of race, it is not OR to point that out. By providing this context, we can avoid the problematic misleading of the reader into believing that many separate studies and analyses are directly applicable to each other. --JereKrischel 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

avoid the problematic misleading of the reader into believing that many separate studies and analyses are directly applicable to each other -- they are related if scholars claim they are related and if some other scholar says they are not related, then we make their arguments too. we don't do our own analysis to make a particular point -- that's the definition of OR. --WD RIK NEW 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any original analysis at all - I'm simply suggesting that we accurately report the definitions of "race" being used by a given study. Inaction, the omission of critical context, is what misleads the reader. Adding that critical context is not original research, it is simply proper citation. --JereKrischel 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jere, I do not think you understand our NOR policy. The solution is never more citations. NOR is a matter not of the quantity of citations but how they are used. If an article says "race is a social construct" but makes no claims about race and intelligence debates, and you cite the source and then say that therefore Jensen's use of race is problematic or inappropriate, you have violated NOR. You are making your own synthetic claim. It also does not matter whether the synthetic claim is reasonable or not. The point is, we editors cannot make them. If, of course, some other published source makes the synthetic claim (i.e. your source says - explicitly - that race is a social construct and therefore Jensen's use of race in his analysis of IQ results is mistaken or problematic - well, we can definitely use that source. The issue is limiting ourselves to those sources that make the synthetic claims you are concerned with. But you cannot use sources that argue about race and do not discuss race-intelligence debates to make a point about race and intelligence, or about Jensen or Rushton, without violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here was that some studies about groups and intelligence are being conflated with studies about race and intelligence. So if a study defines what they mean by race we should say so-- we should also mention if the study isn't really talking about race, but rather "groups" (in which case, in most instance we probably ought to leave the study out since it isn't really on topic.)

I want to know was the race "measured" in some way? Was it self reported, did the authors make any statement about it being a proxy for genetics, or did they just use it as a way of looking at the data? A study that I just read spent a whole page making the point that they didn't see race as a proxy for genetics. Other studies don't mention it at all. Rushton, Murray and Lynn make explicit claims about race being genetic. We should mention each of these with respect to the study and the claims made. If the authors don't say anything on how they are using race we can't just assume race is a proxy for genetics and then use it as evidence to back up claims about the genetic nature of race.futurebird 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If the authors don't say anything on how they are using race we can't just assume race is a proxy for genetics and then use it as evidence to back up claims about the genetic nature of race. -- We certainly can't and shouldn't do anything of the sort. Some scholars might or might not, and we should report what they say about it. The same with this suggestion -- I want to know was the race "measured" in some way? Was it self reported, did the authors make any statement about it being a proxy for genetics, or did they just use it as a way of looking at the data? -- That's beyond the scope of our role as editors. We summarize what others say as they say it. If someone has gone through studies and looked at how they use race, then we should report their findings. Else, we have to leave the question unasked and unanswered. --W.R.N. 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By placing studies that don't make explicit claims about race being genetic in this article as it is presently constructed we may conflate claims about racial differences in intelligence with claims about racial difference in intelligence that are supposedly a result of genetics. Since that is one of the most contentions questions with respect to this topic we must be absolutely clear about what kind of differences such articles support. futurebird 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the sort of problem that's avoided by being careful. We have two sections of the article "gaps" and "explanations" where the two are meant to be discussed separately. Sometimes this hasn't been maintained, but I would argue that it's always been against my objections. --W.R.N. 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this is to work with the text of the article itself. I think we mostly agree, at least in principal-- but when we start editing we may find that... well... we don't see eye to eye as much. What do you think about the idea of making a sub-page mock-up for the "explanations" section so we can slug all the minor points out and come up with something that everyone will hate, but least everyone may find "tolerable" ? :P futurebird 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] troy duster - sociology

for those interested, it's probably worth looking into what he's written and/or what he's said that's documented in the media. he is/was president of the ASA, which issued a statement defending the importance of race in sociology research. his nuanced opinions are described here and elsewhere. --W.R.N. 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was saying that race didn't exist-- I mean there must be a gene for say skin color-- the question is wether race is a meaningful category for studying differences in intelligence. I mean genetic differences exist-- I don't understand why you are bringing this up or how it is relevant-- Let's not get side-tracked. futurebird 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested that opinions from different disciplines were not represented sufficiently. Duster is apparently a respected sociologist who writes about race differences in a variety of contexts. I wasn't looking to have an argument about the merits of race. --W.R.N. 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. futurebird 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems Duster is arguing that the application of racial categories should not be misconstrued as biological determinism - that is to say, race is biologically inconsequential, but socially significant. This nuanced interpretation drives to the heart of the "genetic" hypothesis, making it clear that the social categories of "race" and the effects of being in those social categories is worth studying, but that assuming that a social category of race is a proxy for genetics causing specific effects is terribly misleading. Thanks for the reference, WRN! --JereKrischel 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Duster's a little more nuanced than that. Don't conflate his normative statements with his statements of fact. He suggests that we guard against the over-biologicalization of race as it would be tempting to suggest that alleles are the cause when the real cause may be social factors that are confounded with allele frequencies. Risch makes a similar point in many editorials. Supporting quote -- A new approach, gene clustering, avoids race by dividing according to medically important markers, such as genes for the enzymes necessary to metabolize drugs. But society will very likely re-create racial categories and rankings under the new terms, Duster predicts. And by failing to name the social context, this strategy gives base-pair differences undue emphasis at the expense of environmental influences. Race is a social reality, Duster observes, and he warns that science itself is a social institution susceptible to essentialist perceptions of race. --W.R.N. 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example of important citation

This citation does specifically cite some race/intelligence research, and seems like an important reference for the "race is an invalid proxy" POV. Its primary focus was a birth weight study, but I think this is a perfect example of an important POV to represent in the structure of the article.

Frank, Reanne, The Misuse of Biology in Demographic Research on Racial/Ethnic Differences: A Reply to van den Oord and Rowe, Demography - Volume 38, Number 4, November 2001, pp. 563-567

An even more egregious set of ethical violations complements the methodological errors committed when racial groups are conceptualized as discrete genetic entities. Goodman (1997) argued that researchers fall into a number of groups with regard to understanding race and biology. The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)....In a discussion of the controversial book The Bell Curve, in which Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argued that racial differences in intelligence exist...The use of racial categories as a starting point for understanding genetic variation represents shoddy and imprecise research, leading to the misspecification of models and the misinterpretation of findings...It gives credence to the discredited findings of disreputable researchers: those who argue explicitly that there are many measurable genetic differences between racial groups, and implicitly that these racial differences connote hierarchical differences in worth.

I would argue that even a passing reference like this is appropriate, given the explicit mention of prominent racialists who assert race/intelligence differences. --JereKrischel 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - here is a good example of a quote that we can use without violating NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This quote is a perfect source for this section. Let's remember to add it once the page is unlocked. futurebird 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: OR images/strawman

