Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Race & genetics 2 This is about biology 2.1 Notes 3 Archiving 4 Race and skull capacity? 5 The IQ graph with hispanics and asians along with black and white 6 Racism on Wikipedia and in these articles 7 Specific questions about two reverts 8 controversial scholars 9 Locked 10 IQ mostly measures visual-spatial intelligence in Asians and short-term memory in Ashkenazi Jews 11 "Savant Syndrome" 12 No original research 13 Doesn't differentiate between statistics and viewpoints 14 Removing the collective statement of Gottfredson et al. 15 Unsourced claims 16 Badly sourced claims 17 Continuation of sourcing to racially motivated bad actors 18 Proposal to delete unfocused rant 19 Toward the future 20 Race and g 21 BAD Citation Practice 22 Can we move ahead 22.1 Evidence already present 23 Clarity and definitions 24 Top to middle 25 Confusing references 26 Definitions of Race and Intelligence, and Intent of Majority of Subject Scholars 27 What weight Rushton and his Pioneer Fund? 28 Microcephalin 29 Report on sections 1-10 (sandbox) 30 The fundamental issue with this article 31 cleaning up the article 32 Meaning? 33 Discussion about the existence of race is irrelevant 34 Dysgenic trends in the Black population 35 We don't know whether or not the Pope has children 36 Cleaning up the article, II 37 Does the IQ gap validate racial discrimination? 38 Are New Guineans really genetically superior? 39 Expanding on historical Islamic views of the subject 40 The article is not neutral 41 Where? 42 Konner exaggerating Shockley's and Jensen's influence 43 History section 44 Skin colour does not reliably reflect ancestry 45 opinions 46 Savant Syndrome 47 The Race of the Moors -- refuting Nisbett 47.1 pre anthropological age quotes 48 Reducing POV 49 Ivy League and Black students 50 THOMAS SOWELL 51 Background or history 52 Sectional Candidates for Immediate Deletion 53 Footnotes 5 and 6 54 Reintroducing prerequsites of race and intelligence research 55 Media portrayal 56 Black - White and US centric 57 Project proposal 58 What is point of saying same thing four times? 59 Suggestion for basis for content 60 Style point- Books, articles and quotations, their similarities and differences 61 Russell Jacoby 62 This original research will be removed 63 The article should have a neutral point of view about race 64 Multiple intelligences 65 last 2 edits 66 Excessive detail in the intro 67 Francisco Gil-White 67.1 Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics 68 The phrase "race and intelligence" is an incomplete and misleading method of presentation and should not be the title of this article 69 The origin of the differences

[edit] Race & genetics

NitroMed's BiDil. http://investors.nitromed.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130535&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=723543&highlight=

More on DiBil on wiki is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiDil

Archiving this section, leaving the two links above. Material is relevant to other articles, not particularly relevant to this one. P0M 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is about biology

One problem I see with race research is the following. Basically, a biological phenomenon (distribution of genes, which may or may not differ between groups) is under study. However, as far as I can see, no study of race employs a biological definition of race in its selection of subjects. This not to say that there are no biological definitions of race or that such definitions are not given in the articles in which race research is published. The fact is that subjects are assigned to "race" categories based on criteria other than biology, basically how a subject defines herself/himself. In the US, this usually means that anyone who has some ancestry tracing back to sub-Saharan Africa is being defined as an African-American, even though biologically speaking his African ancestry may be far less than 50%. The opposite is not true. I do not see how research into a biological phenomenon using non-biological definitions can lead to valid results. Crusio 11:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

African-Americans (selected by self-identification) have been found to average approximately 80% sub-Saharan African ancestry in genetic studies. Studies are always done on groups of subjects, not individual subjects, so as long as the sample is large enough, this is not a significant concern.24.113.82.222 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you think we could improve the article to better reflect this distinction?

In the United States, racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin, cultural background and self-identification. In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device,^[1] and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,^[2] on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them,^[3] and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.^[4] Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,^[5] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,^[6] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.^[7] A survey taken in 1985, 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%.^[8] A survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999^[9] found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Many alleles vary in frequency across (and within) human populations. Most of this variation is selectively neutral, but a significant number show evidence of recent positive selection.^[10] These include genes involved in brain development and other neuronal functions, which have variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure and now occur in substantially different frequencies in different global populations.^[11] The actual functions of these genes, and their effect, if any, on IQ is unknown.

Many of the sources in this section are about "race" but not about intelligence:

• Bamshad, M., Wooding, S., Salisbury, B. A. and Stephens, J. C. (2004). "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nat. Rev. Genet. 5: 598-609. doi:10.1038/nrg1401. 
• Schwartz, R. S. (2001). "Racial profiling in medical research". New England Journal of Medicine 344: 1392-1393. doi:10.1056/NEJM200105033441810. 

• Stevens, J. (December 1 2003). "Racial Meanings and Scientific Methods: Changing Policies for NIH-Sponsored Publications Reporting Human Variation". Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 28 (6): 1033-1088. doi:10.1215/03616878-28-6-1033. 
• Wilson, J. F. (October 2001). "Population genetic structure of variable drug response". Nature Genetics 29: 265-269. doi:10.1038/ng761. PMID 11685208. 
• Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. and Tang, H. (2002). "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease". Genome Biology 3 (7): comment2007.2001 - comment2007.2012. 

Other sources are about genetics and intelligence, but not about race:

• Mekel-Bobrov, N., Gilbert, S. L., Evans, P. D., Vallender, E. J., Anderson, J. R., Hudson, R. R., Tishkoff, S. A. and Lahn, B. T. (Sep 9 2005). "Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens". Science 309 (5741): 1720-1722. PMID 16151010. 
• Evans, P. D., Gilbert, S. L., Mekel-Bobrov, N., Vallender, E. J., Anderson, J. R., Vaez-Azizi, L. M., Tishkoff, S. A., Hudson, R. R. and Lahn, B. T. (Sep 9 2005). "Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size, continues to evolve adaptively in humans". Science 309 (5741): 1717-1720. PMID 16151009. 

Some sources do mention both intelligence and race:

• The Biological Meaning of “Race”—Matt Riese
• Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. and Kidd, K. K. (2005). "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". American Psychologist 60: 46-59. PMID 15641921. 
• Suzuki, L. and Aronson, J. (Jun 2005). "The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11 (2): 320-327. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320. 
• Smedley, A. and Smedley, B. D. (Jan 2005). "Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race". American Psychologist 60 (1): 16-26. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.1.16. 

In this section I think we need to be careful about using papers that say that race is valid for biomedical research as supporters of race categories as valid for intelligence research. We have talk about this point in the past, but I can't recall what we resolved to do about it... if anything. futurebird 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did we not make a silent surrender on that score? It seems to me that we are not "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up disputing the validity of [race] but we are "permitted" to put two and two together if four ends up supporting the validity of [race] and/or its connection to intelligence. P0M 06:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Futurebird. Actually, on closer reading (which I should have done to start with.... sorry...), the section following your quote above exactly makes the point I was making. Crusio 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point that Futurebird raised is still valid. If there is no clear definition of the word "race" associated with an assertion that "race matters" or that "race doesn't matter" with regard to intelligence, then there is no clear statement and we are deceiving people by implying that it is clear and they ought to be able to figure it out somehow. P0M 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] Archiving

talk pages shouldn't be much longer than 35kb - I just did some archiving but this page is too long. I will archive again soon, so make sure that anything on the page that is still unresolved gets resolved soon, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and skull capacity?

I am a biologist, physical or social/cultural anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, or anything similar, so don't go off and start bashing me or anything.

However, recently I've read parts of Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele. I only have read parts of it because the book, as a whole, was a bore, but that's a different story. Anyways, the authors state in the book that race and skull capacity is linked, and that this assumption has been proven by recent MRI studies of "thousands of skulls." The only problem being is that they didn't cite their source.

So I was wondering if anyone could possibly provide a primary source for this information... It would be helpful and could add to this article. On the other hand, I'm not even sure if such a study with "thousands of skulls" has been conducted or not and if the authors were just saying something on a whim.

Lastly, if you decide to contribute to this comment, I'd be flabbergasted, but please don't post some old 19th century study that 'proves' racial skull differences or the study by Stephen Jay Gould proving otherwise. I'm just wondering if such a study using MRIs in the recent past has been conducted and if skull capacity and race has been linked in it. Encrypted Soldier 15:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look this is in Google Scholar, but first and foremost there are two points which may make your info not as notable as you think

the racial differences in skull size are small, their significance is disputed and even the "variation by race" is disputed (look up Lieberman "How Caucasoids Got Such Large Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton"), and second the relationship of brain size to intelligence is also disputed (within the confines of human brain size variation). So, in any case you may want to consider twice the significance of what you read for this article.--Ramdrake 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The only MRI scan study that I am aware of that has black and white samples for comparison is Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker and Murray (1994). Abstract here [4]. Discussed here “For example, using MRI technology, Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker, and Murray (1994) found that

41 Blacks in Britain averaged a smaller brain volume than did 67 British Whites”. It seems doubtful that the studies of thousands of skulls that they refer to are MRI Scan studies, more likely measurements of the cranial capacity of empty skulls. I might be wrong though. Hope that helps. Romper 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The brain size of American Blacks reported in Tobias’s summary were larger than any White group, (which include American, English and French Whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the 77 national groups measured), and American Blacks were estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American Whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et. 1990).

According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer climates, irrespective of race. Several other studies found that North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight, that they had cranial capacities that compared favorably to the average for various samples of Caucasians, and that they had excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French. In general, skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition are smaller regardless of race. Cernovsky argues that it is only by pooling their data with data for Negroids from countries in hot climatic zones (notorious for famine and infant malnutrition) that Rushton obtained an illusory support for his postulates. SourceTaharqa 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The IQ graph with hispanics and asians along with black and white

Why it was removed in favor of the only black and white graph? A few time ago I saw that it was under discussion, but I hadn't have enough time to read and understand the points right. I recall reading the following two points: Hispanics are not quite a "race" and that the graph is not a exact copy of a graph found in any publication, so that would be original research.

I'd answer that, despite of Hispanics not being scientifically considerable a race of their own, they may be under the social concept of race, and even if not, comparisons of IQ scores between "just ethnic" groups would still be valuable to the issue of racial differences on intelligence. The exclusion seems to me, at first, an attempt of sweeping under the carpet the comparatively close IQ scores between Hispanics (nearly whites, genetically) and black people, at the same time that it puts the white scores at the top, as superior Asian IQ scores are not shown at the same time. (Additionally to the "Hispanics are not a biological race" argument, one could yet argue that neither "blacks" nor "African americans" are a statistically representative sample of all black-skinned or African-black populations, and ponder whether the data presented on the article refer more to the smaller sample, being thus more akin to "Hispanic" than to a true biological race)

As for being original research, as long as the data shown in the composite graph is not incorrect, i.e., the standards of IQ measures are considerably the same, there are not distortion of any kinds, it does not seems to be original research anymore that the text written for article is. It's just a graphical representation of data collected from referred sources, rather than textual. Extremophile 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism on Wikipedia and in these articles

I concur with the person who wrote this:

One needs to be blind not to see the propaganda in all these articles. Wiki is a disgrace that is becoming a nest of white racialist propaganda.

This article is a disgrace. It lacks sources. It makes wildly racist statements and should be deleted.

Why is racism so prevalent among Wikipedia editors? Why haven't the people who are editing this article removed all of the unsourced statements and made an attempt to balance the racist statements with known scholarship on this subject. Skywriter 00:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to explain, one of the viewpoints on this subject is found among the racialists, and for a lot of people, can definitely smack of racism. However, this is not a reason to delete it; the constructive way to deal about it would be to bring in expert opinion contesting it, i.e. reviews that dispute the point based on other data sets and results. There is an abundance of these. If you find some of the passages to be too wildly racist, I would suggest you bring them to the talk page for discussion. This might renew interest in editing this article and helping it move forward. However, wholesale deletion of points you disagree with does not help.--Ramdrake 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that proper references and sources must be cited, especially in controversial articles like this one. But if it is true, it's no longer racism. It's not racist to distinguish between races if there is a reasonable objective grounds for it. But indeed, this article needs way more research and proof. And before I get the full load, I do believe that generally there is an intelligence difference between races, but this is due to environmental and socio-economic factors. Jack the Stripper 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? There is an objective difference between male humans and female humans, the genitalia. We have some practical reasons for "distinguishing" between them, but there is a narrow gap between distinguishing and discriminating. Many people do both. In my own family and community there were social constructs called "women drivers," for instance. To my knowledge nobody ever intentionally called a man a "woman driver." Also, objective information can be used for good and for evil. Slavers probably want to be sure what they are selling to brothels, for instance. So there is no necessary connection between the objectivity of one's information and the biased constructions that can be put upon the people to whom that information pertains. P0M 05:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ramdrake wrote: If you find some of the passages to be too racist, I would suggest you bring them to the talk page for discussion.

Can I just throw up all over this article, take a picture of it and upload it to this article? So a little bit of racism or a lot of racism is OK with you, but you set the limit at "too racist," eh? Listen to you. Skywriter 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misquoted you, I meant to quote "wildly racist". I've corrected myself now. And throwing up all over the article, I'm afraid won't help anyone of us understand your issues with the article any better.

Also, you were asking for a proof that it was accepted that Blacks score lower on IQ tests than Whites, on average (cause unknown). I gave you that reference in the form of the APA statement. I apologize for taking the first link to the full article I could find; at worst, it was in bad taste. But it remains nevertheless that the APA statement reports the same findings. However, if you're aware of this article, I'm wondering why you asked for proof? Also, there are a lot of disputable things about this article; I'll concede as much. However, it's not a reason to remove cited fact into the article to make it into even more of a piece of polemic than it already is. Just my tuppence'.--Ramdrake 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific questions about two reverts

this was the original:

In the 19th and early 20th centuries scientific racism theories became quite popular, justifying poor outcomes and treatment for "the inferior race."^[1] Some early opinions about the differences among races grew out of stereotypes about non-whites developed during the period of colonialism and

This was the improved version reverted twice:

In the 19th and early 20th centuries theories of scientific racism became popular with the effect of providing justification for poor treatment of black people who those theorists called "the inferior race."^[2] Some early opinions about alleged differences among races grew out of stereotypes of Asian and African people developed during the period of colonialism

My question: what is the basis for using the racialist term non-whites? Is this an accommodation to the racialists who are editing this article?

Most of the world is black, brown and yellow, not white. Why have the terms African and Asian been replaced by non-whites twice by user RamDrake? Is this an example of enforced racial bias on Wikipedia? How long will this continue?

To answer your question, "Whites" are mostly of European ancestry. "Non-Whites" are from anywhere and everywhere else, and does not apply only to Asians and Africans (it applies as well to Australoids, American Indians, Capoids, etc. Some other issues with your phrasing is the use of "alleged", which is a word to avoid. The sentence as it was already implies (through the use of the word "opinion" the subjectivity of such "differences". And also, the racist theories of the 19th and early 20th centuries were "accepted" as justifying the long-standing ideas of racial inequality. Your version suggest racial inequality wasn't an accepted fact until the 19th century, when in fact it probably goes back as long as history itself, and mentalities are just recently (give or take less than a century) "evolving" out of that notion. For these three reasons, I reverted the edit.--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph is non-responsive to the central issue: what is the basis for use of the term non-white? Where are the citations showing who uses this term and in what context. Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the following claim lack a citation?:

Image:IQ 1sd gap overlap.png|thumb|265px|While the distributions of IQ scores among different racial-ethnic groups in the US overlap and often have a comparable range, groups differ in where their members cluster along the IQ scale.]]

I'll look for a proper reference.--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Skywriter

Why is this densely written, deeply racist mumbo jumbo in this article at all and why is there not one single citation?

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain why average IQ varies among racial-ethnic groups; most of them focus on environment ("nurture") and genetics ("nature"). Certain environmental factors, such as nutrition, are thought to moderate IQ in children, and other influences have been hypothesized, including education level, richness of the early home environment, the existence of caste-like minorities, socio-economic factors, culture, the effort gap, pidgin language barriers, quality of education, health, racism, lack of positive role-models, exposure to violence, the Flynn effect, sociobiological differences and stereotype threat. One focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect a genetic component. Hereditarianism hypothesizes that a genetic contribution to intelligence could include genes linked to neuron structure or function, brain size or metabolism, or other physiological differences that could vary with biogeographic ancestry. There is also significant debate about exactly how environmental factors play their role in creating the gap and the interrelationships between these factors. Some researchers focus their attention on intervention techniques to close the gap.

Is the idea to strangle readers with bs and hope they believe it? Or is just a wink and a nod to other racialists, as is the ramdrake reference.

The fact is, raw IQ test score show that for instance Blacks perform more poorly on IQ tests than Whites. While this is pretty much accepted, the reasons for this are still being debated among scholars, and in fact there are a lot of different explanations, and the real reason may be a composite of several of the factors named here. All this is verifiable. It is not meant to be a racialist comment, but it is meant to circumscribe the scope of the debate. For a confirmation that there is indeed a gap, please see the APA statement on the issue, at [5]--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? If this hypothesis is proven, you ought have no trouble at all in coming up with specific citations. Thank you. Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see above. I gave you the formal statement of the APA. You can't get a much more reputable paper than this. --Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did ramdrake delete this reference and alternate explanation for outcomes? ^[3] whose work shows that discipline and not intelligence is a more accurate predictor of outcomes, such as future success.^[4]

The reference can certainly go back in, but this single reference cannot and should not be used to contradict the approximately 50+ papers by the racialist scholars you indicate. The corpus of scholarly papers contradicting their position is vastly wider than this, so the reference needs to be properly positioned. It would be like saying a single paper contradicts the evidence on global warming (bad analogy, but I hope I get the point across).--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was this tight summary reverted? :

Some scholars assert that IQ tests do not measure what they purport to test. Others propose theories to explain variance among African Americans and some other ethnic minorities although Asian students are usually not included in the claims of racial inferiority in IQ among students.

Scholars point to crowded and underfunded inner city schools where many African American children study as contributing to the reasons why these children do not fare so well on intelligence tests. Others point to poor nutrition and hunger due to poverty. Others point to differences in income, parental education, and the richness of the early childhood experience enjoyed in households where income is not a problem.

The above summary was replaced with this exquisite example of too much verbiage and an utter failure to get to the point. It also makes controversial unsourced statement? Why is controversial unsourced statement that is also racist better than the above? One more thing-- what is this crap about "feel that comparing the intell of racial groups is unethical" -- they feel that? Did they not assert it or state it?

Lack of references.--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism accepted. Are you OK with the removal of all parts of this article that lack references, beginning with the claim, as you state it above that The fact is, raw IQ test score show that for instance Blacks perform more poorly on IQ tests than Whites. ? Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not okay with that removal, as that is the unfortunate truth, plain and simple. The reasons for this are at this point unclear and the object of much debate. Again, please see: [6].--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, but are now considered to be relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability. Some critics question the fairness and validity of cognitive testing and racial categorization, as well as the reliability of the studies and the motives of the authors, on both sides. This has included accusations of bias based on the political ideals of the researchers or the funding agencies, such as the Pioneer Fund. Some critics such as Robert Sternberg, Stephen Jay Gould, Karen Lee and Gloria Ladson-Billings fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or feel that comparing the intelligence of racial groups is itself unethical.

I take particular issue with this line and assert that it is both false and unsourced. Who said it? It is unacceptable to fail to cite a reference for this highly controversial claim.

IQ tests have been strongly criticized, but are now considered to be relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability.

Considered by whom? Or are readers to believe anonymous editor on faith alone.

I'll find you a reference for this too, but among psychometricians and psychologists in general, this is hardly controversial, unless you want to present references to the contrary? (which you are welcome to do)--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone is as confident as you in these claims, or takes these statements on faith alone. This is not the Vatican. Reference your controversial claims, or withdraw them. Thank you.Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you the reference twice. Take time enough to go through it, and let me know what you think, please.--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Giving ramdrake the benefit of the doubt, for the moment, that this article is in mediation and changes will be reverted, even just and smart changes, then there should be a lock on the article so nobody wastes time. There also should be an explicit statement at the top of the article that this is a deeply racist article and a disgrace to the Wikiepdia project, and that editors who come there wanting to help modify it to remove some of the racist claptrap will be reverted. Skywriter 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Skywriter, value judgment have no place on Wikipedia. We can't and shouldn't try to tell people what is "right" and what is "wrong", our job is just to report the opinions and the evidence to support or disprove it. To that effect, there is a warning atop this article that says "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed.", as well as one atop the talk page that says "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here."

I understand what you're trying to do, and I agree in part with it; however, if you want your changes to stick, they need to be discussed first. What you just did on the talk page is the right way to do this; please have some patience and bear with the other editors and eventually a number of your changes will be incorporated into the article, I'm sure of it.--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ramdrake, you appear to be blind to the fact that what you put forward is a viewpoint based on your value judgment, reminding me of an old cartoon, a picture of three bears, with the caption "This is my opinion and it is very true."

If the term non-whites continues to be used in this article, then a flag should be placed at the top saying that this article is written from the perspective -- the viewpoint of some whites with a racialist outlook.

As to your comment to "bear with the other editors and eventually a number of your changes will be incorporated into the article, I'm sure of it." -- my reply is that I wish that were true but I am skeptical and, frankly, with years of experience on Wikipedia, I doubt it. I worked hard on the article on the ku klux klan and that article is controlled by racialists who removed and downgraded specific examples of racial terror, even examples from the 20th century. There was even an argument over whether the Klan is a racist terror group or whether or not the thrust of its activities was/is directed at black people. The entire series of articles on Reconstruction is also written from the white racialist perspective, despite multiple works of scholarship over the last 50 years that have overturned most of what appears in the articles about post-Civil War Reconstruction. References to scholarly work and congressional hearings on the Klan were repeatedly removed.

So keep to your insistence that non-whites is a proper term for an article such as this that contains other examples of crude racism that does not even bother to cite references. I will retain the stance, and tell everyone I know that racial supremacy is in charge at Wikipedia in articles that directly discuss and affect African-American people, and other minorities.

I am not pretending the term "non-whites" is the best term to use in the article. I was pointing out that your alternative, "Asians and Africans" fails to cover indigenous populations from at least two entire continents. --Ramdrake 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Then your edit should have refined and not reverted the text.Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a term that describes "all races but Caucasoids" without actually listing them all. That's why "non-whites" was the best short-hand the editors here could come up with (and this one wasn't my particular creation).--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that this article does not address the intelligence and outcomes of Asian people who are tested, and overlooks the inconvenient truths associated with that, by masking outcomes with references to non-whites.

If by that you meant the fact that many Asian people (esp. Southeast Asia) score higher than "Whites" on IQ tests, it is mentioned in the article.--Ramdrake 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In passing and they are not explored. Asians are "non-whites" a racially supremacist term if there ever was one. African Americans are the goats of this article. Skywriter 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That part of the article discusses concepts about the relative intelligence of Whites compared to all other races as of the mid-20th century. The concept that Asians actually score higher on IQ test and therefore might be more intelligent only dates back to the 1970s or so.--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So, why exactly is the whole intelligence debate confined to what conveniently shows white IQ superiority over blacks? Why not show Asian IQ superiority over whites? Does it really matter if people only started noticing Asian IQ superiority since the 1970s? Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.

Please sign your postings.

Maybe part of the reason is that not many people have written on the subject of "race and intelligence", and those who have done so have been interested in black vs. white scores. I've noticed that the earlier bell curve graph that showed four [races] has disappeared. That diagram depicteded the intelligences of the four [races] as neatly spaced out as four vertical lines on a sheet of graph paper, which in itself should ring alarm bells. It did make Asians appear to be higher on the hierarchical ladder than whites. What other reasons are there for asking about group levels of intelligence, anyway? Isn't it the grown-up version of "My family is more powerful in this town than yours?" What is really in question is whether you actually know anything about the intelligence of the next person you see once you have dipped into your bag and have hung a [racial] hat on his head.

In my opinion it doesn't help much, except for the element of irony, to replace one racial stereotype with another one. But if the article is going to impute intelligence averages to various [races] I suppose it might have some impact on the certitude of whites regarding "race and intelligence" doctrines to knock them out of their comfortable first place.P0M 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign. I've done some research on non-wiki sites a couple of years ago, and sure enough, there was a significant amount of studies on IQ/race that included asians. I'm not going to look for it again though. Sure enough, this article (and racism itself) is exactly as you describe it. I just think that if the people contributing to this article write about black inferiority to whites, they should also elaborate more on Asian or even Jewish superiority for a NPOV's sake. The second purpose would be to get the racists off their high horses, as I have noticed that some argue that Asians or even Ashkenazi Jewish people "might" achieve higher scores only because they study harder and are more likely to pursue higher education. Yet, they seem to think it's mostly genetics when discussing the black-white gap. But of course, this second purpose is only my personal opinion. To make this article seem more neutral is good enough of a reason.74.108.12.54 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the racialists are content If Asians or Jews have higher IQs than whites because in the studies they find the gap to be small. But they find the gap between blacks and everyone else to be very large. In my opinion they pick on blacks because they are an easy target. Like an older school bully who forces youger kids to play the games he already knows he can win. In the US blacks were only given full citizenship about 40 years ago. The effects of the other 360 years shouldn't be ignored. You are right there is not much focus on the IQ of Asians or Ashkenazi Jews.Muntuwandi 02:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're a two-faced racialist, Muntuwandi; quick to label as fallacious any source or statistic which points out facts that are not in favor of Africans, and just as quick to use any source or statistic which places Africans in favorable light. Actually, to your biggest disappointment, let me inform you that African-Americans have surpassed native Africans from Africa on IQ tests by 15 points. How's that for "360 years that shouldn't be ignored"?