[copied from above] Reminder, some of the actual controversies which lead to this situation which I objected to were this edit: definitely inappropriate straw man, deletion certainly necessary and this edit: none of the papers cited have a graphic with four curves. synthesis of table information in papers into novel graph clearly OR. --WD RIK NEW 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[new] I believe the only times I've called for the removal of material (usually a 1-2 sentences) is when I thought the sources did not support the claims in the text. In the two edits above, are situations where large amounts of text are removed. The second relates to the 4-curves graph -- while a temporary fix is to use just 2 of the curves -- I am not convinced that this is wise and not at all convinced that this is necessary. The first more directly relates to the issues of current discussion. There ~3 changes in this one edit: (1a) "The most common view among intelligence researchers" is changed to "According to Linda Gottfredson, a controversial researcher at the University of Delaware". We know what the most common view among intelligence researchers is -- by NPOV we should say what it is when that's possible. (1b) "or simply an artifact of an inaccurate use of social racial identification as a proxy for genetics" is added. I believe this mischaracterizes the views expressed in the cited paper. I think this detail is beyond the scope of our current discussion. (2) A figure showing the regression of IQ by SES stratified by race was removed. The conclusions from this kind of analysis are reported in the APA report without report of controversy, and AFAIK there is no controversy about this finding. John Ogbu wrote several(?) books about the phenomena. (2b) A paragraph was removed, but this was probably inadvertent. I should be put back. (3) A table that compares the arguments published in support of the partly genetic and 'primarily environmental' positions is removed. I believe the "straw man" comment applies here, but I'm not sure exactly how. Rather than argue further, I'll cite Arbcom: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." -- I mention this here to counter the suggestion that I'm standing in the way of adding policy-conforming material to the article. In fact, the pages are protected because I objected to the removal of policy-conforming material from the article. We need to resolve these issues, but we also need to resolve some of the suggestions made by JK above, as I think they clearly suggest edits that I would have to oppose -- likely returning the article to a locked status. --WD RIK NEW 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "the most common view among intelligence researchers" on WGH gets conflated with BGH views inappropriately. The APA report used "groups", specifically not "race", conflating those definitions is inappropriate and out of context. And the framing of the issue as "partly-genetic" and "environmental only" is like asking the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" - the invalid implication you are making is that if any bit of the genetic hypothesis is true, that Blacks are inferior to Whites are inferior to Asians. You are also falling into the "Hereditarian Fallacy" as mentioned by MacKenzie, that lack of evidence for the "environmental hypothesis" does not connote evidence for the "genetic hypothesis". --JereKrischel 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You've made these arguments in the past, but they are your arguments and not those of others. The arguments I'm presenting are from the sources I cite; I'm presenting their arguments, which need to be included in the article. If you're objection is restricted to the language of "partly-genetic" and "environment only" that's easy to fix -- you add explicit discussion of what each one entails (cited and attributed, of course) -- and if need be you find what the most common phrases in the literature are. What you don't do is delete material or do the other things I've objected to. --WD RIK NEW 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I to assume, then, that you would not oppose using the language "racist" and "non-racist", if there is an explicit discussion of what each one entails (cited and attributed, of course)? We can both find arguments from cited sources that use POV pushing categories and frame the argument in specific ways - I question whether it is appropriate to simply pick one of those POVs and use that as the primary frame. I would suggest that MacKenzie lays it out in a fairly neutral way, with "Genetic", "Environmental" and "jointly-genetic/environmental", with the caveat that that most of the folk you put in the "partly-genetic" category actually fall into MacKenzie's "Genetic" category. --JereKrischel 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the affirmation "the most common view among intelligence researchers" would need to be attributed. If you leave it as is (as an uncontestable truth), it looks like editorializing; if you change it to "according to Linda Gottfredson, the most common view..." and it's cited, then it's certainly compliant.--Ramdrake 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, barring that there are sources other than Gottfredson that also support the claim, but in the particular content isn't not a big deal. The other points remain unresolved. Thus far I've had little to disagree with your arguments Ramdrake. Can you offer suggestions about the rest of the conflict? --WD RIK NEW 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make was missed regarding "the most common view". The problem I had with the section was that it said that WGH was the most common view, and then went onto imply that BGH was similarly the most common view. Making the claim that WGH is the most common view is not problematic by itself, but only when it is being used to forward an uncommon view that BGH is substantially genetic. --JereKrischel 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The salient part is "However, it is a matter of debate whether IQ differences among races in a given country are primarily environmental or partly genetic." I think the contrast between WGH and BGH is important to make up front, and I imagine you do too. --WD RIK NEW 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, the "primarily environmental" and "partly genetic" false-dichotomy, as well as a POV framing of the question that does not address the matter of debate whether "race" is an appropriate scientific grouping. There simply isn't any reason to mention "the most common view among intelligence researchers" regarding WGH - it seems to be a way of attaching authority to people like Gottfredson ("see, she thinks just like everyone else"), giving false credibility to assertions of BGH. It would be just fine to say, "Most researchers do not believe race is an appropriate scientific grouping (see APA report). However, there are some who still debate whether IQ differences among races in a given country are substantially environmental, or substantially genetic." --JereKrischel 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an NPOV issue. First, we must ask: are there different points of view among psychologists and are the major points of view represented appropriately? The APA is one valid source, but there may be others. All major views relating to race and intelligence must be represented. Second, we must ask, are there views outside of psychology and are they represented appropriately? There certainly are views on race and intelligence, many by sociologists and anthropologists, and they must be included in this article too. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth it is about verifiability and providing multiple points of view including ones we think are wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping this will continue to be discussed. --WD RIK NEW 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "the most common view among intelligence researchers" on WGH gets conflated with BGH views inappropriately.

For the record, I agree. This is one of the many problems with this article. futurebird 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We've talked about (1a) and come to what appears to be a bit of consensus but a new issue with the same paragraph arose; leaving a number of items left to go. --W.R.N. 18:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think we tend to forget that, since this topic is one of huge debate, nearly all statements would need to be attributed. Maybe one or a couple of us should go through the article and flag wherever a statement is made as a general opinion when in fact it should be attributed. Also, what I've noticed is that counterpoints, almost to the same extent as points, seem to be unattributed. The opening paragraph mentioned by WRN should by all means be attributed to Gottfredson, and/or whoever else made those points. When a point (such as that particular paragraph) is made of statements from different sources, each statement needs to be attributed, or else the resulting compound statement becomes synthesis, or OR. Same thing applies with the counterargument starting with "However", to which JK added a sentence or two. The way the statement is appended, it looks like Linda Gottfredson also made that statement in the same breath. Either something isn't attributed which should be, or else Dr Gottfredson isn't so sure of her position...! I think a first step to improve this article which would have a huge benefit-to-cost ratio is to go through and flag all the stuff that should be attributed rather than just stated as God's own truth (and folks, there is unfortunately a signficant amount of it). Also, we have Dr Gottfredson talking about the most common view among intelligence researchers... what is the most common view among race researchers? I don't remember seeing that much of anywhere. I think part of what's killing the article are errors of omission, big and small.--Ramdrake 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Ramdrake - there are significant errors of omission when we cite studies without proper context, and improperly associate studies together that do not use uniform measures of either "race" or "intelligence". I believe the source of this error is the excessive focus on citing every pro-racialist journal article or meta-analysis that is published. --JereKrischel 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I've said it before, but context is one of the major problems with this article, in both the macro and micro sense. futurebird 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

there are significant errors of omission when we cite studies without proper context, and improperly associate studies together that do not use uniform measures of either "race" or "intelligence". I believe the source of this error is the excessive focus on citing every pro-racialist journal article or meta-analysis that is published. -- what can one say about this but why would you say this given all the discussion that's been written about NOR and NPOV? --W.R.N. 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's be honest: serious omissions of attribution have been made on both sides of the argument. I'd rather fix the problem than argue about it. Wouldn't you?--Ramdrake 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with you Ramdrake. What do you make of improperly associate studies together that do not use uniform measures of either "race" or "intelligence"? It's a NOR problem to me, and to the extent that it motivates the disagreement in the two edits at the top of this thread, it's a problem that's keeping the article protected. --W.R.N. 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking about several meta-analyses, each one should be attributed separately, and they definitely shouldn't be strung together (as they currently sometimes are). If we're talking about a single meta-analysis, the fact that it uses several definitions of race at the same time should be mentioned, and attributed (I don't think we'll have a hard time finding people who raised the objection). The word "improper" should be used if and only if it is attributed to someone (otherwise it becomes a weasel word. --Ramdrake 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's someone's actual published opinion that researchers improperly associate studies together that do not use uniform measures of either "race" or "intelligence", then we report that. We don't take it for granted and restructure/rewrite the article with that notion in mind. We don't use the notion to justify deleting large amounts of sourced material. --W.R.N. 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake - they definitely shouldn't be strung together (as they currently sometimes are) - when a single source cites multiple studies, we can use that to justify describing them together. This will account for many of those instances you may have in mind. --W.R.N. 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, WRN, that's a cop-out. Just because the pro-racialist press strings together unrelated studies in a logical fallacy to promote a point in an unjustified manner, does not mean that we should simply report their statements as fact, or build their case for them point by point. If a single source cites multiple studies, we should simply cite the single source for the conclusion, instead of rehashing the proof they assert builds their case (which accounts for many of the instances right now). Short answer: when a single source cites multiple studies, it does not justify our citation of them in support of a given conclusion. We must attribute conclusions, and faulty conflation of studies, to their source, not present them as fact. --JereKrischel 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this directly from the NOR talk page where the synthesis clause was discussed. It was established that the 100% safe way to avoid synthesis is to only put together sources that someone else has put together. Frankly, I think common sense should be enough, but there are many things suggested that would clearly violate policy. --W.R.N. 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, WRN, that's a cop-out. Just because the pro-racialist press strings together unrelated studies in a logical fallacy to promote a point in an unjustified manner, does not mean that we should simply report their statements as fact, or build their case for them point by point.