Actually.. the gap with Ashkenazi Jews is quite large I think. In any case, I'm glad someone else agrees.74.108.12.54 14:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the generalities in this article dishonest. This article is entirely one-sided in viewpoint, acknowledges in a token manner that there is opposition but fails to explore that opposition in any depth or with any rigor. And in every case, treats the opposition as an afterthought, and in each case failing to focus on the centrality of the arguments. Most dishonestly, this article fails to address the most serious opponents of the Murray-Herrnstein fiasco.

It is, in fact, the height of intellectual dishonesty that Murray and Herrnstein are quoted without acknowledging the arguments of William H. Tucker in counter-balancing their racialist ravings. It is disgusting but not unexpected for an article of this sort that champions the views of racialists, a common theme throughout Wikipedia. Tucker is not even referenced.

I am surprised only that Murray's recent article "Jewish Genius" in Commentary is missing from this badly written, flabby, overblown article that rests on the firm bedrock of racism. Murray's article concludes with the notion that God appointed Jews as "the chosen people."

I recommend that this article be deep-sixed because it is hopelessly wed to the racialist viewpoint.Skywriter 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that if you find that references to Tucker need to be added, you may add them yourself?--Ramdrake 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So that you can revert for the third time? Skywriter 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Thanks.--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How sad --and biased-- it is that Wikipedia uses a changed article--with the inflammatory headline--(!) in pink (!)-- Stalking the Wild Taboo when that excited title was not in the original APA article as it was published.

It is revealing that Wikipedia uses a changed version of the APA study from a commercial vendor controversially pushing one (the racist) version of this argument when it could easily have used the original article as published in the APA journal and available from a neutral academic source. the APA Journal article without the pink headline

If the APA report is the sole "evidence," then this article grossly misrepresents the content and intent of the APA report. For example, the report as published in the APA Journal states explicitly:

:Hernstein and Murray (and many of their critics) have gone well beyond the scientific findings, making explicit recommendations on various aspects of public policy.

This Wikipedia article cites Murray ten times --drawing ideological conclusions based on statistical data that he is ill-equipped to follow, let alone draw. Murray freely admits he shoots from the lip and not from learned studies, either his own, or others. He admits that it is not "within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics" [7] and this is true, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, because he said he is "not smart enough."

So my question is why does this article cite Murray ten times when he admits he is not a subject matter expert other than to press his political POV?

In so far as the claim that the APA study is proof positive that African Americans are less intelligent than others, that is a mis-statement at best. For example 'Bell Curve fraudulent':

  UCLA psychologist Halford Fairchild, who is leading one of four
  sessions devoted to the IQ controversy at the annual convention of the
  American Psychological Association, charged that ``the scientific
  basis of `The Bell Curve' is fraudulent.
  

The following paragraph (from Race and Intelligence is complete bullshit, and it is lacking in one scrap of source material, makes broad, unsupported statements about consensus that is in direct conflict with the summary findings of the 1995 APA report as issued by the APA and not the pink headline writing race-baiters. Outrageous and citation-free claims in Race and Intelligence

The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences between individuals of the same race reflect (1) real, (2) functionally/socially significant, and (3) substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor.[citation needed] A consensus also exists for the view that average IQ differences between races reflect (1) real and (2) significant differences in the same g factor.[citation needed] However, it is a matter of debate whether IQ differences between races in the U.S. are (3a) entirely environmental or (3b) partly genetic (APA categorically rules this out- why was this slipped in here?). Several published consensus statements agree that the large differences between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites in the U.S. cannot be attributed to biases in test construction, nor can they be explained just by simple differences in socio-economic status, however they are still well with in the range that may be attributed to other environmental factors. The debate over causal explanations focuses predominately on the IQ gaps seen in developed countries.(The top of this article says this is a U.S.-only article-- why are these sentences here?) There is a consensus that IQ in developing countries is depressed due at least in part to poor health and nutrition.

Is Murray an intelligence researcher? His field is political science, and he identifies as a right wing conservative. Why is he here other than to race-bait?

[http://web.archive.org/web/19970102210846/http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html APA News Release issued September 15, 1995] summarized the findings of the 1995 report. Please demonstrate how the paragraph above quoted directly from current version of Race and Intelligence (with some interlinear commentary) resembles the findings summarized by the APA itself?

Please cite verifiable sources including the APA's own summary.Skywriter 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed this conflict and have to admit there are a lot of things going on here and it is hard for me to follow. At the risk of making things worse (not my intention!) I want to make a brief comment. I beg Skywriter and Ramdrake that if I am mistaken in my understanding of the situation that you correct me in as few words as possible because lengthy explanations will likely just confuse me more. First, it seems to me that Skywriter is concerned not to make it sounds like specific theories of race and intelligence are "true" - thus s/he insists that the article says "some" theories rather than all, and that racial theories have been used bu people to justify racial discrimination (rather than, they really do justify racial discrimination). In these cases, I completely agree with Skywriter. Second, Skywriter inserts "blacks." Here I disagree with Skywriter because this is excessively narrow. I do not deny that Blacks have long been victims of racial discrimination. But select White groups, as well as non-Whites who today are classified as Whites (e.g. Jews), were also victims of racism and specifically of the IQ testing regime when linked to ideologies about inheritance. There is an extensive body of literature on how working-class Whites in the UK were "racialized" and considered genetically inferior and less intelligent than upper-class whites (see McClintock's Imperial Leather). I think a more inclusive term is needed than "black" is needed for generic discussions, though of course we should say "Black" (or jew or White or Asian) if the research specifically addresses that group. Finally, am I right that Skywriter deleted a paragraph on hypotheses for why average IQ scores differe from race to race? I do not see any justification for this. I DO believe that one reason (hypothesis) explaining these differences can be "racism" or that the IQ tests or their statistical analysis is biased by racial ideologies - in other words, the scores do not correspond to anything real. But there has been debate about this and the debate should be covered. if anything, I think the paragraph is too chort and does not provide enough information about each "explanation" and the evidence and arguments supporting it. But including such a discussion is not in and of itself racist, it is a way of examining more thoroughly something that comes up in disucssions of racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While theories of racialism have and are certainly used to discriminate against and persecute Asians, Jews, Gypsies et al., the focus of Race and Intelligence is stated at the top of the article:

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Most citations in this article focus on the alleged intelligence of black people, though there is a distinct attempt to beat around that bush with use of the racially supremacist and imprecise term non-whites.

I deleted a paragraph of excess verbiage that used no references and replaced it with a clearly written summary. Skywriter 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As Steven Jay Gould demonstrates in The Mismeasure of Man, theories of racialism have been used to discriminate against Jews and poor whites in the United States. Therefore the article must use inclusive language. This does not mean that it should deny racism against blacks, or exclude specific discussion of specific forms of discrimination against blacks especially at specific times in history. But this article cannot be just about racism against blacks - that is my only point. About the paragraph you deleted - I think what is needed is not a summary but an expansion that is more detailed with proper sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, and when this article is again available for editing, I welcome your writing what you describe. I am available for help with referencing. Skywriter 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversial scholars

These articles are over-reliant on input from a few controversial scholars. Any article that has a reference to people like Rushton or anyone connected with the pioneer fund immediately looses a lot of credibility. While their research may be peer reviewed, their very controversial and inflammatory nature is enough to turn many away. I would definitely prefer if all their references are removed from this series of articles and studies from more sincere and objective researchers who have no agenda other than to seek the truth are used.Muntuwandi 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Muntuwandi. And I continue to take issue with weak sourcing in this article. Footnote 59 finds its way back to this statement:

Consensus at the American Psychological Association is that a partly genetic hypothesis is as of now, inadequate in explaining differences in IQ among population groups.[59] (which may or may not be true)

My quibble is solely with the weak sourcing. This fellow titles his article "http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-The-view-of-the-American-Psychological-Association-1120.html

Who is he? What are his credentials? Why is he speaking for the APA? Is this a peer-reviewed article? How does anyone know he is a psychologist, or that he even exists?

Google has two references to ( "Robert Artmann" psychologist ), both linking to this set of pages on his Web site. Why is this on Wikipedia? Where are the standards? What are the proofs?

The APA summary I linked to earlier is a verifiable source. This is not. Skywriter 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Muntuwandi and Skywriter, the article remains over-reliant on a few controversial scholars. Where is this http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-The-view-of-the-American-Psychological-Association-1120.html source being used, why not link right to the APA? futurebird 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked

I've been away for a bit, so can someone fill me in on why this article is locked again? futurebird 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQ mostly measures visual-spatial intelligence in Asians and short-term memory in Ashkenazi Jews

IQ only tests visual-spatial intelligence. Visual-spatial intelligence is strongly correlated with logical-mathematical intelligence. There are differences in visual-spatial intelligence between the races (which is a result of natural selection). Asians score substantially higher in mathematical tests.

Visual-spatial intelligence is required for hunting skills. Throwing accuracy, estimating how far an object is, and estimating the speed of a moving object, are spatial skills; which are vital for hunting animals.

Spatial IQ is very important for hunter-gatherers from cold climates. Asians evolved from very cold climates. Evidence suggests that the round head of Asians, which keeps in the heat since the round surface reduces the surface area. East Asians on average have higher spatial intelligence than whites; about one standard deviation higher. Surviving in cold conditions require more visual-spatial intelligence than surviving in warmer conditions. The last ice age ended around 10,000 BCE. Since the cold climate has few plants, men must hunt for animals. Also, men have visual-spatial intelligence about one standard deviation higher than women, which is the result of natural selection during the hunter-gatherer society. Also, men must be physically stronger in order to hunt animals.

Visual-spatial intelligence is highly correlated with logical-mathematical intelligence. The higher the visual-spatial intelligence, the better the math skills. Solving a math problem requires the human mind to imagine and manipulate symbols in their visual memory. Mathematical symbols, such as numbers, must be visualized and manipulated in the human brain. The higher the visual-spatial intelligence, the faster you solve a math problem. This is faster because you can visually calculate in your head instead of solving the problem on paper or using the limited and slower short-term memory.

Intelligent quotient (IQ) tests, which have time limits, are related to math skills and symbolic manipulation skills. The faster you will solve the pattern in an IQ test, the the more problems gets done and the higher score you will get. High spatial intelligence is advantageous in IQ tests since problems can be quickly visually solved in the mind, instead of using the slower and limited short-term memory. Without a high visual-spatial intelligence, you cannot manipulate the symbols as easy, and will manipulate them slower, then getting a lower score on a IQ test.

I believe that there are no significant differences in "general intelligence" between the races if and only if "general intelligence" is not correlated with visual-spatial intelligence. However, the general intelligence factor, especially testing among the Raven's Progressive Matrices, is defined to be strongly correlated with visual-spatial intelligence.

I also believe the reason that Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ is not because of their spatial intelligence, since theirs is low. But I do conjecture that Jews possess a high short-term memory. The reason that they score high on IQ tests is not visual-spatial intelligence such as Asians do, but their short-term memory. Evidence: They have good verbal intelligence, which may be an effect of their short-term memory. Information must be articulated in short-term memory to retain. John von Neumann, a Jew, is able to recite thousands of digits after memorizing them in a few minutes. (But do they are able to recite the digits backwards? Reciting backwards is much harder, since it apparently requires an extraordinarily amount of visual-spatial memory, which Ashkenazi Jews Lack. They need visual-spatial memory to represent the digits so they can recite digits backward efficiently (read the digits backward in the visuospatial sketchpad). Therefore, I hypothesize that Asians are better in reciting digits backwards.) He also has fast mental calculation.

71.175.60.255 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See also: multiple intelligences

Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research, as per WP:NOR.--Ramdrake 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research. It looks like original research but it is not. Here are the sources: In one analysis of IQ studies on Ashkenazi Jews high verbal and mathematical scores, but average or below average visuospatial scores were found.^[5] In a separate study, East Asians demonstrated high visuospatial scores, but slightly above average, average or slightly below average verbal scores (even though half are immigrants)[8] [9].

East Asians score high on the visualspatial sections of the IQ test. Jews score extremely high on the verbal sections (short term memory) of the IQ test. I just forgot and didn't know there are sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was drunk while writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs)

Then, at the very least, it needs refactoring. From reading, we have no idea what parts of the discourse are cited, so indeed it looks like OR, even though I'll take you at your word it isn't (however, it would be better coming from secondary sources, as mutually contradictory primary sources in this field are a dime a dozen).--Ramdrake 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacks have extremely low visual memory so it is very difficult for them to recall digits in reverse.

Race and intelligence (explanations)#Spearman's hypothesis

For example, the BW gap is larger on tests that require the recall of a series of digits in reverse order than on tests that require the recall of a series of digits in forward order. Across a large number of test, the standardized mean Black-White gap varies from near zero to over one standard deviation. According to Jensen 1998b, "this variation between tests in the size of the standardized mean W-B difference is not explainable in terms of test bias or in terms of differences in types of item content or other formal or superficial characteristics of the tests."

For example, the Black-White gap is greater on backward digits span (a test where subjects repeat digits in the reverse order that they are given, and the more g-loaded test) than forward digits span (a test where subjects repeat digits in the same order that they are given, and the less g-loaded test). As predicted by Spearman's hypothesis, the B-W gap is largest on the most g-loaded tests. Narrowing of the B-W gap has been seen mostly on less g-loaded tests, such as literacy tests.^[6] Arthur

The gap is larger to recall digits in reverse because blacks are much lower in visual intelligence.

"a test where subjects repeat digits in the reverse order that they are given, and the more g-loaded test"

IQ tests, and specifically "g-loaded" tests, are biased against blacks because they are designed to test people with high visualspatial intelligence.

This is obviously original research, but I cannot find no sources that supports my argument (even though I am not black).

Unfreeride 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I will be able to find the information again. There is some very interesting research on how people with a "black" cultural background and from a "white" cultural background do on I.Q. tests. It was totally counter-intuitive to me when I first read it, but, on reflection it makes a great deal of sense.

The finding was that if the easy items were removed from an IQ test, then the scores of "blacks" relative to the scores of "whites" went up. In other words, if you were testing vocabulary items that are encountered from childhood by "white" kids, the "black" kids would get some of them. But there would be a few easy terms that every "white" kid would know but few "black" kids would know. Down would go their scores. But if it was technical vocabulary that was in everybody's general science course, then the two groups would have been exposed to it in the same way. I can give you a simple example. In class one day I was explaining why agriculture was bottled up in certain regions in China until people had developed effective digging tools. "Even if you go to the hardware store and buy a spade, you will find it very difficult to dig a garden in land that has been prairie and then pasture since the Ice Age." A student asked, "What is a spade?" There were probably cultural reasons why my sentence troubled him. He was not angry at me. He was genuinely perplexed. And the word probably would have thrown him just as much in an IQ test.

One further confounding fact is that some cultures educate their children in one area and some cultures educate their children in another. There is one culture I read about somewhere in which children are very carefully taught to distinguish among aromas. Some families teach their children the notes of the musical scale at a young age. (It may be a kind of learning, like speech, that gets harder the older the child is when s/he starts.) Some cultures teach their children games like go (wei qi). There seems to be good evidence for the belief that nobody becomes a go master who didn't start learning before the age of ten. Children who grow up in small rooms in multi-story apartment buildings may not throw balls, shoot bows and arrows, etc., etc. enough to learn spacial coordination. P0M 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Savant Syndrome"

savant syndrom does not exist. not all savants are autistics. and it is "idiot savants" that seems to e implied here. being 'savant' simply means your brilliant in something or other, it is not per se a handicap at all· Lygophile has spoken 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

it looks like original research it is not original research it is extraneous data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunke (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't differentiate between statistics and viewpoints

This article should be divided into Genetics as a cause of differences and Genetics not as a cause of differences. The History section makes a strong suggestion that racial differences in IQ are caused by socioeconomic development or prejudices, and not genetics.

It used to be that way. It was a mess and many, many editors complained it looked too POV. So, we tried taking a step back to put the question of race and intelligence in a more historically and sociologically complete context.--Ramdrake 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing is to prove specifically that there are differences, and if differences exist, who those differences exactly apply to, none of which is done in this article. The use of Murray throughout this article makes it a farce. He is unqualified to either draw the conclusions or make the judgments he does. He is not a statistician and admits he does not understand the field. He trades on his association with the late Herrnstein to draw conclusions that do not follow from statistical work Herrnstein did. Last I checked he is quoted at least 10 times.Skywriter 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the collective statement of Gottfredson et al.

Another editor has removed the collective statement on intelligence originally published in the Wall Street journal by Gottfredson et al. While I will personnally not lament its disappearance, I want to make sure it is for the right reasons. The motive claims something about the "famously right wing views of the Wall Street Journal". It should be noted that the authors of the statement aren't writers for the WSJ: they are psychologists, intelligence researchers in their own right, although most of the signatories are Pioneer Fund fundies (which spells another kind of bias altogether). So, I just want to make clear that what is in that article cannot be labeled "right wing views of the WSJ", or "nothing approaching fact or science" (it is written by respected scientists), although one label that can certainly be applied is that of "highly biased science". Like I said, I'm not contesting the removal of this statement; I'm just trying to set the record straight on why it's not the most NPOV reference to have here.--Ramdrake 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to be certain that another editor is not hopelessly naive about the content of the famously right wing editorial page of the WSJ, which is distinct from its news pages, (the latter is generally considered to consist of fair and even penetrating reporting). However, nothing but extreme right leaning views are published on the editorial pages of the WSJ: Pioneer Fund fundies and AEI types are always right at home there.

So long as this article consists primarily of political viewpoints, it is key that those viewpoints be labeled for what they are. Skywriter 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

There is a section called IQ with outstanding requests for citations since April. I will wait one week for citations to be placed before considering that entire section subject for removal. Failure to provide proper sources is evidence of original research and in an article as long and filled with controversy as this, there has been more than sufficient time to provide proper referencing. Skywriter 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

These claims are source in reference 47 in the immediately preceding sentence. If you read the reference, it even says so. No need to add further citations or to remove the statements.--Ramdrake 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly sourced claims

Why is the following reference here? Who is the writer of http://www.iq-tests.eu ? and why should anyone trust him? (This is the second time this question about this source has been raised.) Consensus at the American Psychological Association is that a partly genetic hypothesis is as of now, inadequate in explaining differences in IQ among population groups.^[7]Skywriter 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the link with one to the consensus statement itself. That should look better.--Ramdrake 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation of sourcing to racially motivated bad actors

Why does this continue to be sourced to this blatantly racist web site that distorts and edits the report of the American Psychological Association and also places inflammatory headline on the APA report?

Where is the sense of decency, the sense of intellectual honesty in the writing of this article?

While some psychologists today still regard g as the most fundamental measure of intelligence, others prefer to emphasize the distinctive profile of strengths and weaknesses present in each person's performance on different aspects of IQ tests. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html APA Task Force Report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" Skywriter 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am putting in an alternative URL, pointing to a legitimate university site (University of Connecticut). Please let me know where this URL is still present in this article so that I may change it to the more appropriate one I just mentioned. Also, on a side note, I would suggest you try to make your interventions less passionate and more to the point.--Ramdrake 13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When an article such as this is so loaded with vast quantities of junk and provably bad science, it is ripe for that fake science to be parsed, piece by piece.Skywriter 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please make up your mind: do you want to try and improve this article, or just bitch about it?--Ramdrake 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have improved it significantly in the few weeks I have addressed it, by pointing to the blatantly biased and unscientific references common to this article, and providing in their stead neutral references. I remind you that this spat started when you opted to dramatically revert two careful edits without attention to detail, or any level of specificity. I further remind you that I provided the link to the original APA article to replace the link to the champions of race hatred whose views permeate this article (and will receive further attention). I have also announced my intent to delete references by the nonscientific purveyor of hopelessly white supremacist ideas, Charles Murray, while allowing a one week comment period for his defenders to state their case. What looks like whining to your eyes is an action agenda from mine. Cheers.Skywriter 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your one-week ultimatum has already been addressed above regarding the "IQ" section. The link to the APA article I found myself when you objected to the first one (even though the alternate link contains the exact same text, save for the banner and a couple other extraneous insignificant differences). What you have done is to prompt others to correct the errors you saw, many of which were minor. What you need to do in the future is start behaving in a civil manner and remind yourself that editors are usually working in good faith. While all suggestions to improve the article are welcome, implying that the article so far is "trash" is demeaning to the other editors who preceded you, and certainly uncivil. Also, attributing to yourself and yourself only the merit of the current improvements being done on the article is a matter of some exaggeration. I very strongly suggest you change your tone if you want the continued collaboration of other editors.--Ramdrake 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We may agree on nothing, Ramdrake, but on chronology, I propose we can reach agreement, because the chronology is right here on this page in black and white. You cited the racially inflammatory version of the APA journal article three times, and I responded by pointing out the bias and providing a neutral link to the original article without the pink headline and self-serving interpretations. Look through the threads above and you will see the following extracts from the exchanges. Note the date of this exchange-- June 12.

For a confirmation that there is indeed a gap, please see the APA statement on the issue, at [10]--Ramdrake 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Again, please see: [11].--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you the reference twice. Take time enough to go through it, and let me know what you think, please.--Ramdrake 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is revealing that Wikipedia uses a changed version of the APA study from a commercial vendor controversially pushing one (the racist) version of this argument when it could easily have used the original article as published in the APA journal and available from a neutral academic source. http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf the APA Journal article without the pink headline Skywriter 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, your colleagues would like you more if you paid closer attention to the arguments advanced and stopped lecturing us.

Your colleagues, including myself, will continue to object to giving primacy to the unproven racialist agenda in this article.

Cheers. Skywriter 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have a deal for you: you stop being so derogatory of opinions you don't agree with, and express them politely, and I'll stop lecturing you. That suits me.--Ramdrake 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Jensen 1998b refers to here? It is not easy to follow this argument from the way fn is structured-- fn # 13 ^ Reviewed by Jensen 1998b. See Herrnstein and Murray 1994 for examples. Skywriter 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I do support making changes to the article with a deemphasis on controversial theories of rushton, murray, jensen etc. However I hope that the article can remain encyclopedic with a good structure. Muntuwandi 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the statement by Muntuwandi. Skywriter 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to delete unfocused rant

I have been going through the article to see where it does and does not make sense. I submit the following paragraph for deletion because it is junk. There is no standard for links here, and I find that weighing this article down heavily. My earlier comments concerning the unscientific nature of the presentation crop up again here where non-peer reviewed rants are recommended with equal vigor as peer-reviewed articles. Rants offer the reader no help whatsoever. This 67-page rant complaining about a 4-minute TV spot that ran in 1994 by the late Peter Jennings is enough to send any casual or erudite reader running in terror from this article. I therefore propose that it be deleted for cause. That cause is that it sheds no light and it is not peer-reviewed. I further propose that it be deleted because it lacks focus, and the lack of focus is the central weakness of this Wikipedia article. Here is what this article currently states:

Robert A. Gordon, a Pioneer Fund media critic writes that ranking group averages "high" to "low" is not the same things as moral ranking from "good" to "bad" or an overall ranking of "superior" to "inferior". ref Some researchers^{[citation needed]} explicitly reject the latter terms as inaccurately global in connotation and insensitive, but the terms are used by some critics AYref|Gordon|1997b, http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf p. 42)./ref But not all scholars agree that the research has such benign motives. For example, Robert Sternberg writes that race intelligence research that focuses on a genetic cause for the gap is attempting to show that one group is inferior to another group. refThere are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005) Robert Sternberg /ref (this ends the section that as it currently appears in the article ). notice how the Sternberg reference is missing a link or even a citation to the scholarly journal in which it appeared(!)

The article, "There Are No Public-Policy Implications A Reply to Rushton and Jensen", by Robert J. Sternberg of Yale University appeared in "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law" 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 295–301, and I have found this link for it: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Sternberg-commentary-on-30years.pdf which I will add to the article in good time.

So the proposal here is to delete the 67-page Gordon rant because it is a non-peer reviewed diatribe concerning media coverage, and it sheds no light on the subject of this article. Does anyone disagree? Skywriter 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toward the future

I have been away from the editing of this article for several days due to work responsibilities, etc. The last time I look at it I was disheartened by its rather chaotic nature. Articles can turn chaotic when many people are inserting improvements and deleting other things without necessarily maintaining a clear overview of the whole thing.

To give a simile, I would say that this article could be compared to a TV documentary of the tobacco industry that resulted when a reporter put a TV camera on his helmet, went around and looked at some tobacco farms, look at the road to the factory, walked through the factory without quite knowing where he was going, talked to the factory manager, the cancer researchers, the legislators, etc., etc. Then, without editing, they just played the thing on TV.

In order to make a documentary that will allow outsiders to understand a phenomenon, the documentarian has to have an overview of the phenomenon and that requires having some kind of an understanding of that phenomenon. (As long as the documentarian doesn't try to come across as the great expert, the better the documentarians understand their subjects the better they can help other people understand them.)

A documentarian is not someone who takes either the position of the omniscient scientist who tells us how the Universe (or the nicotine) actually works, nor is the documentarian someone who strives to further one side or another of any contest. Documentarians are supposed to tell the rest of us the truth about what the scientists say, what the oppositions are between scientists and marketers, etc.

So we need to tell the truth, but we are not in the position of telling people what "the truth about race and intelligence" is. I have a plan for how we can do that job in a better, more compact way, but that is for later. P0M 04:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With its clean, structured look, Race_and_genetics is appealing and does not have the feel of POV pounding.Skywriter 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I would do to show the various schemes of categorizations ([races]) that are claimed to have predictive value with regard to intelligence is to zoom out a bit and illustrate some kinds of categorizations that are infraspecific but not like most of the categorizations that are variously called "race" categorizations. After I uploaded the following diagram I realized that I could have added another illustrative set, "the jet set," which is not as pejorative as the ones that originally came to mind.

The point I am trying to make with this Venn diagram is that some ways of categorizing people look at some notable group and ignore everybody else. These sets could be sampled for IQ level, and they would presumably have some predictive value, but not at the level that people who look down on Okies would anticipate. The average IQ of Okies might be 100, but people who call others "Okies" probably would expect something less than 100. If you measured 10 Okies you might have an average fairly far from the expected value (based on having earlier measured a very large and statistically reliable sample), but if you measured 1000 you ought to come out much closer to the predicted value. It would be the rare individual score, however, that was equal to 100 (or whatever the real value was). That would be almost as unlikely as some couple really having 2.3 children ;-)

I don't think many people would regard the jet set as a race, and I think this fact tells us something about what the "natural language" definition of the term must be.

Carolus Linnaeus used an extension of his general method of scientific categorization of living things to subdivide human beings into several groups. He claimed that the infraspecific groups were created by God.

Some people probably still see [races] this way, so we give them their position in the viewfinder of the documentarian's camera. Actually, the self-identified race probably fit this picture pretty well -- especially before the U.S. government permitted people to choose "mixed" categories or multiple memberships. So now we can ask, are there studies that claim to be able to predict IQ on basis of this system of categorization? If so, how useful are the predictions?

It seems to me that there is a necessary circularity with any study that claims empirical basis, since one would presumably decide how to categorize people, then take statistically valid samples from each category, and any prediction on this basis would either look at individuals (with a good chance that the individual would not be average) or would look at groups (with accuracy of predictions improving with the number of people in the groups tested).

I am not saying that there are such studies, or that such results have been found. I just suggest that if we view the various theories of "race and intelligence" as scientific studies, then this is the kind of information we should be on the look-out for so that we can report on it. P0M 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anent my remarks below, if we identify the category definitions clearly, then we can ask some interesting questions, e.g., are there studies that show how people who are self-identified as "white" perform on IQ tests in Great Britain, Poland, Romania, Turkey? And how about across time? Are Amish IQ scores the same as they were 50 or 100 years ago? I know that we cannot do the IQ testing ourselves, but I think we are allowed to report on it. P0M 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

if the groups can be identified, only then can a hypothesis be made.Muntuwandi 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you are talking about. What are required are studies (many of which have appeared in various incarnations of this article), and, if possible, predictions made from them. Linnaeus had clear [races] in mind, and he had clear ideas on the levels of intelligence, behavioral and ethical characteristics associated with each, etc. Were there any studies made that accurately measured people who would fit in with his definitions of the [races]? I doubt it. However, there are many studies based on self-reported [race] in the U.S. I seem to remember that g has been measured for self-reported [races] in the British Isles, and that the results differed from U.S. results. Anyway, I'm not trying to make hypotheses. I'm trying to identify the theories and/or hypotheses and the research results already reported. P0M 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost immediately after Linnaeus proposed his infraspecific groups, researchers of his time having similar qualifications objected that nature did not fall into discrete groups the way Linnaeus had claimed. They saw that characteristics changed gradually from place to place. Skin color was one of the most easily observed variables, but other characteristics work the same way. It takes a fuzzy set diagram like the following mock-up to visually depict these kind of observations of data.

This kind of picture of the relationships among the races probably corresponds fairly closely to the way that many non-scientists construct [races]. They are aware that more and more people in the world are the products of "inter-racial" families, and they may imagine that the progeny are somehow just the average between the characteristics of the parents. I rather doubt that we would find examples of scientific studies that construe [race] this way, unless we look at scientific studies that use "self-declared" as their standard for [race] and are forced to deal with individuals who declare themselves to be various percentages of the nominal [races] listed in census forms. It would be most interesting if we can find research that compares mixed [races] with the mathematical computation that theory would suggest such mixed individuals should score out at.

It seems rather odd to me that most of the studies that were used in this article the last time I paid a lot of attention to it were based on "self-identified" [racial] identity. But at least there are plenty of studies to give some body to our article.

There is one more level to go to, and for that level there is a whole bookful of actual charts. P0M 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The above diagram gives a cartoon version of what you would get if you used the 500 or so maps of allele densities in the second half of Cavalli-Sforza's magnum opus to define [races]. C-S makes it clear that the maps made this way may be congruent with regard to geography (since they all use the same basic map of the world, or parts of it), but they are not congruent with regard to the patterns laid down on those maps. So if you use allele 1 to define a [race] you get a certain number of people belonging to that race, if you use allele 2 to define a [race] you get another group with a certain number of members. If you use allele 1 and allele 2 together to define a [race] you eliminate all of the people who do not have membership in both the previously mentioned groups. Usually, the more alleles you add the smaller the membership in the [race] becomes.

To make the above a bit more concrete, somebody might say that anybody with "black" skin belongs to the "black race." Somebody else comes along and says, "No way. We are from Sri Lanka and we have black skin, but we are not the same race as those other people. We have more aquiline noses." (There was actually more or less this kind of an argument on the Black people article's talk page, but I think maybe the objection came from somebody in India. Same difference.

I think that with the above Venn diagrams (and fuzzy Venn diagram) I have exhausted the possibilities for basic kinds of [race] theory. We can include things like ethnicity if we can decide whether people are always construed as fitting into one ethnic group or another. What is the ethnicity of a person with a German Lutheran father and an Italian Catholic mother? How does one decide? Does anybody do research on the group IQ of Islandic atheists? Who knows. But if the data is there we can find someplace to tuck it in. The essential point is that when somebody says, e.g., "Chinese people have higher IQs than white people," we know what kind of definition of "Chinese people" is meant. Is it genetic, based on actually taking cheek swabs and comparing with defined haplogroups? Is it ethnic, so that the orphaned blue-eyed and tow headed child of two Swedes who died in an air crash in China and was raised in an entirely Chinese community by loving Chinese parents who educated the child in a Confucian x Maoist ethos? As long as we know the definition of [race] we can ask to see studies that have findings on how accurately g can be predicted for members of the [races] defined that way. P0M 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact the overwhelming majority of people in the world - asians and caucasians - are descended from the individual responsible for Haplogroup K, and very few sub-saharan africans are descended from him. As I see it, there are two primary subspecies of humans, those before Haplogroup K (Y-DNA), and those descended from him. This satisfies the monophyletic clade standard for objective taxonomy of population. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide a citation or two to articles that discuss Haplogroup K, please. There is only one extant subspecies of humans, but if you want to go with infra-subspecific groupings and if you look at the most large-granule split on haplogroups it does break down into two groups. I presume that's what you are talking about, but let's see your evidence. I have no desire to decide among schemes for dividing humans into [races]. Let's just see what the various schemes are, and whether there are valid predictions that have been demonstrated to follow form them. P0M 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and g

one of the problems with the article I think is its dependence on the general intelligence factor as a measure of g. If for example we take a hypothetical situation in which Herrnstein, Murray, rushton, and jensen never existed. How would the article be written. The truth is even without these protagonists the controversy of race and intelligence would still exist. The notion that a race is inferior is that they are not intelligent.

In the US following the end of slavery came jim crow. The inherent idea was that blacks or native americans were not intelligent enough to be bus drivers, clerks or even cashiers in a store. Any job that a black could do, no matter how simple, a white person could do it better. Therein lied the justification for segregation. The legacy of this still exists today as whenever a minority is given a position doubts arise as to whether he or she can stand the heat. These are just examples of how the race and intelligence controversy is more than simplified number or concept called g.

The issue then is whether G is a real measure of total human intelligence. Then it should have a 100% correlation with success. If say we were to measure the Gs of several presidents or CEOs, my guess is that we would find that most have above average G but not very much above average, like a computer whiz. Also I expect to find the Gs of many of the advisors to these presidents or CEOs to be higher than the presidents or CEOS. For example I expect the G for Condi to be higher than that of President Bush because she was a full professor and provost at Stanford university. She also speaks with varying degrees russian, german, french and spanish whereas president bush only speaks some broken spanish. Condi is also a classical pianist, I do not know whether he can play any musical instruments[12]. With all these issues why is Bush president and not Condi? That is because to be president requires many different skills than academic qualities alone. The theory of multiple intelligences maybe.

This article does not capture this dynamic. Jensen and co focus so much on the semi abstract concept of G and its even more abstract concept of its heritability when in actual fact many people are getting on fine with average Gs( Bush says internets, and Clinton only sent one email while president). Muntuwandi 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether intelligence in terms of ability to reason, judge analogies, spatial relations, patterns, etc. is the only factor in success is outside the scope of this article and I don't think you would find anything favorable about analyzing the different races in terms of emotional predilections or cultural values if you are trying to say that sub-Saharan africans have advantages in those regards, or are on par. There may be interesting contrasts between asians and europeans in those qualities, but again it is totally outside this scope of this article. You are welcome to work on or start an article about "Intelligence and success" if there are good citations for it - as far as I am aware, all the studies in that regard find a significant correlation between the two. That would be the place to raise issues of creativity, emotion, motivations, etc. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is not sub-saharan africans having advantages outside of G but President Bush. Since ironically the person with arguably the highest G in the bush cabinet is a sub-saharan( Condi). Yes there is a correlation between g and success but it is not a 100% or perfect correlation meaning that the higher the g the more succesful you would be. Hence we would see that all CEO's and presidents would be the people with highest G, they would all be geniuses but we know this is not the case. Muntuwandi 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the earlier history of this article, the general finding reported was that if you group people by self-reported [race] and measure the IQ of a statistically valid sample of members of each [race] you will find different average measures of IQ for each group.

Correlation does not prove causation, but many people were given the impression that those test results proved that white people are stupider than East Asians, etc., etc. So white people could try to find something to compensate their crushed egos by claiming that they are superior to East Asians on some other measure. Be that as it may, the fact is that IQ tests measure the very things that people need to be able to do to succeed in college. It may in fact be true that white people can drink more alcohol than East Asian people, but that fact has slight saliency when it comes to doing well in a university setting, and if you can't read well, learn calculus, etc., you may have to choose your courses well to get through with a college degree. Rather than having white people asking why their general math and science level is inferior to the East Asians, the impression such misuses of measurements may give is that it is hopeless for a white person to try to compete with East Asians in the sciences, so one should attempt to get a business degree or a degree in some field where inferior intelligence may not necessarily hold one back.

Causation is what one should be looking at: Why, for example, are black students testing lower than white students? Why assume that the reasons are hereditary? Why not study the entire process of learning to see how it can be improved?

If there is not a real conspiracy in the scientific community to make the results of the tests favor some groups at the expense of other groups, and if there is not a level of block headedness in the scientific community to make them unable to correct for cultural biases, then the results of the IQ tests are telling us something -- we just have to be sure to consider carefully just what they are telling us. And jumping onto some other measurable behavioral outcomes won't help. It may be true that whites are constitutionally unable to handle the complexities of the rhythms of either Africa (music of Miriam Makeba, for instance) or India (Ravi Shankar, for example), but the ability to handle those complex rhythms is not going to help get greater numbers of black people through their bar exams.

So what we need to do is be very clear on what the tests show, be very clear in indicating that correlation does not prove causation, etc.

In the section above I've started, incrementally, to outline what the reader needs to understand about [races] when somebody claims that some [race] does well or does poorly in IQ tests. One of the things that such an arrangement of existing studies may make possible is cross-cultural comparisons of the performance of members of the same [race] on "culturally neutral IQ exams" when the people tested have grown up under different cultural backgrounds and educational systems. For instance, how do "black father white mother" and "white father black mother" children test when they grew up in South Africa, and how do they do when they grow up in France, Canada, the U.S.? We may have to leave a blank labeled "pending study" unless somebody has bothered to do the research.

It's "thinking" and it does not pertain to the actual subject of this article, but I for one would like a clearer picture of what happens to talented infants who are raised to maturity under severely adverse conditions. If black children do much worse than white children in U.S. schools, and if those differences cannot be correlated to specific alleles, then what do the facts have to say about the U.S. as an environment for rearing children? P0M 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm satistified personally that the brain size correlations account for almost all of it. The groups with the highest average size brains have the highest IQ scores. Also, just so you know, Germans have an average IQ of 106 by some reports[13] which may be the highest in the world. It's no more reasonable to lump all whites together than all asians. That doesn't say much about individuals of course. There are at least two alleles in haplogroup K [here I meant F but K is a similar situation and descendent of F] associated with larger brains, which seem to have appeared with art and civilization in that population [14]. This is not to mention countless other factors in someone's performance, such as genetic emotional predilections and of course culture and environment, all of which may contribute to creativity tangentally from intelligence. Haplogroup K is resonsible for virtually all of science, philosophy, technology and art; I don't think it's a coincidence - they are more evolved people. To discount the role of genetics in human behavior is to disregard the overwhelming body of science that supports it and in my opinion is to be the proverbial ostrich with his head in the ground hiding from the world. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the studies that discuss haplogroup K? Are there global frequency maps? P0M 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To put anything in this article we need studies that do two things: (1) explain clearly how they are defining "race", and (2) make predictions regarding the average g scores to be expected from members of the [races] they are reporting on. What Fourdee mentions does not necessarily involve any account of [race].P0M 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Race can mean both ethnicity and one of the anthropological categories, and other things. I think it is within the purview of this article, rather than having a separate ethnicity article, to mention ethnic groups, and also to mention haplogroups, as both of those relate to certain uses of the term "race". What's significant about the above alleles for this article is that the researchers say they are lacking to a substantial degree in sub-saharan africans. It is not important for this article to define race precisely. If a researcher uses a common racial term and broad-based statistics relating to it, it's safe to assume both he and the reader understand what he is refering to. That's my take anyway. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing to understand about brain volume and IQ is that having a big head does not make one intelligent. It is more the other way round people who are intelligent tend to have relatively larger brains. If you measured the IQ of everyone with a big head you will not find anything out of the ordinary. Brain size and intelligence have a correlation of 40%. My statistics is rusty but I think this means that if you had two groups one with small heads and one with big heads then 10% of the small headed group would be geniuses and 14% of the large headed group would be geniuses. Which interpreted means it helps to have a larger brain but often it is not necessary. Also The correlation between skull size and brain volume is not perfect. The amount of Gray matter is critical, having a large brain with little gray matter may not convey any advantages. Also brain convolutions contribute. So it is quality versus quantity. In any case brains have been shrinking, the Neanderthals had larger brains than most humans and Humans had larger brains 50000 years ago then they do today. Muntuwandi 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say a bigger brain made a person intelligent. I said the ethnic groups with the largest average brain size also have the highest average IQ. Any individual might have a small brain and a high IQ of course. However there is a valid generalization to be made about ethnic groups or races regarding this factor. As far as Neanderthals and brains shrinking - we are not descended from Neanderthals in any way, and primate brains are definitely growing. The difference with Neanderthal brains is probably a matter of their structure - like a man's brain versus a woman's. Certainly it is possible for different ethnic groups (or individuals) to have alleles for differing brain structures that might make one able to have a more compact brain than another with the same intelligence, but the tendancy in primates is for brain sizes to increase (both in absolute size and in relation to body size) as they evolve. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those two alleles you mention illustrate the history of racist thought in science. A few scientist find two alleles not found in African populations and they go on to proclaim that this is what makes europeans intelligent. Even going on to add that these alleles are responsible for the cave paintings at chauvet and lascaux with no proof whatsoever. This is why I believe in multiple intelligences because someone may have PHD and still come up with such nonsense, lacking moral intelligence. Recent studies show that these two alleles have no relation to IQ or brain size. Only their mutations cause abnormality. Yet some writers are going on about how these alleles increased brain power. When will such kind of thinking end. If someone ever finds a real gene and can reproduce results, then it will be acceptable to make a conclusion, not faking information. Muntuwandi 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the more recent studies? What's immoral about believing one race or ethnicity might be better in some way than another? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a natural instinct to believe that one's own race, clan, family or tribe is better. You will not find too many people who don't. Just as anyone can look in the mirror and convince themselves that they are handsome or beautiful. Egocentrism or narcissism is a part of human nature.

“

Almost any society can find a good reason to consider itself predominant, at least in a particular activity. A simple claim to competence in any sphere—be it painting, football, chess, or cooking—is often sufficient to imbue a people with exaggerated importance.

”

Cavalli-Sforza

The only problem is that objective scientific observation must be free from any bias.

• The ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM and Microcephalin is not explained by increased intelligence
• Normal variants of Microcephalin and ASPM do not account for brain size variability this article says

“

Although the role of recessive mutations of both of these genes in producing microcephaly is undisputed, our findings suggest that it is potentially misleading to refer to either of these genes as controlling, regulating or determining human brain size outside the context of the microcephalic state.

”

“

Our overall findings do not support a detectable association between the recent adaptive evolution of either ASPM or Microcephalin and changes in IQ. As we enter the post-genomic era, with the number of candidate loci underlying human evolution growing rapidly, our findings highlight the importance of direct experimental validation in elucidating their evolutionary role in shaping the human phenotype

”

.

[15]

These studies criticize those who jumped the gun proclaiming they had unlocked the key to European Superiority when in fact it was more like grade school guesswork. They had not done any studies linking these two alleles to intelligence. This is how scientists manipulate humans. They know that there are people out there who hunger to know that there is something special in there DNA and so the feed them with lies to boost their egos.Muntuwandi 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this section is "race and g". We are trying to decide how to talk about the intersection of [race] and g. So we need studies that define [race] in any of several ways (in any way that we can discover studies to cover) and that actually do science relating that definition of [race] and g. So if somebody says, "I define race by brain size. If someone has a brain volume greater than 1 liter, all things being equal, that person will have an IQ of 150±7, etc., etc," then we report that assertion. We can also report things like, "Researchers at the UN Mental Health Institute report being unable to repeating the studies reported above and getting the same results." But this article is not the place for airing our personal views on what the results should be showing.

That does not mean that we should avoid measures of intelligence other than g. We just need to chronicle them separately, that's all. It would really be interesting, for instance, if some of the old advertising copy that claimed that the best pearl selections were always made by Japanese people because other groups did not have the kind of "seeing eye" necessary for the job turned out to be true. P0M 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAD Citation Practice

Refer to the following sentence :

"The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences between individuals of the same race reflect (1) real, (2) functionally/socially significant, and (3) substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor."

The references from 59 to 67 repeat the following site citation : http://www.volkmar-weiss.de

Is it customary to repeat references from the same author FOUR TIMES in a row via a website (as opposed to the 'supposed' academic link?). This should be cut down. One reference to his website is all that is needed. The citation creates an undue impression of authoritative sources that back the associated assertion.

ConcernedScientist 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we move ahead

Based on the Venn diagrams I have placed above, the various theories of [race] and intelligence can be arranged as illustrated above. Notice the large numbers of question marks. There may be studies to fill these areas in. My impression is that there is a lot of heat and smoke but not very much fire in this area. If there is a connection between genetics and intelligence then there should be studies that defined [race] by actual determination of haplotype or haplogroup membership, measure a statistically significant sample for IQ, and then see how well one can estimate the intelligence of individuals on the basis of their haplogroup membership alone. What are the best studies in each category?

("Clusters of allele clusters" is not a typo. I didn't want to take up space to define haplotype is allele cluster and haplogroup as clusters of haplotypes.) P0M 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me, but the clinal definition of "race" should at least incorporate the biogeographical range notion, don't you think?--Ramdrake 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Isogenic curves extend beyond geographical boundaries. The characteristics of people on the two sides of the Bering Strait, for instance, are continuous. Geography is at least partially involved in causing clinal variations. (The other factor appears to be large-scale migrations that can swamp environmental factors when, e.g., huge numbers of white people move to Australia or S. Africa.)

I'm not sure that there are any studies of intelligence that define [race] in terms of clines. If there are, then we need to report their existence, their success rate if known, critiques if known, etc. If there are studies that take clines x geographical features, then we need to do the same thing for them. One of the problems would be where to put this kind of a hybrid, since bees are either in North-west Africa or they are in Cyprus, and even though one might trace a series of clines (for different characteristics like tongue length, abdomen color, etc.) between them once you throw in geography and look at Italian bees and N.W. African bees you make it seem that they are "entirely different." So you get an odd "hybrid" of chart 1, divisions ala Linnaeus, and a series of charts (one for each characteristic) of type two (clinal, fuzzy boundaries). One of the things that happens is that if you pick your geographical boundaries narrow enough you can reduce a clinal picture to a discrete picture. For instance, if one geographical area is Cyprus (pre-19th century to eliminate hybridization due to commercial beekeepers) and one area is the Sahara, then you find two kinds of bees that look totally different: mean yellow-black bees that forage within one mile or so of their hive in Cyrpus, and gentle gray bees that forage as far as five miles from home in the Sahara. You could very easily come up with a picture of bees falling into two camps "good and industrious" and "bad and opportunistic." But that stuff is probably all academic. Where are the studies of intelligence x clines? ("The closer you get to the center of the world in China the smarter the people are," or something like that.)

On another subject, please remember what Futurebird said above: "We need to be careful about using papers that say that race is valid for biomedical research as supporters of race categories as valid for intelligence research." She is absolutely right. If any studies used that kind of reasoning I doubt that they would pass peer review. P0M 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence already present

One of the sources Futurebird listed as defining race and then relating it to intelligence was Matt Riese's "The Biological Meaning of 'Race'". That article does not have much to say about intelligence other than presenting references to two or three studies/articles that claim to refute The Bell Curve. It's a good general article, but it is a secondary source and therefore can't be meaningfully cited. P0M 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Another of the sources listed by Futurebird has lots more of use in it, and the citations to that article should be mined. It's "The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy" by Suzuki et al. P0M 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A third source Futurebird brought to our attention is "Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race," by Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley of Virginia Commonwealth University Institute of Medicine. A sample quotation:

The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all three counts— that is, they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful.

Assuming that they did not dare to publish something without evidence, their article (and its references) appear to be well worth mining. P0M 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity and definitions

IQ and intelligence are not inter-changeable terms. Both require definition. Race and ethnicity require careful definition. What each scholar is presenting must be carefully described, including the particular subsets of population studied. The audience must be considered. This article must be understood by elementary and high school students as well as post-docs, which further requires that all terms be clearly defined. This purports to be an encyclopedia, not an academic journal in a rarefied field. Conclusions drawn from any study should be carefully avoided as they would quickly bring the article content to the skewed distortion that exists now: a man named Murray who admits he knows nothing about the study of intelligence and has certainly done no studies himself in the field -- is quoted extensively in the existing article, and one must ask, toward what end? Skywriter 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you when you say, "Conclusions drawn from any study should be carefully avoided." If we report a study, what is the point of it if we do not report the conclusion that the study provides its readers? Did you possibly mean to say that we should avoid going beyond what any article says to draw further conclusions from it?

One of the reasons that I have argued that we must think in order to write a good article is that if we do not think then everybody who has a published book or article on the subject of "race and intelligence" is equally worthy of note. Murray's work is a secondary source, and we should be able to find better evidence. P0M 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment re: "Conclusions drawn..." was directed to this fact only --the soundness of Herrnstein's basic work was not questioned, only the conclusions drawn by Murray to serve his own ideological ends, which unfortunately reflect on both as they co-authored the controversial Bell Curve. The controversy concerns Murray's "conclusions" that there is no point in improving the quality of schools attended by African Americans as it will be toward no useful end.

That some particular group of kids are doing better than another group of kids on particular tests-- there is obviously no problem with reporting those results. It is when social prescriptions are drawn about large swaths of humanity, based on the results of tests that could be or are culturally biased-- that's when the drawing of conclusions is objectionable. These are not my views. They originate with people writing in the field-- beginning with the decade-old APA report, the results of which were misrepresented by the website http://www.lrainc.com/ which this article had been citing but no longer is. lrainc dot com framed the APA report in such a way to cause casual readers to believe that the content of the APA report supported the radical claims of the folks who write for lrainc.com --- when the opposite is true. Skywriter 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

March 27, 2006 "Germans are brainiest (but at least we're smarter than the French)" By Helen Nugent http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article697134.ece is an absurd bit of pop culture opinion that fits not at all into an article called Race and Intelligence. The person who proposed its inclusion should be prepared to define the differences-- and at what times in history-- between each of the European countries. It should also be shown that the studies are of what they claim to study. What, for example, is to be said of the people in Alsace-Lorraine. Are they of higher or lower intelligence depending on whether under French or German control?