But we ought to represent the fact that this POV exists and has been published. I agree we don't need to "build up" the argument on either side too much. But rather explain briefly and clearly what that side says. futurebird 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, you are wrong. You are entirely misconstruing what WRN (and I) are stating about our NOR policy. frankly perhaps it is time for you to read that policy carefully. It is essential that we follow it and following it is NOT a "cop-out." NOR does not prohibit us from providing context. It only prohibits us from doing so in a way that introduces our own synthetic claims. WRN is saying we cannot do that and he is right. Here NOR and NPOV connect, and while I understand youthink WRN is putting his own POV into the article, you seem to respond by wanting to put your own POV in the article. That is not the effective response to a POV-pusher. The effective response is to insist on NPOV. Let me exaplain: you want to rewrite the article so it is clear from the start that this is a controversial topic. Well, FB, that is a POV. Some people do not think it is controversial. The article must include both POVs, it must provide an account of the views of those who do not think it is controversial AND must provide an account of the views of those who think it is controversial. But it should not be organized and introduced in a way that privileges one of these points of view, especially just because it also happens to be your POV. Please do not think this means I think there is no controversy or that the controversy should be kept out of the article. That is not what I think and that is the opposite of what I wrote. I ask you, Futurebird, to examine your own feelings about this topic, because I see you adding a lot of talk that is sincere and well-intentioned but that is sometimes repetitive, sometimes personal reflection, and sometimes (as in this case) just misconstruing what others say. You have also made some real contributions to this discussion, as below when you provide a list of sources that challenge the use of race in race-intelligence discussions. That is very constructive. Please try to make more contributions like that, and fewer like the one above. WRN never, NEVER said those views should be reported as fact. The only fact that should be reported - indeed, the fact that we MUST report, is the fact that many scientists hold this view. And WRN never ever said other views cannot be included - only that whe have to include views that come from verifiable sources on race and intelligence, only that we cannot put in our own personal view of "the context," "the context" too has to come from verifiable sources (i.e. sources that explicitly say, "this is the context." This is not an impossible standard, such sources exist and later on in a later comment YOU provide some of them. So please, don't try to escalate the conflict with WRN when in fact both of you can easily agree on this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR, on this one, I don't and I can't follow you: the subject of a relationship of race with intelligence is acknowledged by everyone (except maybe some fringe lunatics) to be a controversial subject: even its staunchest proponents like Lynn, Rushton, et al acknowledge it "is" a controversial subject. Now if you meant to say that people don't agree whether it's "real" science, whether it's pseudoscience, whether it's a legitimate area of research, you're aboslutely right. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that the relationship of race to intelligence as a subject is "uncontroversial": the current article as it is states these very words in the intro.--Ramdrake 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake (and Futurebird), you may be right about this, but I would say this: there are different accounts (views) of the controversy and we cannot privilage any one over the other. It is easy to say it is controversial, but as soon as we start to explain what makes it controversial, or in what way it is controversial, or why, we (1) have to rigorously avoid OR, and (2) make sure we provide multiple POVs, if they exist, of the controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia, a controversy is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree. Now, some people say there is plenty of indirect evidence that there is a significant (in the sense of measurable) genetic-racial component to intelligence. Some people say there is no good evidence of this. I'd say right there is a controversy about "race and intelligence", and I don't think anyone denies it exists. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, I'm mjust saying there's an undeniable controversy because people disagree. Please read the paragraph below for my views about how to present the subject. :) --Ramdrake 13:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no matter how we feel about the subject, we must present it neutrally, and let the readers decide for themselves. We can no more turn this into an indictment of racialist science than we can endorse, explicitly or implicitly, any specific side in the debate. Again, this isn't about the Truth, this isn't about right or wrong, it's about reporting what has been said faithfully and with proper attribution on all sides that have spoken up in this debate. And yes, the pro-racialist press has been stringing a lot of studies together, but the anti-racialist press has spoken out about it, and we must present both sides neutrally, e.g. without suggesting one set of experts are more "experts" or more "right" than the other.--Ramdrake 22:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the important part of this mini-conversation is that we can recognize an NOR/NPOV problem when we're presented with a challenge to something we've written. I'm not sure that goal is completely achieved yet. (Of course, we all have to specific edits to discuss -- the problem of which according to JK is that they are either OR or strawmen.) --W.R.N. 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say that this article as it is does have some concatenation of research which is uncomfortably close to OR (hence my suggestion of a thorough attribution drive to minimize this as much as possible), and that the "entirely environmental vs partly-genetic" debate is not the most appropriate way to frame the debate, as it lumps together 1-99% genetic causes, when we can demonstrably find researchers anywhere in this spectrum. Furthermore, it eliminates those who think the question is invalid (because it hinges on races, not groups) or puts them in the "entirely-environmental" bin. As I said, the table analysis JK did is quite probably OR (by way of it being a synthesis), but the framework it develops is, I believe the best way to analyse all the different opinions (from all walks of science) on this thorny subject.--Ramdrake 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll just say I'm skeptical about the commonality of the views you suggest exist. (The S&R survey appears clear to me and to its authors. I also ask you to question where the notion that "entirely environmental" means that a 1% genetic contribution is ruled out comes from -- 1% of 15 points is 0.15 points; even 20% of 15 points is just 3 points, which is about the level of uncertainty in the average IQ from a 100 person sample. Thus, I suspect it comes from editor input, not a published source.) I suspect that at least some of this is coming from a misreading of sources. I stand to be proven wrong by what material is added to the articles. Alternatively, people in the literature may actually be talking past one another -- not a problem if we treat accusations by one party of what another party believes as accusations to be attributed rather than neutral assessments of truth. My primary objection to the specific edits cited above are that they involve simple removal of material rather than an attempt to fix any claimed specific problems. Per Arbcom: It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. --W.R.N. 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My conception that "entirely environmental" meant 0% genetic is my own, I'll vouch for that, and was based on simple mathematical logic. Now, if you know of a quote that says how much of a "genetic" component the "entirely-environmental" opinion can sustain and still be called that, it'd be more than welcome. I even believe it could kill at least one possible strawman. I just assumed the answer was "0".--Ramdrake 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it meant either not detectably/not statistically significantly different than zero or not practically importantly different than zero. I'll revisit the sources I know to see what they say exactly. General example -- everyone would say that what language you speak or how many fingers you have has zero heritability, but maybe the truth is that there's some tiny correlation. We wouldn't feel we'd been proven wrong by such a finding. Specific example -- I recall Nisbett (forget the exact cite) reviews studies that look for the correlation between skin color and IQ in African Americans. The overall correlation comes out in the range of .05 to .2 (off the top of my head). His conclusion from this is that there is no appreciable genetic contribution to between group differences. (Don't read too much into this till I recall the actual citation.) --W.R.N. 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"build up" the argument on either side too much - an unbiased review of the literature would represent views in the article relative to their representation in the literature and among scholars. when it comes to the main article, the only real solution is summary style; however, when it comes to the sub-articles, there's no problem with having something like a sentence for each paper that's been the subject of some other review paper. i say that as an example, not as a rule. --W.R.N. 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As a specific recommendation for circumventing the "straw man" issue -- the table is a set of arguments that have been presented for and against a genetic contribution. Arguing for/against a genetic contribution is -- I think -- undeniably a significant debate. So my suggestion is to simply rename the table accordingly. That what I had in mind by narrow tailoring. --W.R.N. 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "indirect evidence" and "direct evidence", which may be for either the genetic hypothesis or the environmental hypothesis? This makes it more clear that the two are not necessarily antithetical to each other, but that most of the direct evidence is currently around environmental variables (Columbia/Northwestern being particularly notable). Instead of "for/against" genetic contribution, which really isn't being debated all that much - at least not in absolute terms - it seems that it is better to narrowly tailor the issue without trying to pit the two sides against each other. Finding that nearly all of the B-W gap is due to sociological factors is not "against" genetic contribution, it is simply showing that the majority of the B-W gap is environmental. We shouldn't try to build a false framework for discussing the issue. --JereKrischel 05:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Which table are you talking about, the one posed in the "outlines" section that shows different researchers in different camps? futurebird 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about a very large table WRN created, with two columns, one for "partly-genetic" and one for "environment-only". He had it on a sub-page. Essentially the problem I had with the entire table was that it framed the issue in the way preferred by most racialists/hereditarians. Not only the titles, but also the distribution of "evidence" presented (WRN did a very good job of putting together a strong case for the racialist/hereditarian side, but was awfully skimpy on the "environment-only" side).

The problem here, of course, is that as we've established with WRN's reaction to the Columbia/Northwestern study, evidence for a strong environmental component slightly less than "environment-only" is seen as a POV push, even though it is arguably "partly-genetic", which WRN continues to insist is the mainstream, majority POV.

Instead of pitting "partly-genetic" versus "environment-only", I'll assert that when we talk about "evidence", we should be talking about evidence for either genetic contributions to gap, or evidence for environmental contributions to the gap - neither is mutually exclusive (as shown by the Columbia/Northwestern study). When we categorize evidence, though, I think it is important to note which evidence is direct (SES measured and controlled for), versus which evidence is indirect (mostly assumed to be true because no other explanation exists).

The "Hereditarian" or "Genetic" hypothesis is fairly fringe, and in many ways, the "Environmentalist" hypothesis is also fringe. The "Joint Environment/Genetic" seems to be the obvious majority POV from the literature, and when discussing evidence, we should probably not try to conflate the "Genetic" hypothesis ala Rushton/Jensen and others who insist on a firm racial hierarchy, and the "Joint Environment/Genetic" hypothesis forwarded by studies such as the Columbia/Northwestern data. I suggest looking at MacKenzie for the way he lays out the sides of the debate. --JereKrischel 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes total sense, I think the table in the section on outlines is a much more clear way to frame this debate. Thank you for clearing things up. futurebird 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "indirect evidence" and "direct evidence" -- there's a demarcation problem there that's insurmountable for us as editors. One common view (e.g. Sternberg) and one that could probably be agreed upon by most experts if polled is that essentially all of the evidence is indirect as no alleles that affect cognitive ability have been demonstrated to vary in their frequency between groups.

we should be talking about evidence for either genetic contributions to gap, or evidence for environmental contributions to the gap - neither is mutually exclusive - I believe this is my suggestion exactly, in part because it also happens to be exactly what the table is now (except for its labels).