The issues with Richard Lynn's work have been oft-raised and is is surprising that anyone continues to put them forward with any seriousness. Lynn is not published in peer-reviewed journals. He publishes in Mankind Quarterly, a publication with an infamous history.

Fourdee, your ancestors are African and mine are too. Important science is pouring out of the human genome projects that bears directly on the definition of race.[16] As blogger Andrew Sullivan observes, "You can submit an anonymous sample via cheek swab and get your own ancestor's migratory route out of Africa - yes, it's all non-profit and for scientific research."[17] Skywriter 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's find the good stuff and edit out the drivel. The second source already suggested by Futurebird is penetratingly written by people with real academic qualifications and who provide good bibliography. P0M 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top to middle

I have gone back over the part from the top to the passage that Skywriter called attention to on 11 June. There were a couple of points in the top part where [race] is reified (hypostatized), and a couple of places that need better evidence. On the whole, that part of the article looks o.k. to me.

The critique of Skywriter is still appropriate. At the point that the article tries to get down to brass tacks it seems to me to pierce the hull causing the ship to sink.

I've found some good articles that actually define [race] in some unambiguous way and then have something to say about how such [races] correlate with "intelligence," "IQ," etc. But these articles do not support the idea that knowing somebody's [race] tells you about his/her intelligence. So where are the articles/books on the other side of this dispute? I've seen some things that go as far as saying that it is plausible that a connection might be found. Beyond that, what do we actually have? Murray and ideas of "self-identified race"? Let's list the evidence, cite the sources. P0M 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Two important issues, define race and define intelligence. Is intelligence g or is it more than G. Jared Diamond controversially says that new guineans are on average more intelligent than westerners because western children spend a lot of time being passively entertained by TV, video games and iphones. Whereas new guinean children have no electroncs, so they spend time actively involved by playing or speaking with other children and adults. He also says New Guineans would obviously tend to perform poorly at tasks that westerners have been trained to perform since childhood. which means we do not expect a stone age New Guinean to perform well on an IQ test. But then is he dumb. What value is an IQ of 160 in the jungle. How would being able to calculate pi to a thousand places help a stone age hunter track and hunt wild pigs. Therefore such societies do not invest the time and energy in pursuit of academic knowledge. But in western society such skills are advantageous and could result in a better quality of life hence people do invest in improving IQ

“

My perspective on this controversy comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonably suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. Of course, New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not. Hence when unschooled New Guineans from remote villages visit towns, they look stupid to Westerners. Conversely, I am constantly aware of how stupid I look to New Guineans when I'm with them in the jungle, displaying my incompetence at simple tasks (such as following a jungle trail or erecting a shelter) at which New Guineans have been trained since childhood and I have not.

”

Thus a review of the debate of whether g is intelligence or not should be included.Muntuwandi 03:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing references

I do not understand references such as the following, and suspect ordinary readers also would not. What does a bracketed noinclude mean as is found in the following?

1. ^ Wilson et al. 2001 , Cooper et al. 2003 (given in Bamshad et al. 2004's summary, p.599)
2. ^ Schwartz 2001, Stephens 2003 (given in Bamshad et al. 2004's summary, p. 599)

If at all possible, it would be best to include complete references on same page as the article. I concede that the literature is vast, and that is exactly the reason summaries would be useful. I support the effort by by POM, Futurebird and Ramdrake to assess who has done the most important work on topic and to summarize it.

I find Ullica Segerstrale's Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond useful in providing back story and interviews with the titans of the race/intelligence debates that this article struggles with. She reveals how and why this was a battle Nobel Laureate Salvador Luria could easily have joined but wisely stayed out of. Stephen Jay Gould and Dick Lewontin do not come off so well.

Defenders of the Truth offers a way to sort out what and when key people in the field said, what they proved and did not prove, and what they believed but did not prove. She provides extensive documentation and delves into motivation, while offering insights/examples into why particular scientists hold the political beliefs that they do, and how those political beliefs either influence or do not influence what they say about race and intelligence. She explores how qualified each of them are to comment, and discusses provable errors made by each. (Luria's explanation of why he stayed out of the fight is telling.) She also provides useful history on IQ tests and immigrants in early 20th century.

I'd say more on Segerstrale but am compelled to stand in IPhone line. Skywriter 05:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bracketed "no-include": I assume that it's something that either comes from standard HTML code or that whoever wrote it thought would work within the context of Wikipedia. Generally a bracketed command is given once at the beginning and then repeated at the end of whatever it is but with the addition of a "slash." I don't know where special stuff like this gets explained. (I've picked up a few tricks by delving into pages where the tricks have been employed, but I've never seen this one before.) Is there some web guru on this Wikipedia that can answer such questions? P0M 07:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, it seems not to be visible here, although it was visible in the original context if I remember correctly. P0M 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

bracketed noinclude is present in the underlying code and does not appear in the public view. Here is a discussion of its intent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noinclude#Noinclude_and_includeonly and here's an example of its use-- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_19%2C_2003&action=edit

References are pointers to documents or books. In the examples from this article (given above) the pointer to the referenced item is not made clear and I believe that is a reader disservice. Skywriter 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Race and Intelligence, and Intent of Majority of Subject Scholars

It would be useful to the reader to separate fringe opinions that have no mainstream scholarly credibility. These links begin to do that.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998)

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence (adopted December 1994)

Skywriter 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be too early to try bringing order out of chaos in the article, but couldn't we use a sort of sandbox page to work things out in outline, report on major results (go to this article for that conclusion, etc.). Let's try:

sandbox for assertions and results

P0M 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a sandbox is that the discussion would be disassociated from the article. Is it not important for the genealogy of the article to be findable in the archive?Skywriter 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to sandbox if it remains attached to this article. Skywriter 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of how difficult it is to maintain structure when we are trying to find somewhere to tuck all the evidence. I sketched something out for the sandbox, which ought to be cut back as soon as people see what kind of citations I'm trying to get laid out for each section. I think discussion ought to occur here, but if we find a good citation (e.g., somebody has actually done genetic studies and grouped people by haplogroups and then has averaged their IQs) it ought to go onto the other page so when the last month's stuff here gets archived we can still find it. Such a page is no different from an archive by category, no? P0M 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the sandbox is a good idea.Muntuwandi 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What weight Rushton and his Pioneer Fund?

Viewing the source code, Rushton is named or cited 15 times in this article, excessive in light of the fact that he is not mainstream and represents only an extremely narrow fringe viewpoint. His university has punished him for unethical research methods.

This reply to a letter in The New York Review of Books (Volume 42, Number 5 · March 23, 1995) [18] by Charles Lane who covers SCOTUS for the Washington Post and is the former editor of The New Republic, summarized Rushton's ethical difficulties, and what Lane reported is unchallenged in the NYRB archive. Lane wrote:

"As for Philippe Rushton, the record is clear. He has twice been formally reprimanded by the University of Western Ontario for conducting research on human subjects without first clearing the research with the appropriate ethics committees of the school.

"The first instance occurred in 1988. Rushton distributed a survey to first-year psychology students, asking such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate, according to students who took the survey and were later quoted in the Canadian press.

"The issue raised by Rushton's failure to get prior approval involved not politics, but fairness and the need for full disclosure to his student subjects. At Western Ontario, first-year psychology students are required by the department to participate in approved surveys as a condition of their studies. If they choose not to, they must write five research papers. Also, many students feel subtle pressure to participate in order not to offend professors who may later be grading their work. However, if a study is not approved these requirements do not apply at all.

"In other words, Rushton took advantage of students who didn't know that in the case of his study they had the option not to participate without incurring additional work. As punishment, the psychology department barred him from using students as research subjects for two years.

"The second instance also occurred in 1988. Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, paying 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians $5.00 each to answer questions about their sexual habits. For this, he was again formally reprimanded, this time by the University of Western Ontario administration itself, because he had failed to submit the project for approval by the university's ethics committee, as required for research projects off campus. This was "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," according to the university's president, George Pederson."

end of quoted text from Charles Lane.

So the upshot here is that if this article on Race and Intelligence intends to reflect Rushton's views on head and brain size, it should show how he links it to penis size and what mainstream scholars say about that. It should also state the circumstances of how he did his research.

The other issue is what people in my field refer to as "log rolling"-- if you give my book a nice review, I'll review yours even more effusively. In Rushton's case, that means his research is not peer-reviewed except by his co-author, Jensen, whom Rushton reviews. The circle is unbroken. However, when Rushton is reviewed by colleagues, even on his own faculty, his views are discredited for containing fatal error amounting to bad science. A link to one such example follows. This article by a clinical psychologist at the university where Rushton is tenured addresses the fallacies in his research.[19]

And, when his colleagues spoke to the student newspaper at the university where Rushton teaches [20], they mince no words in disassociating themselves from his discredited views.[21]

My recommendation is that Rushton be treated as an aside, representing a fringe viewpoint, if he appears in this article at all.

Skywriter 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What do ethics violations say about any facts he may have discovered? Those cases dealt with pre-approval by the university of his research. Anyway, you are absolutely incorrect, Rushton has been published in very very many respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. On the countrary, it is the counter claims that are based entirely in conjecture and opinion. This article will not be gutted. We are reporting plain facts. Maybe you should attack biology articles that roughly correlate relative brain size with the intelligence of a species. Sea cucumbers are as intelligent as Germans and Koreans! We just don't understand their intelligence and don't give them enough opportunity to excel! If we took from the Germans and gave to the sea cucumbers, sea cucumbers would be just as good some day! -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is more like "Rushton and intelligence". Muntuwandi 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to list other individuals who have done primary research on "race and intelligence"? Right now what I have is Herrington and Murray in 1994 and Rushton in 1995. P0M 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the signatories of the statement published by Gottfredson in the Wall Street Journal; there's about 50 of them. Also, off the top of my head, I can think of: Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, Ulric Neisser as having all touched on the subject. Fortunately, they don't all have the same viewpoint. ;)--Ramdrake 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of Richard Lynn before. Did he do research or did he just support others?

I guess Jensen has published, right? Do we have a biblio somewhere?

Gottfredson has written a fair amount. I think she had something to do with the four-peaked bell curve diagram used on this article at one time.

Ulric Neisser is a geneticist? An expert at constructing and evaluating IQ tests? I've never heard of him.

Thanks for the leads. P0M 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to start with the bio article that each has here on Wikipedia. Ulric Neisser is a psychologist, as are most of these folks (I would call most of them psychometricians, to be more precise). It should be noted that for both Lynn and Rushton, a significant amount of their "research" has been based on reinterpreting the data of others to fit their theories. While not first-hand research, it still is research.--Ramdrake 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This illustrates the problem that exists with the article. Maybe there should be a separate article that deals with just the studies of rushton murray jensen and co. Muntuwandi 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a content fork. Perhaps it would be more constructive to introduce some scientific (not sociological or speculative) counter-citations. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Fourdee there.--Ramdrake 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be quite an improvement just to note whether they used self-identified "race" or whatever, and what the success rate is on predictions that follow from their theories. Critiques would follow according to the scheme I gave above. The sandbox is available (see the link above) if anybody has any outline stuff to stub in. Let's just put in references at first, rather than trying to write about it. P0M 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They have used a variety of schemes. Self-identification was boviously the criterion of choice for all American studies. Non-American studies also used other, different criteria (would have to look it up).--Ramdrake 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing is all the studies of rushton , jensen, murray etc all have similar themes, that Asians are the most intelligent, narrowly followed by whites and then lastly come blacks with a huge gap between blacks and whites. So since their studies are all so similar they could be lumped in one article. They however do not represent mainstream views, so giving them space in the article appears to give them credibility as mainstream scholars.Muntuwandi 11:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Two problems here:

1. These folks represent about 90% of the modern "race and intelligence research" of the last 40 years and altogether, possibly around 200 peer-reviewed, published papers in mainstream scientific journals (some better-known and some lesser-known). We just can't pretend this slate of several dozen scientists published a single paper in their combined careers: that would be a gross misrepresentation of the real world, and a grievous POV issue.
2. Besides them, there are very few if any scholars in the "race and intelligence" field of research (I suspect mostly because most scholars in adjoining fields do not take very seriously the notion of a "race and intelligence field" but I can't prove it.) That means that in the specific field of "race and intelligence research", uncomfortably enough, they are the mainstream. To get scholars who refute their theories, you have to go out to fields like anthropology, psychology, biology, etc. The 2001 Lieberman article "How Caucasoids got such large crania and why they shrunk: From Morton to Rushton" is a good place to start for a primer in deconstructing their theories (Lieberman is an anthropologist, for those who didn't know).

Welll, hope all this helps.--Ramdrake 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the thing is even if these scholars have published 90% of the work, officially their studies are not recognized. If they were, government for example would have instituted policies or laws based on them. But at present there are no laws that take into account race and IQ. In fact in most countries there are no laws that take race into account anymore. As you mentioned the race and intelligence field is not taken seriously in the academic world. So I would propose lumping these studies in an article like "race and intelligence controversial studies". And then in this article should contain more of the philosophical points drawn from the other disciplines mentioned such as anthropology psychology and biology.

The question that scientists are asking is whether the brain continues to evolve or whether the bulk of brain evolution took place 50,000 years ago when modern man came into being. according to the theory of Punctuated equilibrium , evolution takes place quickly in short periods followed by stasis. Thus some believe that the human brain is in a period of stasis and is currently fully exploiting the changes that took place 50000 years ago.

Others believe that brain evolution never stopped and continues to this present day. These theorists believe that the rise of modern civilizations in the last 10000 years was as a result of brain changes. Hence those populations that did not give rise to any such civilizations have not evolved the necessary brain changes required.

Such arguments give background to the current situation. I would find that more informative than the professors who go to a black ghetto to give IQ tests and then go to a white suburb to do the same and then proclaim that blacks are less intelligent than whites genetically. Its not that simple.Muntuwandi 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you're proposing (segregating the research in its own article) is a POV fork, and not allowed at Wikipedia. We must deal with that information within the confines of the article. The other questions you are asking, in my view, would much better fit in an article on "the evolution of intelligence" (very promising subject), but it's not really the subject of this article, except maybe very tangentially. And just one more thing, the studies of the likes of the Pioneer Fundies are recognized, just not accepted. Please remember that these are also world-reknowned specialists in their own rights, and recognized as such. The fact that their theories haven't gained much acceptance (and I pray they never will!) is a separate matter altogether. Sorry if I look like I'm playing in nuances (I really am), but this is an area where we must tread lightly if we want to achieve accurate NPOV.--Ramdrake 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Renown or notorious, Ramdrake? [22]"Quick definitions (renown)# noun the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed"

This article showcases the heroes of David Duke[23] and the neonazi Stormfront [24][25]

This article promotes: Rushton 23 times Lynn 23 times Jensen 23 times Murray 15 times(despite zero expertise wed to opinion) Gottfried 9 times Herrnstein 9 times Shockley 3 times Flynn 4 times Gould 4 times Lewontin 2 times

Tucker, who has written two books on the Pioneer Fund is not mentioned, not even once, yet Rushton (head of the eugenicist Pioneer Fund and primary recipient of its funding) shows up 15 times. The argument in this thread above-- that this article should ignore Rushton's ethical lapses and his abuse of students-- demonstrates thinking without standards, which is different from the concept of low ethical standards.

Gardner who directly counters Gottfried is mentioned twice, once as an afterthought and the second reference in the off-topic "savant syndrome" section.

Taking Sides: Psychological Issues ISBN 0073545589 presents current controversial issues in debate-style format .In the winter of 1998, reproduced in the referenced book, both Gardner and Gottfried's views are treated in a point, counterpoint fashion. Yet, in this Wikipedia article, Gottfried's views are heavily represented and Gardner is mentioned, once as an afterthought, and then off topic. So Gottfried's views are explored here, and Gardner's all but ignored. (One reason for this is that Rushton and Gottfried have larger megaphones. This does not impress the academy but obviously impresses some Wikipedia editors.) : Should Psychology Adopt a Theory of Multiple Intelligences?

YES: Howard Gardner, from “A Multiplicity of Intelligences,” Scientific American Presents (Winter 1998)

NO: Linda S. Gottfredson, from “The General Intelligence Factor,” Scientific American Presents (Winter 1998)

Psychologist Howard Gardner argues that humans are better understood as having eight or nine different kinds of  : intelligence rather than as having one general intelligence. Psychologist Linda S. Gottfredson contends that

despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence can be measured with IQ tests and is predictive : of success in life.

Antropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday of the University of Pennsylvania is mentioned not at all in this article, yet she has written on point.

• Sanday. "An Alternative Interpretation of the Relationship Between Heredity, Environment, Race and I.Q.", Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 54, No. 4, December 1972, pp. 25-54.
• Sanday. "On the Causes of I.Q. Differences Between Groups and Implications for Social Policy", Human Organization, Winter 1972, Vol. 31;411-424. Reprinted in Race and IQ, Ashley Montagu (ed.) Oxford University Press, New York, 1975, pp. 220-51.

This Wikipedia article does not define race in any meaningful sense, yet definitions are available from mainstream scholarship, e.g. the joint study and review of the literature of what race is -- discussed in an article by researchers from the Brazilian health department and the University of Michigan, Claudia Travassos and David R. Williams.[26]

So, there's no balance to this Wikipedia article. As it stands, it grinds an ideological axe, does not represent mainstream scholarship, and dwells heavily on the claims of the fringe eugenicist right and does not give equal weight to counter arguments. Skywriter 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What counter arguments are those? Why don't you introduce some good citations of scientists who have researched this and come up with different conclusions. No problem with that. Although I think you will have a hard time finding any sound science that supports the notion that heredity doesn't play a role in intelligence and other behaviors. Saying that stormfront.org cites the studies is not surprising and does not discredit the studies at all. After all, Hitler promoted animal rights and the Volkswagen beetle. Mussolini promoted that trains should run on time. This comes down to a painting of any belief in fundamental differences between ethnic groups or races as "racism" which means it might be "racist" just to discover a fact. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter has pointed out how frequently Rushton and co are mentioned. Why do they have a monopoly on this subject. All their views are similar, this is why I propose moving them to another article. I don't think it is a POV fork because currently this article is a POV fork. Pioneer funded scholars are disproportionately represented. The very fact that no government has implemented any policy based on their study is indicative that these studies are more in line with WP:FRINGE. They have not gained mainstream acceptance. Their disproportionate presence diminishes the credibility of this article.

With regard to the "evolution of intelligence" I think this area provides the context needed in understanding any differences in the populations. Once again measuring IQs of low income blacks and then measuring middle class whites and proclaiming there are genetic difference between the populations is precisely what the pioneer fund does. You could do the reverse and measure IQ at say Howard University and then measure the same at a trailer park and come up with some sort of hypothesis. But both these ignore context.

The issue of whether the brain stopped evolving 50000 years ago is largely what is at stake. For example Australians aboriginals and Melanesians may have been completely isolated from the rest of the world for maybe 40000 years, when humans left Africa. But the children of the Australians and Aboriginals and Melanesians can learn to read and write like any other children. This despite never having any culture of literacy in their 40000 years of existence in the south pacific. What this tells us is that the ability to read, write and do arithmetic was already embedded in the human brain 50000 years ago before they left Africa. By extension one could argue that all the abilities that took man to the moon, invent calculus, relativity etc were already embedded in humans before they left Africa. What this tells us is that many populations are not using the full potential of their brain power. This is simply the source of the differences in test scores.Muntuwandi 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to introduce more citations to this article. This material cannot be moved to another article, it belongs here. You misunderstand what a fork is, I think. Governments have not instituted policies based on any number of scientific studies, contested and uncontested; that's an absurd standard to use and apparently one of your own concoction. What policies would you suggest a government adopt? Ship them back to africa? Exterminate them? Anyway, these studies are widely published in peer-reviewed journals. These are in fact the mainstream science on this topic. Again, feel free to introduce properly cited counter-claims. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, looking at this article, I only see three citations of Rushton and that sort of material makes up only a small part of the entire article. Most of the article already seems to be the material you want presented. I really have zero idea what you are getting at. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Two more things come to mind. I believe reaction time has been correlated to IQ scores and also correlates to the groups with the highest average IQ. As to another of your points, being able to adopt a technology someone else has invented doesn't in any way indicate intelligence on par with the inventor. We all use computers, few of us could make one from a CPU and a blank circuit board, even fewer could make a CPU from transistors and capacitors, and almost none could invent the computer itself. Chimpanzees can learn sign language but it's highly unlikely that under any circumstances any one chimp (or even group of chimps) could invent a system that complex. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee we know that in truth there are very few true or pure inventors. Most inventors were actually improvers. They just improved upon a technology that was already in existence. The computer is the best example because there is no one inventor of the computer. Several people just made improvements to existing technologies. It started from gears, to the clock, to the enigma machine, and finally to computers. Very few or no inventor ever invented anything without borrowing some idea from someone else. Einstein could not have come up with relativity were it not for Newton. And Newton could not have invented calculus if the Arabs had not invented algebra before him. The arabs would not have invented algebra were it not for the Egyptian use of symbolism. And the egyptians originated in sub-saharan Africa.

Though Newton was very smart he could not invent relativity because for him to do so would have required technology that was unavailable to him at the time. Only when the technology to study atomic physics was developed could Einstein come up with relativity. The idea is that the environment that one lives in places limitations on what an individual or population can achieve, and not their IQ.Muntuwandi 22:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microcephalin

Fourdee do you still stand by your claims of the two alleles that conferred intelligence upon europeans.Muntuwandi 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report on sections 1-10 (sandbox)

Nobody has added anything systematically to the sandbox, so I will start importing sections here for discussion/correction. I think that all of the theories/accounts of [race] x measurements of IQ or assertions regarding IQ are going to be sparser than the following. At least Carolus Linnaeus was like Murray et al. in saying something that one can agree with or attempt to disprove.

Theory class	Researcher	Conclusions	Critiques
Discrete sets	Linnaeus	Hierarchy of intelligences	No discrete human groups
	Who?	?	?
Subspecies (Lineage1)	NULL	NULL	Scientific community (Templeton, et al.) denies human subspecies
Essentialist*	NULL	NULL	No traits absolutely limited or linked
Taxonomic (Marker traits x Place of origin)	NULL	NULL	Pragmatic value for G.B. law enforcement only.
Populations	?	?	?
DNA traits x Place of origin = lineage2 groups**	?	?	?
Clades	?	?	?
Haplogroups	?	?	?
Isogenic regions (based on some set of traits)	?	?	?
Vernacular English definition***	Herrnstein (a psychologist) & Murray ( a political scientist)	Intelligence correlates strongly with "race."	Races not defined. genetics implied. IQ, not intelligence, measured.
Distinguishable geographic populations = subspecies****	J. Philippe Rushton (psychologist)	IQ of Asians > IQ of Europeans > IQ of Africans	No human subspecies, no discrete groups, testing validity?
IQ 80% determined by "genetics" -- "blacks," "whites,"...*****	Arthur R. Jensen (psychologist), H.J. Eysenck (psychologist)	IQ of whites > IQ of blacks	Evidence fabricated? Genetic factors can't be isolated by IQ tests.
Various geographical "slices" ******	Richard Lynn (psychologist)	Represents IQ as clinal by N-S and other regional dispositions	Evidence twisted? IQ as intelligence misinterpreted.
Traditional "races" *******	Linda S. Gottfredson (psychologist)	Supports Jensen and Rushton	Correlation does not prove causation.

* Somebody belongs to race X if s/he has traits a, b, c.... nn.

** Assumes that mtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA essentially "marks" people having reached genetic equilibrium who migrated to a relatively isolated place. The group can be viewed, metaphorically, as an asexually reproducing organism whose group characteristics are passed down very little changed from generation to generation.

*** Simply starts talking as though "whites," "blacks," etc. have undisputed, common meanings. Then on p. 272 he says, "Thus we will eventually comment on cognitive differences among races as they might derive from genetic differences, telling a story that is interesting but still riddled with more questions than answers....There are differences between races, and they are the rule, not the exception." He accepts IQ tests as accurate measures of intelligence.

**** See http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html.

***** See http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/othersrv/isar/archives2/billig/chapter2.htm

****** See http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html for a report based on http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1076641 (which you can pay to read).

*******\ See http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf "The newly popular assertion that races 'don’t exist' is a straw man (no one believes that racial groups are biologically distinct entities), which does nothing to nullify the evidence it would have us ignore. Appears to take the conventional "races" as a given. I think we are going to end up with a table full of "nulls", and a bulge when we get to theories that have fuzzy definitions of one kind or another for "race." P0M 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered that the table in the Race article is misleading. It may lead people to believe that Templeton claimed a human [race] that was defined by "lineage." Actually, as the quotation provided in http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/26/genetics/print.html indicates, he specifically rejected "race" as an appropriate term to apply to human beings. P0M 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The last parts are very rough. If I didn't get it right, please let me know. It's very interesting to me that in the last three groups the researchers seem to have very simplistic ideas about genetics and basically to just throw their ideas out very casually. Richard Lynn seems to have produced and/or assembled a substantial body of evidence, but there are questions about its validity and questions about how he goes from numerical test scores to assertions about the actual intelligence of individuals.