"Joint Environment/Genetic" versus hereditarian or environmentalist views -- we shouldn't quibble about this, but most people who claim to support "Joint Environment/Genetic" don't realize the implications of their statements because they are not formally educated in genetics. See Pinker (2004) for a discussion. "Joint Environment/Genetic" is usually actually a commitment to a hereditarian view or to an essentially environmentalist view, or is stated so ambiguously that it's actually a commitment to not really knowing, but it's not a third alternative hypothesis.

a firm racial hierarchy -- anyone who actually believes in a "firm" racial hierarchy is undeniably a racist fool, and I doubt there are any researchers who would disagree with that statement. Rushton maybe a little racist and a little foolish, but he's not so much of both as to believe in typological notions of race, and Jensen is clearly neither racist nor foolish. There's a reason that hereditarianism is also called Jensenism. See the relative importance given to Rushton's matrix of life history traits in their co-authored 2005 review paper: it's given last billing in their list of supporting arguments. --W.R.N. 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you agree that all evidence for the genetic hypothesis is indirect, then certainly it will go in the indirect column.

You do not have the current table written as I suggest, either in its content or its labels - you specifically have put in there a false dichotomy of "genetic" conflicting with "environmental". Placing them in conflict to each other is misleading.

Your opinion about whether or not experts "don't realize the implications of their statements" doesn't seem to be particularly important here - and neither does Pinker seem to make that claim in your citation. MacKenzie seems to make it clear that "Joint Genetic/Environmental" is not only the "third hypothesis", but it is also the most accepted and reasonable one. The real disputes often happen around the magnitude and direction of those effects.

There also seems to be a wealth of evidence that Jensen firmly believes that Blacks score lower on IQ tests than Whites because of genetic factors. I may not find that undeniably "racist" or "foolish", but I certainly don't believe it is particularly justified by the evidence. --JereKrischel 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you agree that all evidence for the genetic hypothesis is indirect, then certainly it will go in the indirect column. -- am I that bad a writer? I said that all evidence for or against any position (genetic or environmental) has been indirect and no direct experiment has every been performed. no table could be divded into direct/indirect because none of us could properly decide which is which. what I agreed with you statement that we should be talking about evidence for either genetic contributions to gap, or evidence for environmental contributions to the gap - neither is mutually exclusive, which is what the table itself does now, only with different labels in the top row.

third hypothesis - like i said, most don't realize the full implications of their claims. but that doesn't matter for the moment if we're agreed that the columns of a comparison table are "evidence for genetics" and "evidence for environment".

There also seems to be a wealth of evidence that Jensen firmly believes that Blacks score lower on IQ tests than Whites because of genetic factors. - that's true. but believing that is not the same as believing that there is a "firm racial hierarchy". certainly don't believe it is particularly justified by the evidence - many do not, that's not in contention. this particular sub-thread appears be a result of our miscommunication rather than our disagreement. --W.R.N. 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

rephrase: are we agreed that the columns of a comparison table are "evidence for genetics" and "evidence for environment"? --W.R.N. 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Putting those two column headings in a "comparison" table implies that they are mutually exclusive, and the way you presented the table, you would put your indirect evidence for the genetic hypothesis on one side, and then put a refutation of that evidence on the other side. It would be better to split the columns by either "direct/indirect evidence", or if that isn't sufficient for you, something like "single studies"/"meta-analyses". Another possibility would be to just have a column, "explanation" and "refutation", to give specific refutations for specific studies, regardless if they found a significant environmental factor, or a significant genetic factor. We should probably also have a column on what %genetic or what %environmental the study actually claimed.

The example I give to you as being problematic with "evidence for genetics" and "evidence for environment" is the Columbia/Northwestern study. Although it found a large environment component, it also serves as evidence for some, very small, genetic component. --JereKrischel 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"direct/indirect evidence", or if that isn't sufficient for you, something like "single studies"/"meta-analyses" -- neither of these is within the scope of our ability to classify.

implies that they are mutually exclusive -- hereditarianism = some genetic and environment. clearly hereditarians believe they are not mutually exclusive. in fact, no one I know believes they are mutually exclusive, and yet there is considerable dispute about whether particular pieces of data support a genetic contribution or support a genetic contribution (or neither). does this not make sense? the main article currently has sub-sections of "3.2 Environmental explanations" and "3.3 Genetic explanations" without implying that you can't have a mix of the two.

We should probably also have a column on what %genetic or what %environmental the study actually claimed. -- more things we can't really do. how many times have numbers been put to this?

The example I give to you as being problematic with "evidence for genetics" and "evidence for environment" is the Columbia/Northwestern study. - it can be described in both columns, in a single row to the extent that it argues for both. just as Jensen (1998) is/should be in both column on different issues. --W.R.N. 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm sure we can determine which studies are direct studies, and which ones are meta-analyses. This is not a POV issue.

(2) Although I know you'd like to see hereditarianism as "some genetic and environment", you're creating that definition in a POV manner. It is quite well understood in the literature that hereditarianism means "significantly genetic" and that environmentalism means "significantly environmental. The "environmental" explanation you've setup as a failure by implying that it means 100% environmental, whereas the "genetic" explanation you've setup as a guaranteed success by imply that it means 0-99.999% environmental. Although there may be evidence for particular environmental factors, the only evidence for particular genetic factors is by supposition that the lack of a defined factor means it must be genetic. Better sections would be, "Environmental hypothesis", "Joint Genetic/Environmental hypothesis", and "Genetic hypothesis", as per MacKenzie.

(3) If a study is not claiming a specific contribution (environmental or genetic), then it probably shouldn't be used as an example...or maybe, instead of putting it under "direct evidence", we should categorize that as "suggestive evidence"

(4) I'm not sure how you would split Jensen (1998) on the "issues"...the Columbia/Northwestern specifically called out various SES factors - Jensen didn't actually find genes as factors, did he? And it would certainly be more appropriate to see Jensen's work as conflicting with Columbia/Northwestern's work, since they disagree dramatically on the percent contribution of genetics - I think that's why a third column, reporting what % genetic/% environmental was being claimed...we can leave it blank for those studies which actually don't make any claims at all. --JereKrischel 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm sure we can determine which studies are direct studies, and which ones are meta-analyses. -- in my expert opinion, we cannot unambiguously distinguish direct from indirect evidence (what Neisser and others were talking about). in fact, i suggested that all the available evidence was indirect by my own standards. using the dictionary definition of "meta-analyses", it's clear, but as you use it it is too ambiguous. direct is not the opposite of "meta-analysis".

(2) Better sections would be, "Environmental hypothesis", "Joint Genetic/Environmental hypothesis", and "Genetic hypothesis", as per MacKenzie. -- (i'll restrict my comments to those of most relevance) you've missed my point. the suggestion was not to classify hypotheses but to classify arguments as either supportive of a role for genetics/against environment or supportive of environment/against genetics, according to its authors. this circumvents the labeling of hypotheses in this section, and focuses on the individual arguments themselves. arguments are more concrete than hypotheses and each paper makes its own claims about what its arguments mean.

(3) If a study is not claiming a specific contribution (environmental or genetic), then it probably shouldn't be used as an example -- as stated, this is a unsupportable position -- note specific. don't make this argument.

(4) again you are trying to classify hypotheses. this is not worth trouble. focus on individual arguments. if a paper claims there is support for genes and environment, describe both, one in each column. for example, jensen (1998) makes several arguments for environmental factors contributing in specific ways. --W.R.N. 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Whatever you choose to be the opposite of "meta-analysis" will certainly be sufficient.

(2) How do you propose to deal with papers that don't necessarily argue the issue, but are cited by others as arguing one way, or the other, in a framework that is POV pushing? That is to say, if I did a study without making any R&I conclusions, but you cited it in your meta-analysis as an argument for the "partly-genetic", and FB cited it in her meta-analysis as an argument for "significantly environment", where does that go?