[edit] The fundamental issue with this article

There is an aspect of this article which I think is underexploited: it says right around the beginning that it is based on two controversial assumptions (not quoting exactly):

1. The biological meaningfulness and validity of race (by whatever definition)
2. That intelligence can be represented as a unitary, one-dimensional number

It fails to mention that if you don't accept both of these premises (and you guys have done a good job of demonstrating that either concept is anything but widely accepted), if you reject either one of these two concepts, then the concept of race and intelligence has no academic merit whatsoever (scientifically pre-empted?). The article goes on and on about all types of considerations when one accepts both these premises, but really fails to explain how short of a wide scientific acceptance these concepts are. That angle might be worth a spin.--Ramdrake 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent!

I fully agree. And that's why the bulge comes in where people use some quasi-discrete set definitions (you are Asian if you say you are Asian, and Native American if you say so), and simply say, "By 'intelligence' we mean IQ." There is actually some heuristic value to this approach to the extent that if you measure the average IQs of people who self-identify as white in Chicago and do the same for the people who self-identify as black then you can see that something bad is going on. You are measuring outcomes for a very complex process that culminates when two groups of individuals who have lived under different environmental conditions, suffered different kinds of social assaults, experienced different kinds of expectations, and have different kinds of genetic heritages (how different?), etc., go in to take the exact same kind of exam. Rather than saying that there is something about the genetic heritage that produces the different average scores, assuming that correlation implies causation, researchers ought to be concerned to learn what the heck is really causing large numbers of U.S. citizens to get bad outcomes.

If we put what you suggest up front, then that sets the correct context for understanding the kind of chart that I have started above. As far as I can see we're going to end up with little or nothing where somebody has pinned down a hypothesized genetic factor influencing intelligence and then has done IQ tests that control for other factors. Then if you're really scientifically motivated you start asking why Paul Simon (or was it Winton Marsalis?) has to go in for remedial rhythm classes when he tries to learn to do intricate rhythms-against-rhythms that he didn't grow up doing, and look for other kinds of mental processing abilities that are not tested in standard IQ tests. P0M 20:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Which supports Gardner's point of multiple ways to measnure intelligence, a viewpoint buried in this article as an after thought but that is the mainstream counterpoint to the eugenicist claims of Lynn, Rushton, Shockley, Jensen et al. Fourdee, I counted references in the page source (edit mode) to document the overwhelming eugenicist point of view pressed in this article. Because you argue without references or citations, we can safely ignore your claim, based on personal opinion, that the eugenicists represent anything mainstream, or that they primarily publish in mainstream journals. I linked to the mainstream view of the association of anthropology scholars earlier in this thread, and to individual anthropologists who condemn the eugenicist viewpoint. Ramdrake's point --that anyone disagreeing with either or both of the underlying assumptions that race and link are co-dependent-- is directly on point. Failure to define what is race is a confounding error, and the conflation of intelligence with I.Q. test scores is a logical error. The title and summary would be more honest if it pointed out that this article is about contemporary eugenicist claims that are fringe viewpoints. Skywriter 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter, while we agree on many, many points here, I think there has been enough exposure to the racialist ideas of the Pioneer Fundies in mainstream peer-reviewed journals that we can't qualify this kind of idea or research as "fringe"; it is extremely controversial, highly disputed and its validity is questioned by many. I just don't think we can aboslutely call it "fringe", because it has just too many followers, especially in the US and the UK. Otherwise, we are in agreement. I hope you can grasp the nuance I'm trying to make here. If you need more to be convinced, I can put together a list of peer-reviewed journal that Rushton and co publish in, which should dispel the notion of "fringe". AFAIK, they're dead wrong (I wouldn't say that in the article), but they're just too widely published to be called "fringe".--Ramdrake 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And "fringe" is the kind of emotion-laden wording we should avoid.P0M 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gathering the list of mainstream peer-reviewed articles would be helpful in the sense of separating them from the non-mainstream, which includes Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly where the board is made up of the choir. Articles in the mainstream are taken more seriously than those that appear in fringe journals where the board is made up of all white supremacists and no one but white supremacists sing in the choir. There is absoluely nothing wrong with the word fringe. It aptly describes non-mainstream and controversial. Rushton's name rarely arises in polite circles without the word "controversial" attached. White supremacist is definitely fringe. This is mainstream[27] Skywriter 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is peer-reviewed and there is genuinely peer-reviewed where peer reviewers are made up of respected psychologists, anthropologists or sociologists active in the field. The social sciences have long been fuzzy fields where questionable garbage occasionally arises. That is exactly because psychology is not a science. And, it is so soft a field that the people who added to this article are fooled into thinking Murray has anything beyond a big mouth-- that he has zero qualifications to judge intelligence, either his own or anyone else's, though I do give him credit for admitting he understands nothing about mathematics.Skywriter 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And "fringe" is the kind of emotion-laden wording we should avoid.P0M 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is mainstream and there is fringe. Both are useful words, not at all emotion-laden. If the opposite is true, please show how eugenics is mainstream and not fringe.Skywriter 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree that they are "fringe," but I also think we are making trouble for ourselves if we use the word. Which is more effective, calling Pol Pot a mass murderer or giving the actual number of lives he was responsible for ending? P0M 03:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick the thing is that even though Rushton and co have published peer reviewed articles, their philosophies have never been officially accepted by any mainstream government or institution. The official position of all governments that I know of is to ignore any issues of race and intelligence and concentrate on social issues. A government in Africa will never say according to Rushton we are mentally deficient genetically so instead let us go back to hunting and gathering. People do not take these studies seriously. Muntuwandi 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that governments do not have to accept theories in order for the theories to be respected and/or valid and internally consistent, I believe that Ramdrake's idea of listing the journals to take a look at which ones are listed in this article, will go a long way in evaluating the citation process. (Governments do a lot of stupid things and often move only by what lobbyists pay individual members. Skywriter 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no partisan in favor of any of these people. I think we should give precedence to the better studies, and report critiques of all that we mention. It is not true that "people" do not take these studies seriously simply because some people hold them in high regard. It may well be true that no people or few people who have any academic qualifications to evaluate their work hold them in high regard. And that's the part that has to be listed in the "critique" column. P0M 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are new to wikipedia and it does take some time to understand how this works. Endorsement by government is not a standard for a reliable source on wikipedia. Governments don't endorse the overwhelming majority of material on here. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undeniable that race is a meaningful construct to the overwhelming majority of people. To the average reader saying the Negroes have much lower average IQ scores than other groups is quite meaningful and valid. You may introduce more material to the article, which already raises the issues you indicate, but gutting the research is not acceptable. I think in fact it is safe to ignore the extremely convoluted original research you present here. You can't use conflicting research, or sociological or anthropological assertions or speculation to invalidate another piece of research on its premises and then exclude it from the article - that is original research on your part. You are not just reporting ideas, you are drawing and applying conclusions from them. If you have citations of criticisms of Rushton, please add them to the places where it would be relevant. Feel free to expand the sections which claim race is a social construct, or other sections which question any of the premises in this article. Rushton has been published in a great many peer-reviewed journals and has a number of other researchers supporting him. You cannot exclude him from the article.

Also, you are severely misusing the term "eugenics" which means to actively cull the less capable individuals or genes. Belief in a substantial genetic cause for behaviors is not only not "fringe", it is mainstream science (see the numerous twins studies etc.) - the question is whether any such genetic predilections are more common in any one ethnicity or race than another. I will be adding more material such as evidence that better reaction time is also correlated to higher IQ scores and to the groups with the highest average IQ scores. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of these were already reviewed in one or more of the other articles in this series. I see little point in duplicating that data here, if it is only to prop up the point.--Ramdrake 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh there goes fourdee again with fact-free POV-pushing. Thanks for the love letter you left on my Talk page, and also for making the statement above. We understand you are powerless to control your emotions. Folks on Stormfront and at American Renaissance welcome you with open arms. Your comments are as popular there as Rushton.[28]

I like you, fourdee. I really do. While science and evidence is absent in your claims, like Rushton, you don't do nuance and you certainly don't hide your emotions or your prejudice, fact-free as they are.

"The after dinner speech was delivered by Rushton, Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and currently the president of the Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937 for the “racial betterment” of the white race by funding spurious racial science projects dedicated to proving its genetic superiority. The Pioneer Fund has made a series of large financial grants to Taylor’s own New Century Foundation, the company behind American Renaissance. Rushton’s speech, replete with slides, on “New Research on Socio-biology” was dedicated to proving that IQ tests showed blacks to be genetically inferior to whites, though his imputation that on “average” Asians might have a higher IQ than whites left more than one diner at our table with a bitter taste in the mouth after an otherwise pleasant meal."[29] Skywriter 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It further occurred to me that eugenics is widely practiced in developed nations. Doctors routinely euthanize defective and diseased fetuses, and it may surprise you to know I don't necessarily agree with that (when taken to extremes) and that I also subscribe to theories of multiple intelligences, to an extent - you never know what hidden talent an apparently stupid person may have, or if an idiot savant might "save the world" or what traits may turn out to be beneficial in a practical sense. None of that addresses the matter of whether genetics can give a person an advantage in raw intellectual ability (as shown in reaction time, pattern recognition and spatial relations) - which is almost indisputable in light of twin and adoptee studies - and whether those advantages may cluster in certain ethnic or racial groups. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But then, one should definitely ask whether "reaction time, pattern recognition and spatial relations" is all there is to intelligence, especially for those who espouse the view of mutliple intelligence?--Ramdrake 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a further thought here, which maybe part of what makes this difficult: if "race and intelligence research" were its own little world, Rushton and some of his acolytes (Lynn, Gottfredson, for example) would stand out as bona fide world-renowned experts on the subject, considering they are authority figures in the field. So, if you stick to the belief that race is real, that intelligence can be summed up by a simple number (which is the way a number of lay people see things, as a matter of fact), then there can be little doubting the authority of the likes of Rushton on the issue. However, if you step back and question these fundamental beliefs, then the work of these scientists is open to more criticisms than you can point a stick at. What's more, it seems that most of those who want to work in the field share similar (racialist) opinions, which is logical when you take the time to think of it, so there are very few scientists indeed who specialize in this field and hold opinions contrary to Rushton and co. Therefore, nearly all the criticism comes from people outside the immediate field of study, thus one could perversely belittle the opinion of "non-experts" against the opinion of "experts". This is the false dichotomy that has plagued the article for years, and is still plaguing it by and large. We cannot do away with this problem by belittling the work of the racialists, or censoring it. The only way to make sense of this is to present the opinions of scientists from just outside the field, but that have appropriate knowledge to criticize the work of the racialist as equally valid as the racialists' work itself. In fact, one of the best way to deconstruct this (though we can't try that on the article itself) is to realize that many of the racialists are self-appointed experts (in that there isn't a program on race and intelligence that I'm aware of at any university) on race and intelligence, coming from fields related to either race or intelligence (as psychology and genetics). Just my tuppence; hope it helps some.User:Ramdrake 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. P0M 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, the following is not true:

...it seems that most of those who want to work in the field share similar (racialist) opinions, which is logical when you take the time to think of it, so there are very few scientists indeed who specialize in this field and hold opinions contrary to Rushton and co. Therefore, nearly all the criticism comes from people outside the immediate field of study...

Eugenicists have not been ignored. Their claims have been subject to vigorous discussion, and I have provided many links in the last week to opponents of the eugenicists who are not given equal time in this article if they are mentioned at all. Here is an entire book, published by Oxford University Press, with contributions by Nobel Laureate Salvador Luria[nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1969/luria-lecture.pdf] that carefully addresses the arguments of the eugenicsts, and yet it too is not even referenced in this article, and its arguments are not taken up.

Why is that?

I propose that we take the following book and do a point, counterpoint, as fairly as space allows, giving a paragraph or so to summarize each argument on each side.[30]

Race and IQ

Table of Contents 1. Introduction , Ashley Montagu 2. Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind , Th. Dobzansky and Ashley Montagu 3. The IQ Mythology , Ashley Montagu 4. The Debate Over Race: Thirty Years and Two Centuries Later , Leonard Lieberman, with Alice Littlefield and Larry T. Reynolds 5. What Can Biologists Solve? , S.E. Luria 6. The Magical Aura of the IQ , Jerome Kagan 7. An Examination of Jensen's Theory Concerning Educability, Heritability, and Population Differences , S. Biesheuvel 8. An Affluent Society's Excuses for Inequality: Developmental, Economic, and Educational , Edmund W. Gordon with Derek Green 9. Nature with Nurture; A Reinterpretation of the Evidence , Urie Brofenbrenner 10. Racist Arguments and IQ , Stephen Jay Gould 11. Intelligence, IQ, and Race , Ashley Montagu 12. On Creeping Jensenism , C. Loring Brace and Frank B. Livingstone 13. Race and Intelligence , Richard C. Lewontin 14. Heritability Analyses of IQ Scores: Science or Numerology? , David Layzer 15. On The Causes of IQ Differences Between Groups and Implications for Social Policy , Peggy R. Sanday 16. Race and IQ: The Genetic Background , W.F. Bodmer 17. Is Early Intervention Effective? Some Studies of Early Education in Familial and Extra-Familial Settings , Urie Brofenbrenner 18. Bad Science, Worse Politics , Alan Ryan 19. Behind the Curve , Leon J. Kamin 20. The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve , Charles Lane 21. "Science" in the Sevice of Racism , C. Loring Brace 22. How Heritability Misleads About Race , Ned Block [31]

It is useful to do a point/counterpoint based on what topical experts say because this respects Wikipedia standards and involves no original research. Skywriter 03:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that point/counterpoint isn't usually the favorite way to display arguments, as it tends to break down the "picture" of the argument. Rather, the preferred way is to explain both sides on a given subject, one whole section point, another counterpoint. Doing a point/counterpoint at the sentence level tends to make things more confusing.

As for the valid objections of other scientists, like I explained, this article was first built from the POV of "within" the "race and intelligence research scientists", where scientists working on either race or intelligence but not both are considered outsiders and given less weight/consideration, which forces a bias which is very hard to fight. The example you're giving, Salvador Luria, is a microbiologist, so his opinion would have been considered as that of an "outsider" by the original authors of the article. Please, understand that I'm not arguing here who's right or wrong; I'm just trying to explain to you how the article was written, and why it has this particular POV slant that has endured for so long.--Ramdrake 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest sentence by sentence point/counterpoint. One or two paragraph level would be readable, as is done in related article cited earlier.

The title of Montagu's book is Race and IQ. Correct me if I am missing your point but how does it get more insider than that? Five or six of those chapters answer the eugenicists directly. The edition was published in 2001 and speaks directly to The Bell Curve. The viewpoints of the anthropologists and psychologists who disagree with the eugenicist psychologists are left out of this article almost entirely, so, no I don't see what you are getting at. This article is slanted toward the eugenicists' viewpoint solely because opponents of the eugenicists have been left out, or added as an after thought. Their opposing viewpoints are found in Montague's Race and IQ." It is that simple.Skywriter 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And tell me again, please, what exactly is Charles Murray's expertise and what is he doing in this article? Thanks.Skywriter 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter, I'm not arguing this, just trying to explain how it came to be. As I said earlier, Luria is a microbiologist and Murray is a geneticist (in addition to being a policy maker). That explains why the former might not have been considered an expert on race and intelligence while the latter might have been. I'm not saying it's right; I'm just saying that's how it was originally thought up by someone else than me. Please don't shoot the messenger. :) --Ramdrake 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleaning up the article

That should be the starting point then. the question of whether race can be defined could be briefly mentioned since the full discussion should be on the Race article. Then the next question is whether total human intelligence can be summed up in one number. for those who think it can (rushton et al) their arguments would be summarized. those who think that it is too simplistic to give intelligence a number should also have an argument. I would propose short subsections with possibly 3-4 paragraphs for ease of readability. Muntuwandi 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello and Yes I think the actual questions are the important start of the issues. Getting more specific where do you think editing should focus now?Addisababa 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the first thing to point out is Ramdrake's observation that to work there has to be both a valid concept of [race] and a valid conception of [intelligence]. We don't need to draw any conclusions. Let the evidence speak for itself.

The Race article is in pretty good shape except for the section on Lineage. Unfortunately that part has stalled. There is also a problem with the "Lineage" definition in the chart because it turns out that Templeton really does mean "subspecies" and insists that it's Homo sapiens sapiens and that's the end of it, i.e., the idea of "human races" won't work. You can't really tell that for sure from the brief definition in the "taxo" box.

There is lots of criticisms of the "measurements" of intelligence, the most penetrating probably being that any measure that is not concordant with measures that are already accepted will simply be thrown out. So if white guys get high scores on measures A, B, C, and D, but crap out on E and F, then probably they would disallow E and F.

Another problem that seems to be clearly recognized is that I.Q. measures outcomes and infers potentials, and the inference is risky.

Even if somebody came up with a useful account of multiple intelligences, there would still be a question of whether all the relevant factors were present and how you weigh the measures against each other.

The problem is going to be how to present evidence to reflect the clearest understanding of what the field is and what the arguments of the field are -- without having our own POV and without engaging in original research.

I'm still working on the general outline of theories of [race] x the measurement of intelligence. I've been back over all the studies that have been brought up on this talk page that were claimed to have something to do with intelligence. I didn't find much. (See the sandbox page for what I've doped out so far.) It looks like it is all going to come down to those few names... P0M 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick hit the nail on the head on this: if we want the wars about this article to stop, we need to work a formulation which will be unobjectionable for both the racialist and the anti-racialist viewpoints. If we don't find something both sides can live with, the next group of racialist editors will come by this article and undo much of the work we do here, or worse restore it to the prior version. This is the main reason why we must avoid any kind of emotional display, tendentious editing or anything which can be construed as editorializing in the article. I know it's a lot to ask, but that's just how Wikipedia works anyway, and that's the price to pay if we want an article which will remain stable in the future. 'Nuff said!--Ramdrake 11:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning?

Ramdrake called attention to the idea of "biogeographical range," but the term has largely disappeared from the articles on [race]. (I remember complaining about it before when somebody just threw in "BGR" or something like that.) I've found places where it means "ancestry x ecological regions" or something like that. Is that what the word has meant in these "race" discussions? P0M 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I meant to convey here was that if one uses the clinal concept of human biodiversity, and says their definition of "races" is something close to that, then biogeographic ancestry (call it biogeographic range if you will) is a significant factor in a clinal definition of human biodiversity, nothing more esoteric.--Ramdrake 11:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand your point. If we draw a map of Africa and Eurasia and come up with a contiguous area in which the average measures of samples of some trait are all the same value ± some small value, then our expectation is that if somebody else goes out and randomly selects a random sample from that area it is unlikely that any one of the people sampled will fall outside that range and even more unlikely that the average of their values will fall outside that range. Whether the individuals we are looking at happen to be in Africa, in Asia, or in Europe would not have any saliency. The geography part would be relevant in graphing individuals who have value x of variable a and value y of variable b. "Average height over 6 feet AND skin reflectivity less than 10% is found in Africa, but not in the Netherlands or Lithuania." (I'm making that up, sort of, but you get the idea.) P0M 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We agree on this, of course, just like the old observation that if you go from Oslo to Nairobi the average color of people's skin will change from "white" to "black", but at no point during the journey will you be able to say "here, people stop being white and start being black", because it is a continuum spread over a geographical range. However, this does not contradict the fact that you can empirically say (the most basic definition of "race") that there are "black" people and "white" people and that these could ancestrally be found in different areas of the planet (until recent times, of course, when this has become much, much more relative). If we still don't understand each other, I'd rather drop the subject, as that's not really a vital observation I was trying to make.--Ramdrake 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about the existence of race is irrelevant

I'd like to address the false view that if race is not a biological meaningful and valid concept research on "Race" and IQ has no basis.

Most scholars agree that White people studying at universities have higher IQs than White high school drop-outs and this is the result of genetic differences. Yet no racial differences exist between these two groups.

Where do you get your data? I've been involved in university teaching since the late 60s, and this is the first time I've heard anybody express this kind of idea. I've also been involved in secondary education, and nobody said anything about genetics there, either. P0M 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[[32]] and [[33]] include numerous citations to relevant studies.

MoritzB 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the nature of racial differences genetically caused IQ differences may exist between some White and Black populations, also. It has been established in numerous studies that this is the case with American Blacks and Whites.

Nobody has been able to establish the genetic basis of intelligence. P0M 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. See this article again [[34]]

Discussion about that belongs to the talk page of that topic.

MoritzB 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

However, US Blacks are not a random sample. Their ancestors were captured into slavery and they migrated to America involuntarily. It is possible that they were selected in a negative correlation to IQ as members of the African tribal elite typically were not captured.

The African-Americans who survived the voyage from Africa and then survived the maltreatment of their white masters are the survivors. Surviving depends on stamina and intelligence. And what makes you think social elites are necessarily more intelligent than the people they are suppressing? Power comes from the barrel of a gun, as Mao taught his political cadres. P0M 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please support your claims about the stamina and intelligence of Africans. The relevance of social class is established in this very large study, for example: http://education.guardian.co.uk/policy/story/0,,1719124,00.html

MoritzB 12:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects I will remove the statement:

"Modern theories and research on race and intelligence are often grounded in two controversial assumptions: that the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry."

MoritzB 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Object in the strongest possible way. Your affirmation about what "most scholars believe" is highly debatable, and likely not true. The rest is pure conjecture, and doesn't explain how the subject of "race and intelligence" could still be valid if race isn't a valid biological construct, except if one is a racist.--Ramdrake 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most researchers do agree that genetics has a substantial role in determining the differences in the academic performance of individuals at least of the same race/family. Numerous

studies confirm that and this is also stated as a fact in the Wikipedia article on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Nature_Versus_Nurture_in_the_IQ_Debate

(It is true that the genetic attributes of White people at universities are not the only reason why their scores in IQ tests are better than those of their less educated

counterparts but it is a major reason)

The subject of "race and intelligence" is valid because it is a serious public concern why Black children aren't doing as well at school as Whites, for example.

The "Black race" can be understood as a social category for people predominantly of sub-Saharan African ancestry and this has no effect on the validity of the research.

There is no reason why the methodology in studies examining the average IQ of blacks or Ashkenazi Jews should be different. The average IQ of Ashkenazis exceeds the European mean

with one standard deviation and there is compelling evidence that this difference is largely genetical and a result of different selective pressures in the Jewish and Gentile

populations during European history.

It would be wrong to say that because the Jews are racially no different from other Europeans they cannot be genetically smarter. You make the same argument about Blacks and :Whites, Ramdrake. Why?MoritzB 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is illogical. One cannot be both "no different" and "smarter" at the same time. P0M 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am [b]not racially different[/b] from my sister but I can have higher IQ than my sister for genetical reasons. Jews are not systematically racially different from White Gentiles but they have been a distinct social group. Because of their status as a distinct social group different selective pressures have affected them and in some traits there are genetical differences between them and White Gentiles.

MoritzB 02:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Most researchers agree that genetics plays some role in IQ differences. How much of a role? The jury is still out. Some researchers say it isn't very significant (the differences have a mostly environmental origin), while some preach for a preponderance of genetic influences. Nobody really knows for sure.

Having an inconsistent or spurious definition of race (for people of mixed ancestry, how do you tell the difference) makes one unable to draw any conclusions on possible differences in IQ test results, since the groups are divided somewhat arbitrarily.

While according to IQ test results Ashkenazi Jews may perform better, nobody has been able so far to ascribe it to a genetic origin. It's all those unwarranted inferences and unsupported assumptions that are making the research invalid in the end.--Ramdrake 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Having an inconsistent or spurious definition of race" would be a methodological fault which would decrease the IQ gap observed in the study. If mixed people self-identifying as Black or White participate in the study the difference between the groups will be smaller. Are you claiming that there is a pro-Black bias in the studies?

The higher intelligence of Ashkenazis and the genetical reasons have been explained in this paper. http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Finally, you did not support your view that the studies examing the genetic differences in the cognitive ability of various human populations are baseless if "race does not exist". This claim is discredited by reputable scholars. It is self-evident that intelligence is a trait which may effect to the reproductive success of an individual and the importance of this trait has been different in various times and locations. At the moment people with low intelligence are more fertile in the West.

MoritzB 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming any bias, but your reasoning obviously makes an assumption you're not sharing with us, as there is no particular reason to say that differing definitions of race would affect the IQ gap in any systematic fashion; all evidence points to the effect being random (or at least that would be the logical first assumption). (Ramdrake)

What evidence? If race has "an inconsistent or spurious definition" the groups are divided arbitrarily meaning that there are people with minor Black ancestry in the White group and people with minor White ancestry in the Black group according to you. This would make any genetic differences between the groups have less effect. Since the present situation is that a gap in IQ between the races is measured in studies the gap would become smaller if people were divided into the groups reflecting their ancestry and genetic relatedness less accurately.

Thus, the claim that race is difficult to define does not support the egalitarian view that all large human populations (races) are equal in cognitive ability. In fact, it is an argument against it.MoritzB 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That race has several definitions, none of them having any particular biological meaning has no import on the cognitive ability of said "races" (whatever the meaning you choose).--Ramdrake 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulties understanding what I am talking about. If the Black and White subjects of a psychometrician study were divided to two groups randomly no difference in IQ would be observed between the groups. If they are divided into groups according to their "race" it is usually found that the average IQ of the group of Whites is higher. The common method of racial categorization based on physical features produces these results and shows that European ancestry is associated with higher intelligence.