(3) Since the most controversial argument is about the magnitude of contribution, not the existence of any contribution, if we're trying to discuss the controversial areas, we should be clear about what is being argued. Studies which simply claim non-zero genetic, or non-zero environmental contributions are not offering any real argument, but stating a truism. --JereKrischel 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(4) I don't think that this article should be diving into individual arguments. It makes the article dense and unreadable. MacKenzie did an entire research paper on characterizing and describing individual arguments, and arguably, doing the same as he did is Original Research. I'd like to have your opinion on how to avoid the slippery slope of ref, counter ref, counter counter ref, etc - I think you're in favor of such a slope because you have superior access to resources to provide detailed references, and feel your POV would be well supported. What kind of guideline would you suggest on when to stop tit-for-tat on a given point or study? --JereKrischel 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflating positions

I think I understand what you're trying to say WRN, but I believe you are building a misleading article, by simply focusing on individual arguments. The problem is that as many hereditarians do, you take a half dozen studies, of which 5 are completely innocuous, and then add in 1 really terribly misleading meta-analysis, and give it undeserved credibility by tying it in with the 5 other studies. The APA lays it out into:

• Socio-economic Factors
• Caste-like Minorities
• African-American Culture
• The Genetic Hypothesis

It seems unreasonable to put an study regarding the Genetic Hypothesis (Jensen 1972), in the same light as a study like the Columbia/Northwestern one, which although had some gap unaccounted for (which folk like Jensen might automatically assert is genetic), did not make any claim.

Often times, even if a paper does not assert one way or another, there is significant debate by meta-analysis whether or not that paper supports their position. I don't think that your current view on the topic sufficiently captures this either, and you've often uncritically put references from meta-analyses that are disputed by the original paper's author (like Cavalli-Sforza).

I think that we need to reevaluate our concept of how the research should be laid out. I seem to favor the APA and MacKenzie view, and you seem to want to isolate it to a geneticist POV. I think we need to find a way to lay things out that allow for both POVs to be presented - have you any suggestions, or are you firmly committed to the status quo? --JereKrischel 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you agree that Socio-economic Factors, Caste-like Minorities and African-American Culture are arguments in favor of an environmental cause and The Genetic Hypothesis is an argument in favor of a genetic cause? --W.R.N. 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You are asserting things as mutually exclusive again. Socio-economic Factors is not an argument in favor of an entirely environmental cause (as you seem to imply), but an argument there are specific environmental factors that can be identified. It is well within the Socio-economic Factors evidence to accept a genetic superiority of Blacks strongly outweighed by SES in the U.S.. --JereKrischel 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "entirely" for that very reason. --W.R.N. 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

By your definition then, The Genetic Hypothesis is also an argument in favor of environmental cause, since it is not "entirely". Clearly this isn't what you're implying. It seems then, inappropriate to separate the two unless you're talking about primarily genetic or primarily environmental. MacKenzie (Explaining Race Differences in IQ The Logic, the Methodology, and the Evidence, November 1984 • American Psychologist p1214), makes this clear distinction in differentiating three models (Genetic/Environmental and Joint). --JereKrischel 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia/Northwestern one... did not make any claim -- If they didn't claim that their arugment supports a genetic contribution, then we wouldn't report that they did. I used that as an example on the basis of your claim that they did. I'm not sure what you mean by same light. --W.R.N. 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem - in your massive table, you would put every last bit of meta-analysis that was claimed to support the Genetic Hypothesis by any racialist/hereditarian. Placing two columns used by only one POV skews the debate. --JereKrischel 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the debate isn't about the contribution of genetics versus environment? What sources say this? --01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the debate isn't simply about "contribution of genetics versus environment". Again, you're building a false dichotomy, and ignoring the issue of the use of race as a genetic proxy for complex phenotypes. From MacKenzie - Whether race differences in IQ have mainly a genetic or mainly an environmental origin is certainly a legitimate scientific question; any question that can be answered through scientific means is a legitimate scientific question. It is, nevertheless, an extremely limited one. It is a good example of what Lewontin (1974) called an "analysis of variance" question, a question about the apportioning of variance (into genetic and environmental sources) on a particular trait in a particular population in a particular set of environments at a particular time. It is a limited question because the answer to it will provide no insights into the causal pathways involved, will be of unknown generality There is a whole host of debates on the issue of Race and Intelligence, and it does not simply involve "contribution of genetics versus environment". I'm sure you can acknowledge that, if you open your frame of reference beyond racialist researchers. This includes both the use of race as a genetic proxy, as well as the asserted hierarchies of races put forth and assumed by various parties. I think the narrow scope you want to keep to belongs in a more specific article, like Race and intelligence (Research). The main article should cover things like Race and intelligence (Scientific racism), Race and intelligence (History), Race and intelligence (Social oppression), and Race and intelligence (Eugenics), for example. --JereKrischel 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think breaking it up in this way would solve a lot of the problems we're having. futurebird 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this the "Columbia/Northwestern" paper you are citing? School Readiness and Later Achievement --W.R.N. 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics Jeanne Brooks-Gunn; Pamela K. Klebanov; Greg J. Duncan Child Development, Vol. 67, No. 2. (Apr., 1996), pp. 396-408. [1]--JereKrischel 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia/Northwestern (Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores) spent the last few pages of the study cautioning against drawing conclusions about genetics from their data. They framed race in terms of ethnicity (that is culture) rather than genetics. (Though the purpose of the study was not to resolve the issue of "what race is" but rather to use race whatever it might be as a means of analyzing the data.) futurebird 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this paper appears to not be a "problem" case after all. --W.R.N. 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem case, because it is not the opposite of the "partly-genetic hypothesis", although it may be considered a definitive refutation of the "mostly-genetic hypothesis". Your extensive table sets up a false dichotomy. --JereKrischel 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example of an improper conflation of positions - as per Rushton/Jensen 2005 [2], The culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic-50% environmental) models are discussed. The Rushton/Jensen POV, the hereditarian POV by their own terminology, is specifically 50% genetic, 50% environmental. This should not be conflated with POVs which assert a much lower genetic contribution (say 20%) and are "partly-genetic".

Actually, comparing the outline of the Rushton/Jensen 2005 paper, and the outline WRN has built, reveals startling similarities. I suggest that we avoid modeling our article around such a blantantly pro-hereditarian model of framing the debate. --JereKrischel 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Sternberg said it best in his THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A Reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005), Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 295–301 - Ruston and Jensen (2005) make what I believe to be ambiguous references—for example, speaking of biological inequality without defining this term. I also believe they inadvertently create “straw men.” These straw men take the form of false dichotomies, such as between the culture-only model and the hereditarian model (as though there is nothing in between), and imaginary oppositions, such as between people who believe in the influence of genetics and people who engage in “denial of any genetic component in human variation.” There are probably no such people, at least among serious scientists. What scientist, for example, believes that height or weight is entirely environmental?

I believe that WRN uses the very same invalid straw men as Rushton and Jensen in constructing his framework for the debate, and we should avoid similar mistakes in laying out this article. --JereKrischel 06:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, You've become disconnected from the literature.

(1) Yes, the "genetic hypothesis", called by its adherents the "partly-genetic hypothesis" holds that there is a substantial mix of both genetic and environmental causes. You then suggest that based on your reading of one paper, that everyone who claims to disagree with Jensen's hypothesis doesn't actually disagree with him? Quite clearly they do disagree. There is a substantial body of literature, summarized in the table we're been debating, which claims there is reason to believe that there is no substantial genetic contribution. I assume you don't deny that this POV exists? If not, then we should be able to move on. If you think the debate is between people who believe the genetic contribution is 50% versus 20%, then you should be able to produce a list of reference documenting that debate.

(2) Show me the paper that describes a hypothesis about "the causal pathways involved" in causing the BW gap, that goes beyond simply trying to attribute an environmental or genetic cause in some mix. I know of exactly one, written by Flynn, which proposes anything like a casual model. Is there any more literature than that to build a what causal pathways are involved? section? AFAIK there is not. Using a paper from 1984 which says that the debate should be about more than just genes and environment isn't the same as a paper that says that it really has been. (Flynn (1999) authored 1 of 4 papers that cite Mackenzie. Describing studies that look at European admixture in African Americans, Flynn write Mackenzie (1984) has described a research design that might yield valuable results if used. Citing Mackenzie as a review, Rowe (1997) also laments that studies which could have been done haven't been.) Conclusion: Such studies haven't been performed.

(3) Sternberg denies that there are people who engage in “denial of any genetic component in human variation.” Not that there isn't a disagreement about the contribution of genes and environment. I suggested that rather than having table columns of hypotheses what we really have are table columns of arguments for/against X where X=genetics or environment. This suggestion allows us to remain agnostic about what hypotheses people actually support and simply describe their arguments for a genetic or environmental contribution. You seem to have missed or ignored this suggestion, as you've been attacking a delineation of hypotheses which I'm not arguing for.

You should look at the table yourself and see that my suggestion fits it well. --W.R.N. 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Again, you're framing the debate in a POV pushing manner. You're setting up a false dichotomy, with "no substantial genetic contribution" being very different from "environment only", where you'd like to put it. To put it another way, there is significant literature that establishes criticisms of substantial genetic contribution without ever asserting specific environmental contributions. (Not to mention even agreeing on the definition of a "genetic contribution".)

(2) Well, Flynn is certainly prominent enough to count for a significant POV, don't you think? Are you arguing that because Flynn only wrote one paper, it isn't significant?