Your claim that whatever the meaning race has would have no import on the cognitive ability of the races is false. If e.g. South Asians are included in the White group the average IQ of the group is lower.

MoritzB 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference you're supplying is but one study which makes such a claim. While a couple of studies have made that claim, I'm not aware that your particular explanation is widely accepted at all. (Ramdrake)

The point was that according to your logic there could not be genetic differences affecting IQ substantially between Jews and White Gentiles because Jews and White Gentiles belong to the same race. Genetic differences affecting IQ can exist between populations even if they are racially identical. Whether the Jews really have better genetics in this respect is a matter of another discussion.MoritzB 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is any racial difference in intelligence within the human species. For all I know, "races" is an arbitrary subset of human genetic diversity which happens to yield visible differences in physical aspect, and nothing more. I don't know that it has any special biological meaning. People would like to be able to trace every single aspect of human diversity to our genes, but I think that's more wishful thinking than reality.--Ramdrake 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about race needlessly obfuscates this issue. The question is simply whether certain social groups are genetically better endowed to intellectual feats.

Can you say that you don't believe that there are any differences in intelligence between different social groups within the human species? Are university professors and carpenters equally intelligent?

The fact that university professors are more intelligent can easily be confirmed with psychometric studies and this is also the case with Whites and Blacks.

The title of this article should continue to be "race and intelligence" because social groups like Blacks and Whites are said to be "races" in common speech. Granted, race may not be a useful term in the taxonomy of the human species but social groups like Blacks and Whites can still differ in some genetic characteristics including intellectual ability.

MoritzB 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If race is not a valid biological construct, but rather a social one, any study which seeks to establish a causal biological link (such as genetics) between the two is doomed to fail as race is biologically a non-entity. However, a study which looks for a sociological causal link might work even if race is in fact a sociological construct, if one accepts the theory that intelligence can be expressed as a single, unitary number.--Ramdrake 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if African Blacks are not a race it is self-evident that the allele frequency distribution varies between human populations. How can you be ignorant of the basic principle of population genetics? Human populations possess sets of different genetically determined traits typical of each population. For example, Blacks have dark skin and curly or woolly hair. Many scholars agree that there are genetic factors affecting IQ and it is scientifically perfectly possible that there are differences in these genetical attributes between populations.MoritzB 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is possible, granted, so far the "evidence" doesn't demonstrate any of that. For the most part, the genetics of intelligence (if genetics has a role indeed) escapes us still.--Ramdrake 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that you retract your objection. Substantial differences in the distribution of alleles affecting IQ are possible between human populations and this may be the reason of the poor social position of American Blacks which is the claim made by e.g. Herrnstein and Murray.

MoritzB 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been going over the Jensen, Rushton, et al. crowd, trying to see what the psychologists have to say about [race]. It seems that they all have rather naive ideas about the way successful alleles can take off and spread from place to place. They seem to think of collections of traits that are found together and will always stay together. So if there were two populations separated by distance and a mutation occurred in one of them, let's say among the Shan of S.E. Asia, then the more intelligent people would always be tall dark-skinned people. The way that intelligence would come to Indonesia would be by some Shan moving there and breeding more successfully than the indigenous population. They don't see the possibility that the children of a Shan and an Indonesian who inherited height and skin color attributes of either parent and the intelligence-enhancing mutation of the Shan side of the family could prosper more than their children who did not inherit the intelligence-enhancing mutation. Several generations later the Shan height and darkness traits might have attenuated and distant cousins who each carried one copy of that allele might have children who inherited two copies and then became even more successful.

Looking at the messes that some very intelligent people make of their lives it is easy to include that raw intelligence isn't everything, but in general it can make better physicians and more successful thieves and dictators. It's hard to see why the "intelligence allele" would not spread like the mutation that provides resistance to malaria has divorced itself from [racial] traits to spread to all areas that are troubled by malaria. P0M 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this issue from a slightly different perspective. Is genetics involved with intelligence? I think it has to be involved somehow. If it were not, we would not be more intelligent than chimpanzees, chimpanzees would not be more intelligent than lemurs, and so on. However, the whole back half of Cavalli-Sforza's thousand page book is composed of maps (geography x prevalance of some genetic trait), and all of them are different. That means that some trait like the ability to wiggle your ears does not exactly cover the same ground as any other trait such as ear wax texture. That fact strongly suggests that whatever locus (or, more likely, loci) on human chromosomes are causal factors where intelligence is concerned, those loci, the various alleles determined at those loci, will not map along with even one single other genetic trait. But when we are looking for a genetically defined [race], everybody says that a single trait is not enough. We have to define [race] as a haplotype or even go farther and define it as a haplogroup.

So let's say that [race] x is defined by possession of brown skin (the yellow blob), straight hair (the red blob), shovel-shaped incisors (the darker blue blob), and the epicanthic fold (the green blob). Race x is then represented by the intersection of all those regions, which I have colored black. (See the diagram above where I left the region showing all five colors.) To that we now add the hyper intelligence factor, GG, which is represented by the clear region. (Since it is clear, it lets the other colors show through except for where I have eliminated those who do not share in any of the haplotypes of [race] x.)

If one wants to know who is intelligent, one could go around measuring only the people in one [race], but that would systematically avoid the intelligent people in the other groups. The intelligent way of learning who is intelligent (by whatever standard you are interested in) is to go around measuring people for that characteristic.

There are a few problems with the chart I've provided (not the least of which is that it is entirely arbitrary). I've made the black blob fall mostly within the clear area. If we were looking at extremely high intelligence that clear area would be much smaller and much more of the black area would be on the outside. On the other hand, if the clear area represents all organisms that are smarter than a clever ourangutan, almost all Homo sapiens sapiens specimens would fit within the clear area.

Defining [race] this way can have some strange consequences. If there are too few genetic traits involved, people with many different outward characteristics get grouped together. We could even make the "intelligence alleles" part of a [race] definition. That could make people from all continents, people of all colors, part of the same [race]. If there are too many genetic traits involved, that could make siblings parts of two or more different [races].

So far nobody has helped me out by suggesting researchers who have defined "race" by anything other than some kind of rule of thumb (self-identification, etc.). Nor has anybody pointed to any studies that compare predictions of intelligence according to some theory with actual results. That is very strange. One of the interesting things about quantum theory is that weird though its picture of the Universe is, people have been making predictions on its basis, saying, "No, surely not! Nature would never manifest an irrational phenomenon like that." Then they do the experiment and find out that QM is right. But I haven't seen a single example of a real study like that for "race and intelligence." Look at the chart far above. It's filled with NULL and ? designations. And I haven't begun to find sources that go into the one category of [racial] categorization that I haven't charted. I guess I will have to dig into the middens and find my copy of The Bell Curve. Is there nobody involved with this article who can tolerate that book well enough to pull the data out? It makes me cringe the way R. Nixon's last book, at every step implicitly begging for his acceptance again as a great statesman and a decent man, did until I threw it away. (All right, I know that has nothing to do with the article. I just really don't want to have to read Murray's prose again.) P0M 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, I suspect that is because few racialist researchers are that thorough. They tend to take race as a self-evident given and merely use the data to prove their racialist theories. The only "predictive theory" that I'm aware of as having been made is the one about the intelligence and technology of the Asians increasing in the future based on Rushton's version of the r/K theory, but could we agree not to go there? I'm sure you know this, but this science is a lot more empirical and a lot less subject to quantification and predictive models than any branch of physics we know of, as it works out of correlations that in most other sciences would be considered too low to mention. I have come to the sad conclusion that most researchers that espouse racialist theories are far more interested in seeing their views confirmed than developing a coherent, predictive system out of their research (with the aforementioned notorious example above). I'd help out with the Bell Curve, but alas I don't have a copy anymore.--Ramdrake 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

P0M, while it's rather obivous that genetics is somehow involved in the difference of intelligence between species, the nature of its involvement if any in the intelligence differences within our own species is debatable. Just thought I'd add this precision.--Ramdrake 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

True. That point needs to be made in the article. It is possible that the factors that are responsible for brain structure are exactly the same for all humans (all in invariant loci, no alleles). My favorite teacher believed that all human beings are equally intelligent. If they are not equally intelligent, is that because of something that happens to them after conception? After birth? During primary school education? All of the above? As a society, we need to know these things. If we are truly equally intelligent at birth, then what horrible things have we been doing to the great majority of our citizens? We should all be Newtons. I have had experience with one 15 year old student who was more intelligent than I am, but he could not read at grade level (4th instead of 8th as I recall) and he didn't even know his multiplication tables. He learned to read and boosted his reading level to 8th grade over one summer vacation. Learning the multiplication tables wouldn't have taken him long if somebody had motivated him to do it. But in the state I found him he couldn't have done at all well on an IQ test because he couldn't read fast enough to even read the questions in the alloted time. P0M 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aparently their is a correlation between schizophrenia and genius[35] Muntuwandi 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As Ramdrake has not replied and apparently has no more objections I will remove the statement in question from the article. MoritzB 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgenic trends in the Black population

Currently, college-educated Black women have less children than college-educated White women in America. (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17614/pub_detail.asp)

This difference which has nothing to do with race means that if the trend continues the Black population becomes less intelligent with each passing generation. As intelligence is a genetically influenced trait and educational success correlates with IQ this is inevitable.

The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites may be the result of similar historical trends.

Relevant studies: Vining, D.R., 1982. On the possibility of a re-emergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials. Intelligence 6, pp. 241—264. Lynn, Richard; Van Court, Marilyn (2004). "New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States". Intelligence 32 (2): p.p. 193-201

I will add this information to the article if nobody objects.

MoritzB 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I object, MoritzB. If you read this page, you will see the discussion documenting that eugenicists such as Vining and Lynn are wildly over-represented in this article to the detriment of opposing viewpoints. Further, the drawing of your opinions from unrelated articles constitutes independent research and therefore violates Wikiepdia rules.Skywriter 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's creative interpretation from the Right Wing if I ever saw any. Here are the real numbers we're talking about

• Overall fertility for Black Women: 2.15 children
• Overall fertility for White Women: 2.01 children (the rates are similar)
• Fertility rate for college-educated Black Women: 1.5 children
• Fertility rate for college-educated White Women: 1.6 children

Here, the rates are purported to be dissimilar by the author of the article, but the statistical difference is the same. I think this purported "dysgenic" trend is overblown, because if one is fair, the consequence should be that Whites and Blacks will be getting dumber at about the same rate give or take a bit...

So, please get better evidence before introducing such misleading interpretation of facts into the article. The article misleads readers already enough as it is.--Ramdrake 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lynn's and van Court's study on the subject has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal Intelligence. The genotypic decline is measured to be 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only.

The paper is available here: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/evidence.html (Eugenics.net is Van Court's web site)

If you think the difference in fertility rates (1.5 vs. 1.6) is not relevant you are simply ignorant of statistical methodology.

MoritzB 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was that relevant, why did the author of this piece affirm that a fertility rate of 2.15 versus 2.01 wasn't a significant difference, but when it comes to 1.5 versus 1.6 it is then different?

The overall fertility of the ethnic groups has [b]no importance[/b] because it does not affect dysgenic trends within the populations. What are you trying to say?

MoritzB 10:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know the statistical import, but have you taken the time to calculate how many generations it would take for those trends (assuming they don't change) to significantly affect the current balance? Now, consider that these trends have formed in the last one or two generations and you'll see how farfetched it is to draw any conclusions from such small-scale, transitory (from a historical perspective) trending.--Ramdrake 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was simply making the point that the social positions of different ethnic groups may lead to different selection pressures for the trait "intelligence". Ashkenazi Jews are a good example as they were not allowed to own land in many countries and the occupations which were available to them were often IQ-intensive in Medieval Western Europe. Merchants benefited more from high IQ than farmers then. According to several studies members of the Ashkenazi ethnic group have a higher IQ than White Gentiles on average.

I mentioned the example of recent dysgenic trends among American Blacks to show that they not special in this regard and may evolve to be more or less intelligent than other ethnic groups. It is true that the recent dysgenic trends are not the cause of the IQ gap. Can we agree on the principle that there may be IQ differences of genetic origin between different ethnic groups?

MoritzB 10:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence is not a respected journal. It is the eugenicist choir singing to the eugenicist choir. It is well-documented that its board and reviewers all represent the same or similar extreme right wing viewpoints and the "peer review" part consists only of one board member reviewing another board member who in turn reviews the board member who initially reviewed his own writing, all with the unsurprising result that no one within the closed circle says anything critical of anyone else.Skywriter 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. Robert Sternberg who is the President of American Psychological Association sits on the editorial board of Intelligence. Sternberg denies the existence of human races and does not think that the IQ gap has a genetic origin. James Flynn is another member of the board who supports the environmental hypothesis. The scholars sitting on the board represent a wide range of scientific opinions.

Your unwarranted and ignorant accusations mean that you have lost all credibility in this discussion.

MoritzB 10:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moritz, you are obviously conflating hypotheses about the nature of the Black-White IQ gap, with hypotheses about the disparity of IQ within races; these are totally different. It would be totally illogical for anyone to not believe in the existence of human races and then to affirm that the Black-White (if you don't believe in races, what's Black and what's White?) IQ gap exists, let alone is genetic in nature. Besides, Sternberg's hypotheses talk about a triarchic theory of intelligence (to him, intelligence isn't unitary, another prerequisite of "race and intelligence research"), so unfortunately it looks like you're quite wide of the mark on this.

In the future, two things I'd like to remind you of:

• Please don't launch into personal attacks on the editors here, you'll get nowhere.
• Please don't interleave your comments within another person's comments. It is the written equivalent of cutting them off while they're speaking, and is considered very rude.

Thank you for your cooperation.--Ramdrake 11:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what Sternberg thinks. Skywriter's claims about the journal Intelligence were the issue. Skywriter claimed that the journal "is the eugenicist choir singing to the eugenicist choir and "it is well-documented that its board and reviewers all represent the same or similar extreme right wing viewpoints"

These are blatantly false statements and I pointed this out. Sternberg does not represent an "extreme right wing viewpoint" nor is he an eugenicist.

MoritzB 12:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While Skywriter's point may have been a bit off the mark, a very large proportion of the researchers sitting on the board of Intelligence are in fact funded by the Pioneer Fund, which has been accused of racalist views for decades. Fine, you can supply a counter-example stating that at least one of the board members doesn't share their position, but that doesn't change the fact that such exchanges are quite possible, due to the shared views of a lot of the members of the board.--Ramdrake 13:08, 5 July 2007

A list of the members of the editorial board can be found here: http://www.isironline.org/journal.html

Which of them do research funded by the Pioneer Fund? There are hereditarians in that board simply because a substantial part of the scientific community thinks that the gap is partly of genetic origin. This is confirmed by Snyderman's and Rothman's 1998 survey which showed that the view that the IQ gap is at least partially genetically caused has more support.

MoritzB 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)

But this basically indicates that high IQ is dysgenic. Having a lower IQ actually improves Darwinian fitness Muntuwandi 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the definition of dysgenics is: "The biological study of the factors producing degeneration in offspring, especially of a particular race or species." Although high IQ seems to lower the Darwinian fitness of an individual the society generally benefits more from people with high IQs. Dysgenics is not about decreasing Darwinian fitness but intelligence and other traits beneficial to the society.

Please cite the studies that says that "society benefits more from people with high IQs". In the long term, that doesn't seem obvious, if we see the destructiveness that high intelligence has permitted us to acquire towards our environment. So, yes, it is quite possible that in the long run, high IQ is dysgenic.--Ramdrake 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this APA Report high IQ improves school performance. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

Governments generally aim to improve the school performance of children as a general aim of educational policy. Better education is universally seen to improve the society.

Your last statement is also false. High IQ may be detrimental to the ecosystem and the survival of mankind but it is not dysgenic.

MoritzB 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, your citation of http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html is reprehensible as that is an adulterated version of the original, and http://www.lrainc.com promotes eugenicist. Skywriter 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to the full report is included in the sources of the article and supports the view that IQ tests predict school performance. http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf

MoritzB 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How can some evolutionary modification of a species be detrimental to the survival of a species and not be dysgenic? High IQ may improve school performance, but nobody says that improved school performance is an evolutionary fitness advantage, and some might argue the contrary. My main point though, which you have failed to address, is that one takes a local, transient population effect ( decreased natality rates) and blows it out of proportions to try to support the idea that Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites. Please, there is enough of this in the article already; no need to add to it--Ramdrake 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are disputing the idea that Black Americans may be less intelligent than White Americans. However, even if American Blacks and Whites were equally intelligent in 1980 Blacks would be now slightly less intelligent because of the difference in fertility trends. This is not the reason of the large IQ gap but scholars cite similar trends which have existed in history to explain it. The only assumption we need to make is that intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited trait. A lot of scholars believe so.

Thus, serious scholars do not ask whether there are genetical differences in the cognitive ability of different races but how large they are. This point should be made in the article.

MoritzB 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB-- stop trying to introduce your personal opinion and assumptions into this article as it is in violation of Wikipedia rules. This comment specifically refers to your saying this: The only assumption we need to make is that intelligence is at least partly genetically inherited trait. A lot of scholars believe so. Skywriter 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All the countries that score high with IQ are all going through a population recession, Japan and Germany are apparently on the verge of a population crisis because there are not enough young people to support the economy through pension contributions etc. The US is unique but it does not score highly on IQ and population growth is boosted by immigration. Whereas all the population growth in the 21st century will come from the third world. Thus it seems at present there is an inverse relationship between IQ and Darwinian fitness. Muntuwandi 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However, in the developing world high IQ may increase Darwinian fitness because of the absence of social security. At least Richard Lynn has that opinion. Since most of the population growth happens in the developing world it is possible that IQ still generally improves Darwinian fitness.

MoritzB 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

World historic populations

Year	1750	1800	1850	1900	1950	1999	2050	2150
World	791	978	1,262	1,650	2,521	5,978	8,909	9,746
Africa	106	107	111	133	221	767	1,766	2,308
Asia	502	635	809	947	1,402	3,634	5,268	5,561
Europe	163	203	276	408	547	729	628	517
LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean	16	24	38	74	167	511	809	912
NorthernAmerica	2	7	26	82	172	307	392	398
Oceania	2	2	2	6	13	30	46	51

World historic populations By Percentage distribution

Year	1750	1800	1850	1900	1950	1999	2050	2150
World	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Africa	13.4	10.9	8.8	8.1	8.8	12.8	19.8	23.7
Asia	63.5	64.9	64.1	57.4	55.6	60.8	59.1	57.1
Europe	20.6	20.8	21.9	24.7	21.7	12.2	7.0	5.3
Latin America and the Caribbean	2.0	2.5	3.0	4.5	6.6	8.5	9.1	9.4
NorthernAmerica	0.3	0.7	2.1	5.0	6.8	5.1	4.4	4.1
Oceania	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5

UN report Muntuwandi 23:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Newton is arguable the most gifted genius of our time. However he never married, never had any children, and by his own admission was a virgin throughout his whole life. The theory of multiple intelligences I guess[36].Muntuwandi 02:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is also true of Immanuel Kant. Do you have a point? Your comment about the theory of multiple intelligences was nonsense.

MoritzB 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

then why didn't newton have any children or a wife or a partner or adopt. though his contributions ot society are invaluable , his darwinian fitness was zero. Which means society cannot afford to have too many Isaac newtons otherwise there would be no humans left. Just a few are sufficient. Muntuwandi 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, does Pope Benedict XVI lack some kind of intelligence because he does not have a wife or children? Or is he too intelligent? Newton did not marry because it was his choice. You are ridiculous.

MoritzB 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB AKA "possible sockpuppet of someone", I will try to assume good faith but don't forget WP:CIVIL, or Troll (internet), if you are really interested making a constructive contribution to the article. Muntuwandi 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We don't know whether or not the Pope has children

Are you engaging in personal attack, MoritzB, i.e. You are ridiculous because you have failed to persuade anyone of your claims?Skywriter 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's claim that if there were too many highly intelligent people humans would be [b]extinct[/b] is ridiculous and makes him ridiculous. He apparently thinks that highly intelligent people are some kind of freaks who are unable to father children. Many highly intelligent people have had vibrant sex lives. An example is Bertrand Russell.

By the way, your comment "we don't know whether or not the Pope has children" is ridiculous. It is reasonable to presume that the Pope does not have children and this does not make him less intelligent. Even if the Pope had children this would tell nothing of his intelligence.

MoritzB 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the article, II

Thinking back over the history of debates on this article, particularly when RIK was very actively involved, most of the discussion was to the point that "traditional races" were validated by clustering of genetic traits. However, even people like Richard Lynn who seem to be trying to give as much respectable data as possible in regard to IQ tests do not seem to have any interest at looking at the question of what [races] are. They all seem to simply go with "what is obvious to everybody," or to go with geographical regions as surrogates for the [races] "that everybody recognizes." So all of the attempts of other researchers to define "race" in a careful and conscientious way are irrelevant to the work of the researchers who collect and rank IQ averages and assign them to [races].

If we take a soft focus approach we can see that a sort of photo composite of Europeans would look different from the composite pictures of Africans, East Asians, etc. And if we assume that there is a single thing called intelligence that can be reduced to a single number, and assume that there is a test that validly applies to each of the many cultures found scattered over the globe, then we can assign average g scores to each of the [races]. People easily overgeneralize. They quickly make a takeoff from "Students in Taiwan have a much higher average math score on their College Boards than do students from the U.S." (Actually, I think this is a true statement.) They almost might conclude that Cal Tech and MIT should be reserved for any students from that background, when the fact is that there is no telling how an individual will test out. Also, they easily assume that there is something about these students being East Asians that accounts for their high math scores, when, in fact, the math education given students in Taiwan (and places with similar educational systems) may be much different from that provided to students in the U.S.

The unstated assumption behind the work of those who study "race and intelligence" is that the [racial] traits hang together with the [intelligence] traits. What is the purpose, the utility, of accounts of "race and intelligence" if one cannot determine the [race] of an individual or group of individuals and know something about the educational potentials, life outcomes, etc. that depend on [intelligence]. There must be some practical reason for not simply giving an individual an IQ test, or an aptitude test suitable to a particular job, and for determining the individual's [race] instead. It is easier to look at a person and automatically assign him to the position of bus boy or waiter, cook or bottle washer, than to do the work of administering a test.

There is no question that tests are done on [racial] grounds and that results are found in terms of different IQ tests. There are some charts in the "Race and Intelligence" article to demonstrate this point, for instance.

So the real question that this article has to ask are, on level 1: (A) Is there an account of [race] that fulfills the implicit idea that a categorization by "marker traits" can correctly imply unseen and hard to measure traits? (If all people with blue eyes were immune to HIV, knowledge of that fact might have many practical advantages for public health services, hospital laboratory hiring, etc.) (B) Is there a measurement of intelligence that truly represents an individual's potential for learning and performance (and not simply represent outcomes that mix nature and nurture)? Our first job is to make these questions relevant and clear to readers.

On level 2 we need to survey the range of ways of categorizing people on an infraspecific level, and we need to show the ways that these systems have been criticized. We also need to survey the problematical aspects of intelligence testing. Some of the critiques of Lynn et al. are much clearer on this score than anything I've seen in Wikipedia articles so far.

On level 3 we need to examine the social uses that the research papers have been put to. One of the things of which I was unaware is how popular some of the "race and intelligence" people are with racist groups. Whether or not they intend to give comfort to the white supremacist groups, any research that says "Whites are better than blacks" appears to draw lots of positive attention. Eugenics is another area that receives support from some of the people I've listed in the big chart above, and some of the researchers give support to at least letting "inferior" groups die out quietly. P0M 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does the IQ gap validate racial discrimination?

Many people make the assumption that White people and Black people are equally qualified to a job or university admission if they have same relevant test scores (like IQ or SAT). According to a study by UNO prof. Edward Miller this is not the case.

Miller demonstrates that to obtain comparable performance, higher test scores are required of those belonging to low-scoring groups. This could be called reverse affirmative action.

Thus, regardless of whether the IQ gap is cultural or genetic employers or university presidents should favour White people in expense of equally or slightly better qualified Blacks if the aim is to optimize the performance or productivity. Black people should be hired or allowed admission only if they are much better qualified. Some people would call this racial discrimination, hence the title of this comment but this policy would actually mean equal opportunity to equally talented people.

Link to Miller's study: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_bayes.html A good discussion of it: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dct.htm

I will add this information to the "Utility of the research" section if nobody objects.

Please, enough already with the white supremacist crap. These two references from known racialist/racist blogs are anything but impartial.--Ramdrake 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor Miller's study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and posted to that web site with permission. (The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies)

If you disagree with Miller can you cite peer-reviewed sources supporting your view?

The topic "Race and Intelligence" is intimately linked with "racism" and discrimination. Thus, the study is very relevant and should be mentioned in this article.

MoritzB 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone already has white supremacist notions there isn't much that can be done to convince him or her otherwise. Best to let them be, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion right or wrong.Muntuwandi 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is somebody a Black Supremacist because he supports Affirmative Action in America? Your accusation is pointless.

MoritzB 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are New Guineans really genetically superior?

The article cites prof. Jared Diamond who states in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that "In mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners" due to that intelligence was likely selected for in hunter-gatherer New Guinea societies where the challenges were tribal warfare and food procurement, compared with high population density European civilizations where the major survival pressure was on genes for resisting epidemics.

Diamond might be surprised but the intelligence of New Guinean Aboriginals has been actually researched. McElwain and Kearney have arrived to the score of 85.

There is absolutely no evidence which supports Diamond's assertion and I will add a comment to the article to dispute Diamond's view. I would also be glad if Ramdrake and other environmentalists here explained what they think of Jared Diamond's claim.

Source: McElwain, D. W.& Kearney, G. E. (1973). Intellectual development. In Kearney, G. E., de Lacey, P. R. & Davidson, G. R. (Eds.). The Psychology of Aboriginal Australians (pp. 43-56). Sydney: John Willey and Sons Australasia Pty. Ltd. MoritzB 01:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Diamond is careful to hedge what he says with "probably." His argument is that the city environment protects individuals from mistakes (and laziness) that would kill them in the wild, but put individuals at risk of epidemic diseases that rarely attack people living in isolated places, whereas living in primitive and isolated communities puts one at risk of dying for any lapse of attention, any misinterpretation of a natural sign. Spending the first 20 years of one's life becoming a master tracker does not do much to improve one's reading and math. Just as one cannot take a crash course on "Surviving and thriving in the jungle" over the course of a year and end up being adept at life in the wilds of New Guinea, so too one cannot take a crash course in "verbal skills" and "mathematical skills" and catch up to the entering freshman who benefitted from private tutors and Andover. P0M 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Diamond says people whose parents were in the stone age now pilot airplanes and operate computers. Muntuwandi 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

you should watch living with the kombai in which two europeans go to live with a "primitive" stone age new guinean tribe without any western technology. The two european guys for the most part fail to contribute anything of significance to the kombai tribe, if anything they were a burden to them for most of the time[37]. Muntuwandi 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I am sure many modern Westerners would have difficulties living in primitive societies. However, I am disputing Diamond's claim that New Guinean Aboriginals are genetically superior in mental ability to Whites.

According to the study of McElwain et.al. Whites are more intelligent.

MoritzB 02:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

However at present there is no known evidence of genetic superiority because human beings are so much alike and most genetic diversity occurs within the so called races.Muntuwandi 02:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is even a Wikipedia article of Lewontin's Fallacy. Lewontin's 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.

See: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf MoritzB 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The key word is "hidden" which means neither does A. W. F. Edwards know what that correlation is or whether it even exists in the first place. Muntuwandi 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You simply do not understand Edwards's paper. Have you even read it? It includes a detailed discussion of the significance of the correlation structure. And as Henry Harpending says "humans are more, not less, differentiated than other large mammal species" and "human race differences may be increasing rapidly." http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2007/aapa2007abstracts.pdf

However, this should be discussed in [[38]]

MoritzB 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Human race differences cannot be increasing rapidly, what with all the miscegenation going on. Whole population in certain countries are mixed decreasing the genetic differences between so called races. Up to one third of whites in the US have at least one recent African American ancestor.

Scientists have just scratched the surface of the human genome, they have not even identified most of the genes that govern physical appearance. humans are the least differentiated of all primates consistent with a population bottleneck.watch the video

The claim about Black ancestry in 30% of European-Americans was based on Mark Shriver's faulty study. He has retracted his original claims. A recent study by Kayser et.al. failed to detect any Black ancestry in European-Americans. Blacks averaged at 27.5%–33.6% of White male ancestry. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/624?ck=nck

[edit] Expanding on historical Islamic views of the subject

The following statement is unsourced: "Richard E. Nisbett has said that the question of whether IQ differences between Blacks and Whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe. The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought."

I will replace it with a precise, sourced citation of an Islamic view of race and IQ.

Current statement is both false and nonsense so it should be deleted. The Moors were predominantly a White people but the article gives the impression that the Moors were Blacks who thought that Europeans "might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought". Some White Muslim intellectuals did think that Blacks had inferior intelligence.

An overview of these statements can be found here: http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews

"If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth -in no other peculiarity or property - except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent."

Philosopher-theologian Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201-74), Tasawwurat (Rawdat al-taslim)

"Of the neighbors of the Bujja, Maqdisi had heard that "there is no marriage among them; the child does not know his father, and they eat people -- but God knows best. As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence."

Maqdisi, also known as Al-Muqaddasi (fl. 966 AD), Kitab al-Bad' wah-tarikh, vol.4

"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions."

Jahiz (d. 868 AD), Kitab al-Bukhala (The Book of Misers)

It must be noted that they were influential scholars who are commonly described as famous in the Wikipedia articles.

MoritzB 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the article on Moors, you will find out that the term encompassed inhabitants of a large part of Northern Africa, and included "everything from fair-skinned, blue-eyed people to dark-skinned Negroids", so the Moors weren't particularly white or black. However, it is demonstrable that many of them saw Northern Europeans especially as barbarians of lower intelligence. It just goes to prove that racism was indeed pervasive.--Ramdrake 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation? Famous Jewish intellectual Moses Maimonides is an example of a person who believed that Northern Europeans are less intelligent than Middle-Easterners but he thought that this was because they grew up in cold climate, i.e. because of environmental factors. Is there evidence that Muslim intellectuals considered Europeans racially inferior?

The term Moor was European and the Europeans applied it to North African Muslims generally regardless of their actual national identity. Many White intellectuals in the Islamic world saw a strong racial distinction between Blacks and themselves. They made some of the most disparaging statements about Blacks I have ever heard.

The current version of the article states without reference that the Moors thought that Blacks were superior to Europeans in intelligence which is wrong. In fact, many of them were of the opposite opinion.

MoritzB 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROLL says do not feed the troll Muntuwandi 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of trolling are trolling, Muntuwandi. Stop trolling.

MoritzB 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is not neutral

It begins with a background section which includes a quote by Melvin Konner who says that "many of (Jensen's and Rushton's) statements were proved wrong but they had already influenced some policymakers, and that influence is very difficult to recant." He asks whether their findings "are likely to lead to, or at least encourage, further distortions of social policy."

This is just POV pushing to further the agenda that there is something wrong with current US social policy. Political opinions of people opposed to the Bush administration have no place in this article.

Also, criticism of Jensen and Rushton belongs to the environmental explanation section.

All claims made of the "immorality" of research should also be removed. A part of the WP:NPOV policy is that facts should speak for themselves. MoritzB 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of people, if they are relevant to the subject, represent at least a significant minority, are properly sourced and properly attributed, should not be excluded. As for claims of "immorality", the word "immoral" doesn't even appear in this article. Your objections are unfounded and look like they only serve to push a racist POV; please stop.--Ramdrake 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can include the citation if you wish but the problem is that it is in the wrong place. The article starts with a statement by a certain scientist who says that Jensen and Rushton are wrong. In the chapter "Background Information" there is no comparable statement by Jensen and Rushton. This leads a reader to evaluate all subsequent information in the light of the statement made by Konner and creates a bias. In that chapter the article takes a position on the factuality of the viewpoints expressed in the article in the favour of the environmentalist hypothesis.

It is stated that according to some scientists research on racial differences on intelligence is "unethical". This clearly violates the NPOV policy as a moral judgment is made.

Your objections only serve to push your anti-Bush POV (criticising current American social policies of which the Bush administration is largely responsible) and uphold the bias in this article.

MoritzB 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where?

My eyes must be worsening. Would you specify where Bush is discussed and demonstrate how Bush is "largely responsible?" Thanks.Skywriter 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote by Konner in the background section includes this sentence: "Are they likely to lead to, or at least encourage, further distortions of social policy?"

What is wrong with current American social policy?

Political opinions should be removed from this article.

MoritzB 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Konner refers to how earlier research in the 1960s and 1970s did influence social policy, despite being later disproved, the further distortions are further to that earlier policy influencing research.JonathanE 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Konner's is an informed viewpoint. An MD and anthropologist, he researches this subject and writes eloquently. You might like his books. Aside from that, editors may not express opinions in articles. Sources certainly can. Here's news: everything written turns on a point of view beginning with the choice of subject and what to leave in and out. I am disappointed that you have not supported your central point. You didn't get to the part about where the views of dear leader are discussed in this article. Skywriter 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konner exaggerating Shockley's and Jensen's influence

The article includes a quote by Konner statement which is controversial yet it is expressed as a fact. Is there any evidence that the social policy in America would be based on the theory that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites in intelligence? The decision Brown vs. Board of Education was clearly based on the environmentalist hypothesis.

In the 1960s segregationists used the hypothesis about the intellectual inferiority of Blacks to justify Jim Crow. Books arguing for this view like Carleton Putnam's Race and Reason were popular. However, the desegregationists who believed in racial equality prevailed. Konner makes a false claim that the research of Shockley and Jensen influenced public policy in the 1960s and "distorted" it.

I also thought that you would agree with me on this issue as you have said that the hereditarians are in the "fringe", Skywriter. People like Shockley and Jensen haven't actually influenced social policy. Social policy in the US is based on a belief that all races are equal in intellectual attributes.

Finally, Is this article about social policy?

MoritzB 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that you now understand the issue in Konner. You might care to read about the various headstart programs that lost federal funding during this time period before you make comments about lack of influence on social policy. Jensen's (1969) article "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?" Harvard Educational Review 39, fairly clearly sets his stall out. Meanwhile the most recent large scale of survey of research conducted by Rushton and Jensen (2005) "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, ends with a section on policy implications. So the article is about social policy to the extent that the researchers have pushed that agenda (even Rushton and Jensen say that "In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) offered some specific policy recommendations based on their conclusions about genetic variation and IQ, which are generally concordant with political conservatism, such as scaling back affirmative action, reducing the intrusiveness of government, and returning to individualism.") JonathanE 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do know that the hereditarians like Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray have made several proposals about public policy. However, my view is that their advice has not been heeded. I don't see any evidence that public decisions on federal level would have been influenced by their work. The only example you cite is that various Head Start programs lost federal funding at that time. Is there evidence that this was because the government believed that Blacks were inherently less capable to scholastic achievement?

Konner's statement is controversial and I think it should be removed. It is also in the wrong section.

MoritzB 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are at least three sources beyond Konner that make a similar link, "Race, Racism and Psychology" by Graham Richards," History and Theories of Psychology: A Critical Perspective" by Jones and Elcock, and Maton KI & Bishop-Josef SJ's (2006) article in Professional psychology-research and practice 37, remind me of the source that you are using that states Konner's work is controversial. JonathanE 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Research on intelligence is a tale of good and evil—or so the media would have us think. On one side we are presented mean-spirited pseudoscientists who are greasing the slippery slope to oppression and genocide with their elitist, racist ideologies about human differences. On the other side are the earnest souls who would save us from those horrors by exposing the non- scientific and immoral basis of the so-called “science” of intelligence differences. Even when the science is conceded to be accurate, it is often labeled dangerous and irresponsible (Block & Dworkin, 1974). If not life-imperiling, it at least threatens the foundations of American democracy. In short, we must make the world safe from intelligence research. Perhaps ironically, institutional psychology has itself been busy doing just that for over thirty years. The media can keep repainting its libelous portrait of intelligence research only with the complicity of intelligence’s mother field, psychology. Although intelligence tests are often cited as psychology’s biggest success, psychology often treats researchers who study the origins and consequences of individual and group differences in general intelligence as its biggest embarrassment—the troublesome child or mad uncle whom a socially ambitious family would lock up or have disappear. In doing so, it has undermined the integrity of psychological science, encouraged fiction-driven social policies that continue to disappoint and ratchet up blame, and blinded us to the daily risks and challenges faced by the less able among us."

Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help, Linda S. Gottfredson. Prepared for R. H. Wright & N. A. Cummings (Eds.), Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Road to Hell

While eugenics programs currently receive no federal funding social programs aimed to improve the academic and professional performance of minorities receive billions.

Currently, a long quote that states the POV of a single scientist dominates the background section. This violates NPOV policy.

MoritzB 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of that and summarized the quote.--Ramdrake 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

If there is no definition of what is in bounds and what's out here, then does everyone agree that this section can grow to many times its size, filling it up with quotes such as mortizb just added? Richard Lynn has a study out saying Germans are the smartest Europeans and certainly that is a candidate for inclusion, and he's commented on the intelligence of the Irish. Eminent scholar and slave owner Thomas Jefferson had choice things to say about black people, and certainly that fits in here. Rushton, of course, equates penis size to intelligence. That section can be really big! Does anyone disagree with adding these items and much, much more along the same lines?Skywriter 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if it's well-organized. I haven't looked at it but it seems somewhat relevant since the article isn't about any one era or angle. I believe Rushton finds intelligence inversely correlated to genital size, but yeah, seems worth mentioning. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Rushton does not think so. Also, the views of contemporary scientists do not belong to the history section.

MoritzB 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skin colour does not reliably reflect ancestry

The study quoted in this BBC article proves that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2585553.stm Dark-skinned Blacks may have more White ancestry than light-skinned Blacks. Therefore, the low correlation between skin color and IQ is not an argument against the genetic explanation.MoritzB 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

However, reading through the article, it makes a good argument against the existence of biological races, and by extension against many of its uses in biological and medical research (of which "race and intelligence" is one such subject). So, maybe the low correlation cannot be taken as a good argument against the genetic explanation, but the disparity from skin color to racial ancestry is a good argument against the existence of biologically meaningful races, and as such, against the existence of "race and intelligence" as a research subject.

Also, please remember this study is from Brazil, where racial admixture is very high and has been for several centuries, in contrast to other places like the United States, which has a long history of segregating races, thus the findings may not apply equally well universally.--Ramdrake 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that even if race is not a valid research subject genetic differences in IQ can exist between different ethnic groups. There is conclusive evidence that Jews are genetically superior to Gentiles in cognitive ability.

MoritzB 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

show us the genes, on which chromosomes.Muntuwandi 04:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Moritz, this is a bit off point, but there seems to be a mild correlation between intelligence and evolution in harsh physical environments (e.g., northern Asia and northern Europe). Is it possible that the European Jews evolved a superior cognitive ability in order to survive in the hostile social climate of post Roman Europe? Was there a differentiating factor among the Jews who immigrated to Europe in the Diaspora in comparison to those who went elsewhere or remained in Palestine? For example, were they on average higher functioning merchants, traders, teachers, etc., who were useful to the Romans? After two thousand years of interbreeding with Europeans how much genetic similarity is there between European Jews and those living in Palestine in the Roman period? Is this more of a social phenomenon than a "racial" phenomenon?

In the Middle Ages intellectually gifted young Christian men typically became Catholic priests who were not allowed to marry. On the other hand, Jewish rabbis usually married and had large families. This is the most important reason for the difference. Jews often worked as merchants or civil servants both in Muslim and Christian societies. High IQ was more important in these occupations than in farming. Thus, the Jews had more pressure to evolve to be more intelligent.

Jews belong to the racial group of Mediterranean Whites (like Italians and Spaniards). Palestinians were originally racially very close to the Jews but they a significant amount of non-White admixture today.

MoritzB 10:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And without appropriate sources, all of this speculation is just OR.--Ramdrake 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

The fact that Jewish people are genetically superior to Gentiles in intelligence isn't even controversial.

MoritzB 08:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is controversial and disputed, as this reference shows: [39].--Ramdrake 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Gilman's book addresses 19th century and early 20th century theories. The book is about the history of science and does not offer an alternative to the modern, established theory of Ashkenazi superiority which is supported by genetics.

MoritzB 12:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, if the book "addresses 19th century and early 20th century theories", why it explictly mentions and discusses at some length subjects like Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve? The theory you're referring to is all but established, i.e. still extremely controversial and far from being widely accepted.--Ramdrake 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bell Curve has little information on the Ashkenazi intelligence which is just mentioned in one page in the book. The case for the genetical Ashkenazi superiority in IQ has been made in other books and papers, none of which have been succesfully refuted.

MoritzB 13:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

the study in question is not reliable since they are based on uniparental admixture. This issue came up on the Talk:Black_people#BBC_Brazil_genetic_study page. Brazil is a very admixed population, its safe to say that the majority of brasil's 170 million have some admixture. Muntuwandi 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for sex biased mating in the White population of some Latin American countries

Country	Amerindian		African
	mtDNA	Y-chromosome	mtDNA	y-chromosome
Brazil	33%	0%	29%	2%
Argentina	45%	9%	ns	ns
Chile	84%	22%	ns	ns
Colombia	90%	1%	8%	5%
Costa Rica	83%	6%	ns	7%

[edit] opinions

the opinions of a few people have little relevance in this debate. Almost everyone in antiquity thought that their own ethnic group was intelligent and other ethnic groups were less intelligent.Muntuwandi 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I'd really like to see the section put back, as I believe it serves a valuable purpose in giving an idea as to how deeply rooted in history racial prejudice about intelligence is; I believe this historical background is useful, although it could probably gain from being summarized.--Ramdrake 11:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that it is a random sample of statements. Should we to get every disparaging quote that every historic leader stated about another ethnicity. The greeks thought everyone who was not greek was a barbarian. So did the romans. The Egyptians looked down on all other peoples. Prior to world war 2 the Germans thought they were more intelligent than the slavs, The english thought they were smarter than the irish. the romans thought they were smarter than the british, the french normans thought they were smarter than the british and english was a lower class language. If we should include any information on this it should just be a general discussion on how the group that has political or economic power at any given time always sees itself as intellectually superior than those without political or economic power.Muntuwandi 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the article says :

“

Richard E. Nisbett has said that the question of whether IQ differences between Blacks and Whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe: according to Nisbett

”

How can this be correct when neither IQ or Genetics existed as an entity 1000 years ago.Muntuwandi 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Very simply, here "IQ" is used as proxy for "intelligence" and "genetics" is used as a proxy for racial/ethnic identity. I don't think anybody here is trying to pretend that either psychometrics or genetics existed a thousand years ago. Nevertheless, I think there is a desirable middle point between the former, rambling seciton and no section on the historical basis of the subject at all. What do you say?--Ramdrake 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of proxies is may be moving towards OR. While a historic view maybe necessary, the real issues regarding race and intelligence only began in the 19th century when academics became a mainstream in western society. In the absence of an academic atmosphere it is unfair to portray the abilities of certain groups as related to intelligence. In short the arguments in the section are more about general abilities than intelligence. Muntuwandi 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, with all due respect, I beg to differ. As proof, here is the exact quote from Nisbett:

The question of whether IQ differences between blacks and whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe. The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought.

While Nisbett doesn't use the word "IQ" the meaning is clear on intelligence (the text should be modified to stick closer to the quote), but the word "genetic" is used by Nisbett, so I think there would be cause to reintroduce at least this one historical reference, properly edited, something along the lines of: Richard E. Nisbett has said that the question of whether intelligence differences between Blacks and Whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe.--Ramdrake 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the statement can be reintroduced but this statement is cherry picked to give the impression that everybody at the time thought like him.

“

Persian philosopher-theologian Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī said of the Blacks: Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent.

”

Muntuwandi 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we give these two statements to show that historical racial prejudice included prejudice on intelligence, existed on both sides of the barrier, and we cut the section there? How about that?--Ramdrake 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that it is aimed at shock value than a realistic portrayal. If the average persian truly thought that apes were more intelligent than negro's then t I suppose they would have employed several apes to work for them. Why not just say throughout history there has been much prejudice about ethnicities. we can site examples of group prejudices, not a racialized selection of biased quotes from individuals. for example the statement "The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought" is a group prejudice, it is not the opinion of one moor. Muntuwandi 20:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Granted. All I really want from this section are a couple of representative samples to demonstrate that racial prejudices about intelligence are way older than psychometrics or genetics. That may be obvious to you and me, but maybe far less obvious to the average reader. I'll be happy with whatever couple of examples you deem best illustrate the point.--Ramdrake 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeable to including the original paragraph without shock statements.Muntuwandi 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. That's actually more than I was asking for. Thanks.--Ramdrake 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection. The Moors have a history of enslaving Black Africans and considering them inferior as a group. Many prominent Muslim scholars had a very negative opinion of Blacks.

Nisbett's claim that "Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought" is erroneous. Moors were aware of the achievements of Greek and Roman civilizations and admired them.

This can be confirmed with a link to Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm

MoritzB 09:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and all that can be said without the use of shock phrases. As for Nisbett, again, find a reputable source that says he's wrong and it can be included.--Ramdrake 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Typical negative Muslim views of Blacks were so harsh that a less "shocking" description will be difficult to find. There are a lot of options, though. For example:

"Of the neighbors of the Bujja, Maqdisi had heard that "there is no marriage among them; the child does not know his father, and they eat people -- but God knows best. As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence."

Maqdisi, also known as Al-Muqaddasi (fl. 966 AD), Kitab al-Bad' wah-tarikh, vol.4

"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions."

Jahiz (d. 868 AD), Kitab al-Bukhala (The Book of Misers)

MoritzB 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We still need to revise the section because this is not an article about blacks and whites alone. Muntuwandi 12:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Savant Syndrome

This section does not deserve to be in the main article. Nobody even claims that the occurrence of this rare mental handicap explains the IQ gap even partially. The proper place for the topic is in multiple intelligences. MoritzB 10:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody claims that, but it is very helpful in understanding the theory of multiple intelligences, which if accepted, removes one of the two basic assumptions of race and intelligence research, so it is germane.--Ramdrake 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

However, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is not widely accepted. It has marginal relevance in the debates of race and intelligence. Even Robert Sternberg who is a leading scholar in the environmentalist camp is critical towards it. The length of the main article is limited and the logical place of the Savant Syndrome section is in the multiple intelligences article.

In the APA report it is stated that "the g-based factor hierarchy is the most widely accepted current view of the structure of abilities."

Also, even if multiple forms of intelligence exist this doesn't affect the validity of the research on racial differences on IQ. It has been found that Australian Aboriginal children have a better sense of spatial relations than White children although they have a lower average IQ score, for instance. It is possible that Aboriginal superiority in this regard is of genetic origin.

Therefore, the existence of g-factor is not a necessary assumption. Neither is the existence of race. Or is research on Ashkenazi Intelligence invalid because Ashkenazi Jews are not a race? The unsourced claims about these assumptions made in the article will be removed.

MoritzB 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia isn't about truth (or the best explanation), it's about verifiability, i.e., presenting all viewpoints commensurately with their prevalence in the real world. While "g" has gained wide acceptance in the field of psychometrics, it isn't the only theory in town. As far as the length of the article being limited, I would also like to remind you that "Wikipedia isn't paper". as well. I'm not insisting that genetics may not play a part in some ethnies' improved proficiencies in some aspects of cognition; I just want to prevent this article from passing on the message that there is a widely accepted racial hierarchy of intellect, as that theory isn't reflective of the overall scientific consensus, and the article is uncomfortably close to passing along just that message.--Ramdrake 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The unverifiable claims made in the article will be removed. Wikipedia is not paper but currently relevant information has been moved to subarticles. The section about Savant Syndrome is irrelevant or at least does not have similar relevance as the information in the subarticles. It is most related to the topic of multiple intelligences and it is sufficient that the section is there.

MoritzB 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In this respect, I would advise you to respect the consensus of the other editors. So far, you have failed to convince anyone on this poin, so I would advise against removing the section again lest you be reverted. In short, you can't commandeer this article against consensus. You may, however, open a request for comment in order to get a wider community input. This would be more constructive than insisting as you seem to be that you're right and that everyone else is wrong.--Ramdrake 13:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The human condition is fairly complex. As humans we do not even fully understand ourselves. We do not know much about our origins, we do not even really understand how our brains work. Scientists have just recently estimated that we have less than 30000 genes, of which they only understand the workings of a few. So caution is warranted when scientists hinge a hypothesis on a single number g.

The theory that Jensen et al propose is that IQ is mostly genetic and mostly heritable. While there is some truth in this, it is not the full story. If cognitive abilities are only heritable how does one explain this, A kid with nothing special gets a fall to the head, suffers brain damage but becomes an artistic genius. It is evident that he didn't inherit this geniusness, because before the accident he was normal. How then did he acquire advanced cognitive abilities

• video of Alonzo.
• video of stephen wiltshire
• more videos of stephen

Kim Peek is a mega genius who can recall maybe 12,000 books and can perform lightning quick complex calculationsUncommon genius.

“

Kim underwent psychological testing in 1988. His overall IQ score was 87, but the verbal and performance subtests varied greatly, with some scores falling in the superior range of intelligence and others in the mentally retarded range. The psychological report concluded, therefore, that “Kim’s IQ classification is not a valid description of his intellectual ability.”The “general intelligence” versus “multiple intelligences” debate rages on in psychology. We believe that Kim’s case argues for the latter point of view.

”

Muntuwandi 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Race of the Moors -- refuting Nisbett

"The Moors are ethnically a very hybrid race with more Arab than Berber blood. A common mistake is to regard them as a black race, as indicated by the old English phrase "Black-aMoor," i.e. black as a Moor. They are a white race, though often sunburnt and bronzed for generations, and both their children and those who have lived in the cities might pass anywhere as Europeans." http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Moors Therefore, Nisbett's misleading statement that "the question of whether intelligence differences between Blacks and Whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe" should be removed.