(3) The hypotheses are not "genetic" or "environment", they are hypotheses about the magnitude of genetic or environment contribution. So, you may be more appropriate to divide the table up into "10-90 g/e" "20-80 g/e" "50-50 g/e" "80-20 g/e" "90-10 g/e", because THIS is where the real debate is. Setting up a false dichotomy, and eliminating the very important variety of hypotheses that don't agree with each other is inappropriate.

Imagine the table up as "partly-environment" and "genetic only", with nearly everything in the "partly-environment" column. Would you find this appropriate? Would you feel that this sufficiently outlines the numerous POVs in the Race and intelligence debate? Or would you feel that it would inappropriately place various hereditarians in a "partly-environment" category that they don't really agree with?

Please, suggest another alternative besides a "genetic" / "environmental" column headings. Nearly every study could go in both columns, which improperly conflates very significantly different POVs that argue specific magnitudes of contributions. --JereKrischel 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that on inspection, the table is actually about interpretations of various pieces of evidence, not directly about the major hypotheses themselves. Thus, the appropriate headings are "evidence for genetics/against environment" and "evidence for environment/against genetics". I will attempt to explain this further while answering your comments.

The hypotheses are not "genetic" or "environment" -- Which is why I said that pieces of evidence were argued to be supportive of either a genetic or environmental contribution. Scholars make up their minds about the actual mix of genetic and environmental factors at play by weighing the totality of the various pieces of evidence, not on the basis of any single piece of evidence alone. That's why the columns shouldn't be about hypotheses but about supporting genetics versus environment (note that there is a necessary trade off between the two. evidence for a larger environmental cause is evidence for a smaller genetic cause and vice versa).

Imagine the table up as "partly-environment" and "genetic only", with nearly everything in the "partly-environment" column. -- This is a false comparison as it again mixes hypotheses with evidence, and fails to fit with the argument you make in the subsequent paragraph (and is ridiculous -- just look at the S&R survey -- 45% G+E, 15% E-only, 1% G only, 24% not sure). "Not sure" isn't a column because "not sure" isn't about evidence, it's the failure of the evidence to be compelling one way or another.

Nearly every study could go in both columns, which improperly conflates very significantly different POVs that argue specific magnitudes of contributions. -- This is false. Look at the studies which are currently in the table and point out those which belong in two columns according to the same scholar -- researchers aren't lucky enough to have many single pieces of evidence that indicate a genetic and environmental contribution at the same time. In some cases a single piece of evidence is argued by one scholar to support an environmental contribution while another scholar thinks it supports an environmental contribution (or vice versa). In other cases, some scholars think a piece of evidence supports a genetic contribution where others think it does not (or vice versa). These are precisely the cases where the table format is most useful. --W.R.N. 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're leading us again into the false dichotomy of genetics vs. environment. There are entire categories of evidence that you don't list here - perhaps 4 columns would be better: "evidence for genetics", "evidence against genetics", "evidence for environment", "evidence against environment". Evidence "for genetics" is not inherently "against environment" - unless you're talking about the magnitude of contribution. In that case, it would be "evidence for primarily genetic/against primarily environment" and "evidence for primarily environment/against primarily genetic".

Evidence for a large environmental cause is not evidence for a smaller genetic cause. We could easily find that the environmental cause makes up the gap and then some, leaving us with a significant genetic cause in favor of black genetic intelligence superiority. An environmental cause that explains 150% of the gap would still mean 50%, in magnitude, genetic cause - simply in the other direction. An environmental cause that explains 200% of the gap would mean 100%, in magnitude, genetic cause in the opposite direction.

It really isn't our place to recreate the citation of individual studies into columns as per a specific author, especially for large meta-analyses. I think your basic table format is still not appropriate. I understand your desire to lay out a table of arguments in a simplistic format, but I don't think you can do it without pushing POV, and leaving out significant nuance that is important to the subject. It would probably be better to simply organize by hypothesis, and note supporting and refuting arguments, than to try and categorize arguments in a false dichotomy. --JereKrischel 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

short, non argumentative reply for the sake of explaining my argument:

unless you're talking about the magnitude of contribution -- yes

In that case, it would be "evidence for primarily genetic/against primarily environment" and "evidence for primarily environment/against primarily genetic". -- no, any particular mix of the two is possible, with some scholars going all environment, some going mostly genetic, etc.

Evidence for a large environmental cause is not evidence for a smaller genetic cause. -- yes it is

genetic cause in the opposite direction -- that's a fringe view (like Melanin_Theory#Melanin_Theory)

I understand your desire to lay out a table of arguments in a simplistic format -- i think there are a number of advantages, and would note that a table doesn't substitute for the topical discussions that come before it; rather, it helps summarize them. --W.R.N. 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since any particular mix is possible, I think it is inappropriate to have simply two columns, conflating distinct POVs that should be separated.

I still hold to my assertion that a larger environmental cause does not necessarily mean a lesser genetic cause. The fundamental assumption that existing differences in IQ between groups represents both genetic and environmental gaps in the same direction is POV pushing. After all, before the hierarchy was changed to B-W-EA, and was B-EA-W, evidence has obviously shown either a dramatic genetic change in EA over less than a century, or the elimination of environmental causes that were masking a genetic gap in the opposite direction.

The fundamental hierarchy of B-W-EA is a fringe view by any measure that would assert that any questioning of the direction of genetic/environmental causality is a foregone conclusion.

A table that misrepresents the existing POVs does a poor job of summarizing them. Please suggest a compromise that would address my concern that you are conflating very distinct POVs that don't belong associated together. --JereKrischel 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schwael has question, ideas, problem

"Yes, no matter how we feel about the subject, we must present it neutrally, and let the readers decide for themselves. We can no more turn this into an indictment of racialist science than we can endorse, explicitly or implicitly, any specific side in the debate." I think what this group has run into here is what I see as the limitation of the NPOV as a rule. I mean, it seems to me there are two ways to portray this article: as a scientific field which has happened to have had controversy around it, or a controversy around a subject whose proponents insist it is science. I don't see how you can present both perspectives in a neutral way.

Also, I agree with Futurebird that things like the article outline and intro are good places to start. Maybe even start proposing content for more sections, perhaps starting with the ones that exist in multiple versions of the outline. It just seems too overwhelming to go through the article as is working on citation when it's going to be rewriten anyway. Why not keep working on citation issues while writing the new article?

Finally, I think for those of us trying to come in and help -as well as probably for you folx who have been on the talk page for a while- can we have a list of suggestions/issues that have either been ignored and left behind or are still being debated? (Including an explination of what OR is) Thanks! Schwael 21:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm used to seeing NOR.  ;) Schwael 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! We need to start with the intro or the outline. People just keep talking in circles and it's not going anyplace. I think the new intro is a good starting point. The intro is one of the most important parts, and if we can't agree on that, then what have we got? JJJamal 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind people the "new intro" is here: Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 how well will this work in place of what we have? futurebird 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] general and specific

SLR outlined general principles at the top of this section. I pointed out two specific edits, which I broke into many bits for discussion. Discussion of each needs to continue.

First, are we all agreed that SLR has properly set out a restatement of WP policies as they related to editing this article? My answer is yes.

Second, on the basis of these policies, have we come to a general consensus on edit 1a as I outlined it? I think we have. If so, can we move on to another edit? --W.R.N. 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so-- For one thing this entire discussion is way too specific. The problems with this article aren't just a matter of tweaking wording or change citations-- the problems are in the very structure and scope of the article. futurebird 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, I agree that it is very much a part of nthe problem, but I will side with WRN on this that this is probably not where we want to start. If we move say, most of the current data into an article named Race and intelligence (research) and do nothing about some rephrasing, that article will be accused of POV just as much as the current one. I feel we need to concentrate on fixing the POV in the current article, then we'll be clearer on expansion and feel more secure that we won't still be told that an article in the series exhibits a racist POV (or whatever other NPOV, NOR or V objection). We have material here which needs correcting, and this correction should not require a large effort (at least I don't think so). Once the material is corrected, we'll have no problem adding other material to appropriately expand the scope of the article, as I think we should. But if we expand it now, and just port the current material, it will still look like it was written by a bunch of schizophrenics who can't make up their minds (yours truly included!). If we try to rewrite it from scratch, we're losing an unthinkable number of hours of work and research done assembling this literature, even though it doesn't completely cover the subject by some measure, and I just don't want to go through all that research again. In short, by trying to rewrite the article before we correct the material we already have for NPOV, we're trying to jump before really learning to walk. Just my twopence'.--Ramdrake 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake and want to add, for FB, this important point: If you think the problems are in the scope and structure of the article, you are coming so close to saying we should delete this article and write a new one that it is hard to tell whether you have actually crossed that line. If you think that there should not be an article called "race and intelligence" that is about debates concerning the relationship between race and differences in intelligence, then you should go to the appropriate Wikipedia page and nominate that this article be deleted. period. We do not radically change articles from within - if they are rotton to the core we delete and start all over again. Now, I think we should not delete for one reason: like it or not, there does exist a body of scientific literature on race and intelligence. therefore there ought the be an encyclopedia article reviewing that body of literature. As far as I am concerned the only questions are how to do so while complying with both our NPOF and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that SLR has stressed what I think is important, I will reiterate that I agree with FB that the scope of this article needs to be expanded, if it is to truly address "Race and Intelligence". However, this must be done while respecting (with the corrections I've been mentioning on attribution and giving proper background whenever necessary) the corpus of information already assembled, and making the best possible use of it, and I believe this set of corrections should be done first.--Ramdrake 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that significant portions of this article need to be rewritten, other parts should be moved to a sub article that focuses on the research. Much of it can stay as it is though. I think we should look at each section and carefully decided what to revise, what to rewrite and what to add. I don't think just deleting this article would be a good idea at all, but a major revision is necessary-- one that includes rethinking the structure scope. The structure and scope of an article can carry an implicit POV. The pov this article presents is one that says that the topic of race and intelligence is just another area of scientific research-- it's not. It's so deeply mired in controversy and history that we need to mention it from the outset-- We need to say WHY it is controversial, not just say that "it's controversial" and move on to detailed point by point arguments over specific studies and books. I'd like some feedback on the revised intro I've proposed, if you don't think it would work, I'd like to know why.

I think we can continue these other discussion about the citations etc. and I will keep participating in them, but we ought to understand that these relate to the content of just one section of the article while looking and the structure and scope is the way we may address the problems of POV and recentism and get those tags off of this article so it has a change of being a meaningful part of the wikipedia.

In short, I'm saying let's do both at the same time, as a compromise. A new intro could help change the tone of the entire article. The other issues are also important. I don't see a conflit here.futurebird 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but my analysis tells me the NPOV issues are possibly conveyed as much by subtleties of the language as they are by the definition of the scope. The reason I'm suggesting one before the other is that once the language is corrected for NPOV, it should make it easier to see how to properly restructure the information we have to expand the focus as I think we should. We may find that scope can be corrected just by changing priorities in some sections to better reflect the views on R&I from outside the "intelligence research" niche. I cannot stress enough that I believe we shoudn't discriminate between writers (and/or researchers) who have said or written something of import on the subject based on whethere they were psochometricians, anthropologists, philosophers or historians. FB, I think you may find that most of the material you need to epand the scope of the article is already in the article, and that most of all we need is to juggle some priorities to get something pretty close to where you want to drive this article.--Ramdrake 19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, indeed most of the references for the revised outline are also referenced in the article, albeit not as prominently. I'm not certain that addressing specific working will do anything to improve the overall tone-- well unless we go through every single sentence, and even then it will take a lot of restructring. I'll follow along with this debate, but honestly I'm growing more than a little impatient with this whole process which seems to quickly devolve into debates about which side is right-- rather than talking about how to best give an NPOV overview of the subject matter. futurebird 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment about narrow tailoring applies here. You can't "restructure" an article a priori. The sources available should dictate the content of the article, proportional to their representation in the literature or among scholars, with topics group together in a way that mirrors how the are discussed in the literature. In turn, the content of the article is summarized in the lead of the article proportionally to its representation in the article (as a summary, not a historical background). You can't build an article from the top down (what I think FB is suggesting) but only from the bottom up (what I think Ramdrake is suggesting). --W.R.N. 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we build the article from the top down. I'm suggesting we look at the intro so we can determine how much of the article should remain and how much should be in a sub-article. This is organization, not building-- I'm also, if you haven't looked yet, adding new content by gradually expanding the scope. Mostly, I'm sick of this little debate and I want to start working on something tangible. The intro seemed like a good place to start. Maybe we should also make a "working sub-page" for the sections on environmental and genetic causes? What do you think? futurebird 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The "intro" is actually the WP:Lead, and thus it is an abstract, not an introduction. (See the linked page for details which make this clear.) We have a background section that should serve the role you are suggesting for an introduction. Our current background section is sufficient, but not excellent. The lead is defined by the content of the article, not the other way around. The content of the article has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not a priori. --W.R.N. 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the proposed intro has some very nice things about it. The problem I see is that if we work on the intro "before" going through the article and NPOVising as much as we can, when we come back to the intro, we are likely to find it needs some substantial rewrite, according to WP policies, specifically WP:LEAD, as WRN pointed out. Again, I strongly suggest we work on the article first, and then work on finalizing a new lead after we're done. The intro does need a rewrite in my opinion, but logic suggests we should keep it for when we have restructured the article the way we agree it should be. Otherwise, we will in all likelihood work on the intro twice. I'll go with the majority decision; I just wanted to point out consequences here.--Ramdrake 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that what WRN is arguing for is to leave the major structure of the article in place, defining the question primarily in terms of the research done in the field as to the "genetic" nature of gaps. I think that without a discussion about the overall structure, any "case-by-case" arguments with WRN will simply be fighting uphill against an inappropriate foundation that is biased in WRN's favor (after all, he spent 4 years building it).

The reason why I would like WRN's input on the intro is because if we can find a compromise there, we can most likely effectively follow that compromise throughout the article. As a corollary, if WRN is unable to find compromise with the intro, or lead, I don't think any amount of case-by-case argument will improve the article beyond its current POV pushing stance.

If the intro is an inappropriate place to start, perhaps we could work further on the newly proposed outlines. Either way we need to come to some consensus about how we're going to lay this out, and although I believe WRN has an important role to play in discovering that compromise, I do not believe it is constructive to simply defend the current incarnation of the article as perfectly fine and dandy. --JereKrischel 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to starting with a new outline. My only concern with writing the new lead now is that we will in all likelihood have to rewrite it later, to some extent at least. I still think we also need to go through the info in the current article and NPOVise it as much as possible.--Ramdrake 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Well, put, you really cut to the chase here, JK! There seem to be a growing number of voices here behind this idea. futurebird 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't write an article this big WP:Lead first. There's probably >400k of text amongst the many articles. The intro and outline written by FB suggests too much unfamiliarity with what's already in the article to be useful. --W.R.N. 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything inherently impossible about writing our lead first, and then organizing the existing contents of the article in a similar fashion. Could you give a specific problem with FB's intro and outline, so that we could try and improve it together? Maybe if you could illustrate to us specifically how FB's work isn't useful, we can better understand how to make it useful. --JereKrischel 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WDK:The intro and outline written by FB suggests too much unfamiliarity with what's already in the article to be useful.

FB: How so? I think think it seems that way because the content of the article ought to be expanded to include the entire story of this topic. The new intro is far more inclusive with reference to the topic. That is not to say that anything ought to be removed, it just may be moved to a sub-article, substantial portions of the current article could remain intact. The current article is too narrowly focused on certain types of research which it casts in a certain light leading to many of our NPOV problems. It's NPOV via omission. We need to show the entire picture. futurebird 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the into and outline you suggest, I am skeptical of the extent to which relevant things have been omitted/are unbalanced in the current article. I suspect that the only way to "prove" this to me is to succeed in expanding the scope of the article itself. For example, I see no justification for dividing the article into two halves, one dedicated to history and one to current research. This is disproportionate to the attention give to them by experts and concerned parties. Moreover, articles already exist for which most of the proposed content would be more appropriate, such as race, intelligence, etc. --W.R.N. 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, Please take it on faith that there are many editors here who see the article as unbalanced. Given that, please try to understand why many editors here see the article as unbalanced. You may not agree with their reasoning, but please accept that they do have legitimate reasons. And please, accept that you have no basis for saying that a historical discussion of race and intelligence is not a significant matter of attention by experts and concerned parties. You have limited your definition of "experts and concerned parties" to a very small slice of psychologists. This article is the perfect place to have an in depth discussion of the historical issues regarding race and intelligence. If your only problem with FB's intro and outline is that it puts more emphasis on history than you would prefer, I don't think we really have much of a problem. --JereKrischel 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WD, this is the main article it should summarize all aspects of the topic both in in its introduction and in the body of the article itself. We can't just decide to make it all about research, all about societal perceptions, or all about history just because one of us happens to think that is the most important aspect of this topic.futurebird 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it should summarize all aspects of the topic both in in its introduction and in the body of the article itself -- absolutely. but here's what NPOV says: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. here's what I am arguing for: we can't rewrite the intro for an article if the body doesn't back up that intro. change the body in accord with policy and we can change the intro accordingly. to increase the importance of history in the article will require sources that establish the importance of history to the topic. --W.R.N. 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly, WRN, are you asserting that you doubt the importance of the history of Race and Intelligence? I'm more than happy to find a host of sources discussing the importance of historical racialism, scientific racism, and how R&I research has been used and abused in the past to justify racism. I'm sure by the end of the day I could find you at least 100 citations...is that really an issue you have with FB's outline and intro? Or can I now assert that you would find it acceptable to reduce the current article emphasis on recent research and the evidence for the hereditarian/genetic hypothesis, and add more historical background? --JereKrischel 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I doubt the importance of the history of "race and intelligence" to the topic of "race and intelligence". I don't doubt that more historical background can be added, but I doubt that it will substantially change the weight of the sections in the article. Note that the entire history of historical racialism and scientific racism are not identical to the history of "race and intelligence". (Else they wouldn't be separate articles. See also Race (historical definitions).) Perhaps this is causing our differing expectations. --W.R.N. 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that Race and intelligence should be a sub article of historical racialism and scientific racism. I would also strongly assert that the history of "race and intelligence" is incredibly important to the topic of "race and intelligence". I'm not sure if you can possibly make the case otherwise.

What would convince you of the importance of the history of "race and intelligence"? Is there any evidence that would change your mind? Or should we focus on coming up with a naming convention that would create the R&I article you think should exist, and the R&I article others think should exist? Does Race and intelligence mean Race and intelligence (Research) to you? --JereKrischel 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pg num on footnote 84

thanks. it's pointless as it is now.--Hollerbackgril 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

This article has been protected for nine days and there have been practically no specific proposals for moving ahead. This talk page is 139 kb long - 100 kb too long - and I have recently archived over 200 kb of talk! This is more than enough discussion to resolve any one issue. It can only mean that people are repeating themselves, keep raising tangents, or are adding talk that is not constructive. I have thus put in a request for comments here. 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Following the appropriate format :

Statements by editors involved in the dispute no more than three sentences, please.

• "practically no specific proposals" In fact there are quite a few proposals on the table, we can't seem to agree to change anything. I feel that one user is standing in the way of us moving forward, arguing at length about every proposed change. futurebird 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article as it stands now is unbalanced: it espouses closely the POV of psychologists specialized in intelligence, but seems to be far less detailed on the wide opposition coming from anthropological and biological sciences (to name just two fields). Negociation-wise, the editors seem to keep talking past each other; while there seems to be a majority opinion, it is in a deadlock with the opposite opinion and real consensus seems unattainable. Both this article and several of the propositions in the talk page have issues of NOR and NPOV, with no obvious point of proper balance that has reached significant agreement.--Ramdrake 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• IMO, Ramdrake's concern is not the reason why the page is locked, and by itself is a perfectly valid concern that could be settled by normal editing. The reason the page as locked I as understand the issue is best explained in this thread. Despite suggestions of "majority opinion", NOR and NPOV can only be maintained on this topic by avoiding grand schemes of analysis and presentation, and instead sticking to a narrowly-tailored presentation of the competing POVs found in the literature, one topic at a time. --WD RIK NEW 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• WRN insists on framing the debate along pro-racialist lines, and resists every attempt to provide more context to the citations he makes, or to the article as a whole. His attachment to the article as is (which he has spent nearly 4 years editing as User:Rikurzhen) is very strong, and he has been unable to entertain or provide any compromise suggestions. The page was locked due to a low-level edit war between WRN and myself, and I believe the primary contention is how to frame the debate, with WRN insisting that the topic should be narrowly limited to "are the observed differences between races in intelligence of genetic or environmental origin", and other editors demanding a more holistic treatment of the subject. --JereKrischel 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• To start out with, consider JK's last sentence just above. The obvious solution is to discuss Race and Intelligence as a general subject in one article, and Racial differences in intelligence in another. it would not be a POV fork, if only because there would be quite a lot of disputed points to be discussed on each of the two pages, but it would at least have a more identifiable focus. DGG 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe the talk page should be locked for a month or so too while heads cool down --Kevin Murray 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any precedent for this. Is it allowed? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think time will make any difference here, Kevin. This isn't not a matter of "heads cooling down" --everyone has been remarkably civil. If we wait too long people may leave, and the article will remain in its present state. Then new people will find it raise the issue again... and this cycle will never end. We need to make a clean break from that pattern. Do you have any other suggestions? futurebird 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly there is civility, but I don't think that minds are being changed, and are not likely to be without surgery. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, as an opposite approach to the action-call for by Slrubenstein. I think that this article will be a constant source of frustration as it is inherently emotionally charged. This knowledge can be a weapon for bigots but also a tool for those who want to build a more tolerant society. It may explain why many simplistic social programs fail. At this point I'm fairly satisfied that the article presents both sides, since no one seems satisfied but no one is seeking drastic measures. I had mentioned that we might build a replacement article somewhere, which would demonstrate the ideas mentioned here -- in essence a prototype. Perhaps in someone's personal space etc. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Breaking the article in to smaller parts will just leave a bunch of little orphans which will be highly susceptible to constant AfD attacks. The individual AfD debates will most likely draw a lot of politically-correct support for deletion and defenders will be painted as racist no matter what the motivation for preserving the article. Along with the practicality of Slrubenstein's suggestion, we must face the realities of politics within the WP infrastructure. Please keep the article together. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• One constant problem on Wikipedia is that someone starts a very specific article, e.g., "The Aggressive Behavior of Klingons," in the absence of articles on "Aggressive Behavior" and on "Klingons." To make up for the background information that the missing canopy articles should provide, more and more is packed into the single article. There is a canopy article on Race, and I believe there is a canopy article on Intelligence, but there is no canopy article on Factors that influence IQ test results. Before looking at the correlations between assignments to [racial] categories and measurements resulting from the administration of [intelligence tests], I for one would like a general article that looks at factors that may influence intelligence in otherwise closely matched groups, e.g., epigenetic factors, nurture in infancy (social as well as material), childhood socialization and education, nutrition (during formative periods and during the testing period), etc., etc. P0M 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Intelligence quotient and tell me how much of your idea of Factors that influence IQ test results it meets. I suspect it already has most of the content you expect.--Ramdrake 17:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick run through suggests that it is close indeed, although I see no mention of epigenetic differences.

Next question: Are people arguing here about questions that are more pertinent to that article or to the more specific articles that it has reference to?

For me to be sure that all bases are properly covered I guess I need to go through the whole process of the formation of a mature human intelligence. On the surface it would seem to be a kind of hardware/software problem, and if the early environmental effects wash out as the human organism matures that would suggest a high degree of self-patching software. On the other hand, we are also becoming more and more aware of how resistant to change some early learning is, e.g., the effects of child abuse are more resistant to therapy than are the effects of a year lost from school due to illness or being lost on a desert island. Unlearning is typically a big problem. Do we have an article on Unlearning? I have a dog who came on my property on the 4th of July half dead. He must have been severely abused. After 7 months he is only just beginning to learn that I won't harm him. Another rescue dog I got had been abused and had lived on the street for a year. She took a month or so to view me as a pack member rather than a predator. A totally freaked out puppy would have been o.k. within a week or so. The difference is a question of how much learning has to be balanced out -- and even after it's balanced out the victim doesn't forget how s/he learned to cope with the really bad stuff. So that learning doesn't disappear. With humans it is extremely difficult to tease all these factors out because the more intelligent we are the better we protect ourselves from external manipulations--even if we consciously believe that the manipulations would be for our own good.P0M 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that nags at me is that if the [race] thing is valid then the average US "black" ought to be more intelligent than the average "black" from Mali. Are there studies of Mali "blacks" raised in the lap of luxury and fed on baby Einstein intellectual fodder vs. American "blacks" raised in similarly rich educational backgrounds?

• This article isn't what I expected at all. It seems that a lot of the content is related to racist ideas, or trying to set things up so that people who see it will think that this is real science. I mean I can see that you are just trying to be fair and show all of the sides of the debate, but this article is one sided. I wanted to edit it, but it is locked. Why is it locked? I though that wikipedia was open? This all seems unfair to me. Jamal 69.3.244.201 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jamal, can you be more specific? The reason why the article is protected (locked) is specifically so people can't just drop-in and make radical deletions etc. without forming a consensus with other editors first. This discussion page is the forum through which you should express your concerns and try to build a consensus for change. If you bring some new or better information the administrator will probably work with you to make the article better. Good luck and welcome to the discussion. --Kevin Murray 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the underlying problem here is that some people, in their zeal to comply with two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:V, are not sensitive enough to issues of the third core policy, WP:NPOV - and that others, who are zealous about NPOV, are not sensitive enough to our NOR policy. I am convinced that NPOV and NOR/V are not in conflict in this article; I am convinced that it is possible to write an article that is fully compliant with all policies. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JereKrischel, this means exploring the controversies only insofar as they exist in the published literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses, but also trade presses if by acknowledged scholars in relevant fields. RIK, this means including academic literatures that do address race & intelligence debates that you seem resistant to acknowledge, especially in sociology and anthropology. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JereKrischel, this means being very careful to avoid forwarding our own synthetic claims even if based on published sources. I believe Jere made just this mistake towards the end of this section. But RIK, I believe Jere was citing an entirely acceptable source in this section. I think if RIK can be more attentive to NPOV and Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JK more attentive to NOR, we will make much more progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)