Nisbett's claim that "the Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought" is also misleading. There is no evidence that the Moors as a group thought so. That claim can be refuted with a reference to the Muqaddimah (on the Greek civilization p.39 and p.383): http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm It is also stated in the Muqaddimah: "The bordering third and fifth zones are rather close to being temperate. The sixth and second zones which are adjacent to them are far from temperate, and the first and seventh zones still less so. Therefore, the sciences, the crafts, the buildings, the clothing, the foodstuffs, the fruits, even the animals, and everything that comes into being in the three middle zones are distinguished by their temperate (well-proportioned character). The human inhabitants of these zones are more temperate (well-proportioned) in their bodies, color, character qualities, and (general) conditions214 They are found to be extremely moderate in their dwellings, clothing, food­stuffs, and crafts. They use houses that are well constructed of stone and embellished by craftsmanship. They rival each other in production of the very best tools and implements. Among them, one finds the natural minerals, such as gold, silver, iron, copper, lead, and tin. In their business dealings they use the two precious metals (gold and silver). They avoid intemperance quite generally in all their conditions. Such are the inhabitants of the Maghrib, of Syria, the two 'Iraqs, Western India (as-Sind), and China, as well as of Spain; also the European Christians nearby, the Galicians,215 and all those who live together with these peoples or near them in the three temperate zones." http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_03.htm

However, Ibn Khaldun wrote of the Blacks: "The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state in Spain". (Bernard Lewis, Race and Color in Islam,p. 38.)

[edit] pre anthropological age quotes

MoritzB Why do you attach so much credibility to statements made by people before the age of anthropology. When anthropologists began studying cultures they took a much different view, avoiding judgments of cultures from one's own perspective. This is the modern way making assessments. We are already used to seeing these quotes, they are the favorite of racialist sites. Its the same old recycled material I have seen all over wikipedia. This is just shock value but what else can be expected . Anything mention of the inferiority of blacks must be a huge stimulant for you. I would like to know where you draw your motivation from.Muntuwandi 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be hate, wisdom, God, drugs or whatever. Where does Moritz draw motivation from, is simply irrelevant Muntuwandi. Do you have a logical argument, or only appeals to emotion? Dry dust 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to understand how many people get excited at the prospect of black inferiority Muntuwandi 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of Muslim and Western scholars are relevant because they were used to justify the enslavement of blacks.

MoritzB 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

how does justification for slavery relate to intelligence.Muntuwandi 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Do tell us mister Muntuwandi how the ability to subdue the Britons by the (white btw) Romans is relevant to race and IQ. Also, do clarify the issue of the erroneous popular identification of the moors with blacks. Thank you. Dry dust 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing POV

I did some editing to try to reduce some of the POV in both directions and remove some of the human interest slant that seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It seems that presentation of arguments from multiple points of view are appropriate, but some of it is overly emphasized by placement in the lead or background sections which should be an overview. This should not devolve into a black/white US centric debate page. --Kevin Murray 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin.

MoritzB 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntwandi has replaced the US centric tag, and perhaps with due concern. How can we work together to expand the discussion or eliminate some more US based bias? --Kevin Murray 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this article. I have always maintained that it is very difficult to come up with a solid hypothesis when much of the world neither use race or IQ in collecting information about its citizens. Thus the article is over-reliant on the the studies of jensen , rushton and others. Muntuwandi 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly! I have not been comfortable with the word "race" in this series of articles and have in the past advocated that we be discussing the variances among "populations" or "groups". It seems that IQ is at best a surrogate measurement of more important characteristics. --Kevin Murray 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The equation of IQ with intelligence is central to what is misleading and thoroughly confusing about this article. Reputable scholars do not conflate the two, yet this article regularly conflates the two. Reputable scholars caution against just such a conflation.Skywriter 08:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy League and Black students

I find this statement to be fascinating: "The IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for the same group. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US. However contrary to indications from the IQ and the Wealth of Nations study, the majority of blacks enrolled in Ivy League Universities in the US are either from Africa or the Caribbean. " Could these students be more highly motivated by their Non-US societies? It stands to reason that these students are the top echelon within their countries, but why are the top echelon of US black students not reaching out to Ivy League schools and/or why aren't Ivy League schools reaching out to these students.

this indicates that the wealth of nations study is biased and simplistic. As mentioned earlier few countries recognize and use IQ tests. For example Asian societies tend to emphasize hard work rather than innate talent. So I do not know how the wealth of nations obtained their information. I would guess its some pseudoscientific statistical analysis. Furthermore illiteracy rates in many countries make it hard to obtain any reliable estimate on IQ, since it is pointless testing someone who has not been given an opportunity to learn to read and write. For example the wealth of nations has the IQ of India at 81. The literacy rate is 61%. But then if this is a reliable reflection why has the United States become so dependent on Indian academics in recent times for technical support.

with regard to ivy league enrollment, I do believe that history needs to be taken into account. Today many people hold the view that by the accident of slavery African Americans are much better off than if they were still in Africa. Since there has been "chaos", civil wars famine etc in Africa. While there may be some truth in that it may not be the full story. The psychological effects of ethnocide can be quite traumatic on a people. The ethnocide of African culture was most effective in the United states. African languages and religions were banned, family units were split up. All this was done to try break the African's spirit so that he or she could be controlled. Though AA's held on to get through this period the effects still linger on today. Though the US is a wealthy nation, wealth may not be enough to purchase one's history and culture. Those in the caribbean were not forced to give up all of their culture and because they were a black majority they struck a better balance of power. You can hear africa in the accent of west indians. In Haiti the blacks actually rebelled during the Haitian revolution. Thus we can argue that the seeds of the culture that does not value academics as much as it should were sown during the periods from 1619-1965 by the greed of capitalism.Muntuwandi 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you describe is the enculturation of assimilation which most immigrant populations experienced. Clearly the major physical differences and historical prejudices have left the AA population in a halfway limbo not accepted as assimilated, but adrift from their roots. It's a bad situation. But is it better to work toward assimilation or restoration of the heritage? What might be immediately better for a single group might be bad for a society as a whole. Some people think that we gain strength through diversity, and others believe that a radically divided society can not persevere -- I think that the truth is somewhere in between. But we should be cautious at grasping the obvious from our own perspectives and experiences. We need a well conceived balance. --Kevin Murray 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The black immigrants are simply the cream of the African crop. Their existence is not an argument against the low average IQ of these countries.

MoritzB 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

how do you then explain the low average IQ of India, a nuclear age country.Muntuwandi 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are some systematic flaws in some of the studies where the results are counterintuitive and at odds with empirical evidence. Cultural and communicative biases must be considered in the testing. English language testing must be suspect in non-English speaking societies. Is there a variance between scores in African nations where English is widely spoken and others? --Kevin Murray 18:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

yes it it pseudoscience to make a genetic hypothesis for countries because the environments and histories are so diverse. There are several languages spoken in Africa, along with thousands of African languages are english ,french , Arabic and portuguese. So this is a complicated landscape to extract reliable information, especially if it is anglocentric.

Another problem with the black white hypothesis is the issue of admixture. the scholars contend that the higher IQ of american blacks relative to African blacks is due to white admixture. However the Ivy league stats are counterintuitive since west indians, and africans have much less or no admixture. Thus this is evident that the environment plays a significant role. Muntuwandi 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THOMAS SOWELL

Although Sowell has strong credentials and I don't dispute the premise in this edit [40], I'm a bit uncomfortable using editorials as sources in WP. I am concerned that a lot of unsubstantiated opinions are slipping into this series of article under the premise that it was said in a published book or by someone affiliated with a major university. Regardless of the affiliation or the existence of a publication, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. We really have a lot of WP:ILIKEIT going on here, and not singling out Moritz other than as the most recent example. I htink that we need braoder sourcing to support much of what is being said. --Kevin Murray 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sowell is a known conservative, and Kevin is right it is an opinion, he has not cited any study to prove his opinion, therefore it should not be given undue weight.Muntuwandi 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But, this is not an issolated situation. There are a lot of opinion pieces slipping into this series without due scrutiny. Can we work together to improve our work? --Kevin Murray 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background or history

These two subsections should be merged since they sound like the same thing.Muntuwandi 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there is redundancy in these headings. History has shrunk, because we have a history sub-page now, but I think there should be more meat here as well. I might prefer to see a brief overview or summary section following the lead section, then a more robust history section, where historic perspectives are (a) stated, (b) evaluated and (c) briefly and cautiously rebutted (if appropriate). --Kevin Murray 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sectional Candidates for Immediate Deletion

These sentences make no sense and are not factually true:

"However contrary to indications from the IQ and the Wealth of Nations study, the majority of blacks enrolled in Ivy League Universities in the US are either from Africa or the Caribbean. Notable examples include Barack Obama and his father Obama Sr. The chairperson of the sociology department at Harvard University stated: Since they come from majority-black countries, they are less psychologically handicapped by the stigma of race."

Point of fact: Barack Obama did not grow up in a majority-black country and he is not "from Africa or the Caribbean." He grew up in Jakarta and Hawaii. Therefore the section on Obama should be deleted. Does anyone disagree?Skywriter 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. --Kevin Murray 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on Research that begins:

The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses lacks citations and is therefore a candidate for immediate deletion.

Worse, it conflates IQ with intelligence representing somebody's personal opinion but nothing mainstream.

Does anyone object to deletion? Skywriter 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• This section attempts to summarize the information from the main article on testing, which used to be included as a section here. The danger of this summary is that it overstates the reliability of the tests and the accuracy of the results. I think that w3e should have the section, but I'm not happy with the current version. As I have stated at the mediation page, I am opposed to the breakup of the information on R&I into the many sub-pages, since this page has now become a dangerously vague opinion page, without much factual support. I think that in this subject WP is better off presenting the minimum facts, but not trying to interpret them. --Kevin Murray 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes 5 and 6

Fn 5 is absurd if anyone is to take seriously the idea that this is an encyclopedia article. First, there is a gross over-reliance on a number of articles mostly by Lynn, Rushton and Jensen, three of the four most isolated and profoundly controversial claimants in this field. The white supremacist bias of this ridiculously long footnote is compounded by the reliance on the eugenicist website lrain.com for the APA statement of its own study. The objections, stated here yet again, is that the lrain.com site hideously distorts and misrepresents the APA findings.

I want to see Fn 5 reduced in size with links only to the most essential articles. And then I want the contrary viewpoint explicated at this vantage point. Does anyone care to identify which of these articles are essential for Fn 5?

Fn 6 which reads "Similar clustering has been reported with related variables, such as school achievement, reaction time, and brain size.[6]" is similarly controversial. Slipping the phrase "brain size" into that sentence makes it especially controversial in an article whose title is Race and Intelligence. The claim about brain size is supported by this article which addresses retardation, not race and intelligence. "Broman, S. H., Nichols, P. L., Shaughnessy, P. and Kennedy, W. (1987). Retardation in Young Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 0-89859-989-X." In the absence of opposition, I intend to delete the phrase "brain size" and the Broman article from the reference page. Anyone have a problem with this?Skywriter 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes should not be deleted. I added a link to the full APA statement so your criticism is no longer relevant. There is no White Supremacist bias in the article.

MoritzB 12:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The change in link fails to address the substance of my comments.Skywriter 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the above claim, Fn 5 is based nearly entirely on the claims of white supremacists. Why is this obvious? 14 occurrences of Lynn and 4 occurrences of Rushton and one of Herrnstein and Murray in that one footnote alone provides the substance.

to wit: footnote 5

1. ^ Roth et al. 2001; Rushton 2000; Shuey 1958; Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Lynn 1991a. For samples of individual studies showing similar results, see the National Collaborative Perinatal Project, reported by Broman et al. 1987; the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study reported by Weinberg et al. 1992; also Lynn 1977a, Lynn 1977b, Lynn 1982, Lynn 1987, Lynn 1991a; Lynn et al. 1991; Lynn and Hampson 1986a Lynn and Hampson 1986b; Lynn et al. 1987a, Lynn et al. 1987b; Lynn et al. 1988; Lynn and Holmshaw 1990; Lynn and Shigehasa 1991; Montie and Fagan 1988; Rushton 1997; Rushton and Jensen 2003; Rushton et al. 2003; Notcutt 1950; Jensen 1993; Jensen and Reynolds 1982; Peoples et al. 1995. For scientific (though not public) consensus statements see Gottfredson 1997a and Neisser et al. 1996.

When we click through to look at the references, we see that great journal of egalitarianism and racial diversity, Mankind Quarterly as the most prominent underpinning of Fn5. Click a little further and we come to Rushton, executive director of the Pioneer Fund an NGO that funds only eugenicist (white supremacist) research.

So when we click back to find out what claim Fn 5 is supposed to support, we find this sentence: "While the distributions of IQ scores among different racial-ethnic groups in the U.S. overlap and often have a comparable range, groups differ in where their members cluster along the IQ scale.[3][4][5]"

Does any thinking person need to read 14 articles by the non-mainstream, highly controversial Richard Lynn to trust that fact?

So my question is this: why is this article relying on multiple articles by white supremacists to represent what is offered as "objective" or non-controversial? Skywriter 21:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lynn and Rushton are not White Supremacists. Your claim is wrong and slanderous.

MoritzB 07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, neither Rushton nor Lynn would view that term as slanderous. What about Mankind Quarterly is not white supremacist, mb? Skywriter 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reintroducing prerequsites of race and intelligence research

I've reintroced the following para: Modern theories and research on race and intelligence are often grounded in two controversial assumptions: *that the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry. *that intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability.

This paragraph has been in the lead section (more or less) for about two years. It is important in the sense that it introduces that:

1. In order to study the effect of race on intelligence, race must be a biologically sustained construct. Race as a social construct alone would have no possible import on intelligence, although some will say "but race have different allele frequencies (depending on race), which may have an impact on intelligence. This comes back to saying that race needs some consistent biological substrate in order to influence higher cognitive functions (which also have a biological base, unless one believes in "souls").
2. In order to use IQ results as a means to compare overall intelligence, one must believe that IQ as a number is a good proxy for all aspects of intelligence, i.e. that intelligence can be subsumed into a single unitary number. Otherwise, one needs extra measurements in addition to IQ to measure overall intelligence.

It is my contention that the two statements above appropriately describe what I've just explained here.--Ramdrake 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of these statements. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of these statements with this change in wording-- Somemodern theories on race and intelligence are grounded...

The reason for this suggested change is that there are entirely different schools of thinking that study these issues and arrive at entirely different conclusions. Ashley Montagu's work is specific to the opposite way of thinking and is not represented at all in this article. His 1999 book Race and IQ bears directly on these questions and must be given equal time and space and prominence in this as the eugenicists.Skywriter 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Corn graphic. I don't so much object to the corn graphic as just don't see the value added. But if it is important to you I won't push the issue. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This graphic is important to make a point that one cannot draw inferences of between-group-heritability (BGH) from studies of within-group heritability (WGH), i.e. a demosntration that IQ has genetc tenets in either Blacks or Whites cannot be generalized to say that the B-W IQ gap must also be genetic. That is a fallacy the hereditarians commit all too often.--Ramdrake 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The corn graphic seems off topic and should disappear. The point can be made without bringing in extraneous material.Skywriter 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection. Ramdrake is trying to insert his own POV to the article without appropriate sources. This violates WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY.

Moreover, the question of the taxonomical validity of the human races has been discussed already and found irrelevant. IQ tests are usually constructed to predict academic performance and if differences in this specific form of intelligence exist the impact on the SES of the groups is sufficient to make the research relevant.

MoritzB 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

MortizB makes the fatal error of conflating intelligence with IQ tests. Sad that he's so confused.Skywriter 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, the question of the taxonomical validity of races in research has been found fundamental to said research, contrary to what you are saying. Furthermore, if IQ tests fail to measure some specific qualities of intelligence, their use in exploring and determining the import of the BW IQ gap is at best limited.--Ramdrake 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You make wild claims but don't provide a source. Disputed claims without a source should not be included to the article. Wikipedia is not the place for the personal opinions of you and your friends.

Cf. WP:NOR , WP:VERIFY.

MoritzB 11:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please provide proof that the biological existence of race isn't a prerequisite of the study of its interaction with the biological construct of intelligence.--Ramdrake 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claims should be removed simply because they do not have a source. Do not include them again without a source. The claims are original research and also wrong.

Despite the unanimous consensus that the Jews are not a distinct race the genetic intelligence of Jews is an intensely studied phenomenon. http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

This is the proof that in the view of leading scholars like Steven Pinker genetic IQ differences can exist between ethnic groups and it is not required that they belong to different taxonomical races.

MoritzB 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilw IQ differences may exist between Ashkenazi adn ther Europeans etniesm the source of this is disputedly genetic (it mayor may not be). You then use this to generalize to a simple statement like the one above, so you're breaking BGW and WGH just to prove a point. Most editors here find t a simple point of logic, one tha doesn not need to be cited (woukd you exptect to have to cite in WP that the Earth revolves around the Sun? If you are still unhappy wth the consensus, why don't you start an RfC on the subject adn we' ll know where thee community stands. Otherwsem your constant revert against consensus is akin to vandalism. Also, I would highly recommend yout read the difference between WGH and BGH.--Ramdrake 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media portrayal

I think this is a good section. My only concern is that getting into published books is drifting away from what most people would consider media. Should we begin a new section with what Ramdrake has just added and maybe expand to include other recent publications. Where is the line between research, testing, and publications? Perhaps we might make the breakpoint at whether it was original research or a compilation of prior research. Godfriedson did not do original research as I understand.--Kevin Murray 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I follow you, as the few references I mentioned in the section are all cited several times through the group of articles covering this topic. I'M not sure if and where we could justify additional portrayal of these (although I'm open to suggestion).--Ramdrake 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How stand-alone should this article be? There are bigger issues than this so I say that this is just fine for now. MAybe we cab revisit the issue later. --Kevin Murray 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone click through to the references? In this section, is this a book or journal article? Fn 82 Entman, Robert M. and Andrew Rojecki The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. 2001

I could not find the following. Can anyone else? Fn 84 Spike Lee discusses racial stereotypes

References should be useful. These are not. Skywriter 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect that the Spike Lee quote was once found at that address, but that it has been replaced by more current articles. WP does not require that the sources be linked.; however, they must be verifiable. If this was there and now gone, how could the quote be verified? --Kevin Murray 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black - White and US centric

Is this article over emphasizing blacks and whites in the US? Is it practical to deemphasize this issue? --Kevin Murray 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project proposal

It seems that this article need quite a bit of work, and that we have some fresh and energetic contributors. Maybe we could collaborate on improvements one section at a time for a little while. I've been involved in other projects for a while, but have some time to spend now. Any interest? --Kevin Murray 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that we may be drifiting off topic in a few areas. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I would say the first rule should be to discuss the changes you'd like to make to the artcle on this talk page first.--Ramdrake 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A good practice for us all would be to consider the recommended process at this flowchart, which recommends changes be made then discussed. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is point of saying same thing four times?

There is no correlation between Gottfredson et al.'s WSJ statement and the detailed APA report in response to The Bell Curve. To equate these two is ludicrous and ignores the detailed work that went into the APA statement. Worse, the following four items, all referring to the same things, appear four times in one article. Can we please stop beating the poor reader over the head?

one-- For scientific (though not public) consensus statements see Gottfredson 1997a and [[Race and intelligence/Archive 57 (References)#Neisser et al. 1996|Neisser et al. 1996]]

two-- Several conclusions about tests of cognitive ability are now largely accepted by intelligence researchers For statements directly reporting what views are in the majority see AY|Neisser et al.|1996, AY|Gottfredson|1997a, and AY|Snyderman and Rothman|1987.

three-- Other aspects of the media portrayal of race and intelligence include recent books asserting or disputing a genetic cause for group differences (such as The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray, and The Mismeasure of Man by Gould) and surveys or consensus statements made by groups of scientists (the APA statement on Race and Intelligence, the Snyderman and Rothman survey, and the Mainstream Research on Intelligence manifesto by Gottfredson.)

four-- Collective Statements ence.pdf APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence * [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm Statement on "Race" and Intelligence]. American Anthropological Association. Adopted December 1994. * http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13-23 Jan-Feb 1997 ((The latter is the WSJ opinion piece now masquerading as a piece in Intelligence. It should be cited according to where it first appeared, as WSJ and not Intelligence where it was republished. ))

Skywriter 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article has appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal the citation should reflect that. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13-23 Jan-Feb 1997 is the correct citation.

MoritzB 08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Citations are to the place of first appearance especially opinion pieces such as this.

You apparently missed the central point and so it will be repeated. These items are repeated four times. Make a case why they should be referenced FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES IN THIS ONE ARTICLE before they are removed without further discussion.Skywriter 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I publish an article on my web page and later publish it in an academic journal, the more important publication is definitely the best choice for citation, and this principle doesn't change in the case of Gottfredson's statement. Or, put another way, which publication was the defining version of the statement?--Ty580 10:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As well, it's probably inappropriate to imply an article is not peer-reviewed if it is peer-reviewed.--Ty580 12:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to Gottfredson's Mainstream Science on Intelligence? If so, it is an editorial piece and as such, that I'm aware, such piecesoften aren't peer-reviewed.--Ramdrake 12:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for basis for content

While the above addresses process, this is a suggestion for content.

The most useful book on this topic is not mentioned once in this article. The Bell Curve Debate edited by Russell Jacoby and Naoimi Glauberman (1995)[41] contains more than 700 pages of history, original documents (journal articles) and opinions from the entire range of the contemporary debate.

As people editing this article should know by now, Herrnstein (and the conservative AEIer Murray) did not do original research. They relied heavily on Jensen (1969), Richard Lynn and Rushton, and, they did not publish The Bell Curve in peer-reviewed journals or allow any peers to read it in galleys before publication. It was a full year before scholarly peers began to critique the science and the author's claims. This book republishes original articles by Lynn, Jensen and Herrnstein and a full complement of articles by conservative commentators, along with many of the most important reviews and arguments, sources and polemics from the various sides of the discussion.

This book is widely available at second hand bookstores and libraries and much more accessible than the various links to paid archives that makes this article so not user friendly.

Editors have to remember that it is not so much scholars with free access to academic journals who read Wikipedia. It is regular people who make up the primary audience. Make it difficult to follow and verify, and most readers will move on.Skywriter 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say add the material which you think is pertinent and then let's discuss. What are the credentials for Jacoby and Glauberman? --Kevin Murray 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to add to this article. This article is a swamp. It is badly written and that is the least of its problems or perhaps its chief virtue. No one in their right mind would read it. Adding more to this article without draining the swamp means that this article will continue to be tagged as prejudiced, which it continues to be (see my note e.g. on Fn 5). The point is that Jacoby text runs the full-text of the debate and from it, fair arguments can be drawn. If there was consensus, each active editor would get a copy and content planning could begin from there. The point also is that there is no point in re-inventing the wheel. The pros and cons of this debate have been fairly presented. Roughly following that presentation would provide structure and sanity. In the absence of any identifiable structure, this article continues as a laughing stock and paean to Richard Lynn and Rushton, which gives Wikipedia a black eye. Neither of them are mainstream and to represent that they are in this article undermines the credibility of the article in its entirety.Skywriter 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jacoby is UCLA historian. Full descriptor at Amazon.Skywriter 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to Jacoby's credentials [42]. --Kevin Murray 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I definately like the swamp analogy. I think that we should revert back to around November 2006 and trim from there. --Kevin Murray 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to object to a reversion from around that time, which was when ths article had a really bad pro-hereditarian slant. Granted, the article is still a mess today, but that's because the opinion wars took so much out of everyone that it left everyone empty for finishing what they had begun.Insert non-formatted text here

Please pick a date and time in November 2006 (and provide a link) to facilitate reading the same page. Skywriter 22:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • [43] This was selected somewhat randomly, but I think this is pretty representative of the old version article before it was pulled apart and totally lost focus. Clearly it still has many flaws, but it might be a better starting point than the mess today. --Kevin Murray 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That version is structured better but we should keep in mind that ideally we should be within the 30-50kb range of readable prose. That article is approaching 60kb while the current article is 37kb. I suppose one of the reasons for change was to move content to the other articles to make the main article smaller and more readable.Muntuwandi 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree! That prior version needs a haircut by at least 50%, and then there are some new ideas which could be included. I'm interested in SW's mention of the comprehensive Jacoby text as an objective source for putting this all in perspective. I think that our compilation borders on original research. --Kevin Murray 23:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No question this is original research-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ_1sd_gap_overlap.png and should be deleted.Skywriter 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version is 9,605 words; December 2006 is 16,950 words. Average newspaper article is 800 words while longer articles run to 1200 words on average. Pound for pound, the current version is about nine times too long and the December 2006 version is 14 or 15 times too long. If someone could identify what has been excluded (moved) from the December version, it might run quite a bit shorter. Either way, scissors are the right tool for the job.Skywriter 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Personally I would use a weed wacker!--Kevin Murray 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the humour, may I suggest you make a list of

1. what should be removed
2. what should stay but should be summarized
3. what should stay
4. what is there but needs to be expanded upon
5. what needs to be added

I would suggest this same exercize for everyone so we know in which direction we want to move this article.--Ramdrake 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we start by removing the following sections which are off topic:

• Race as biology
• Race as a social construct
• IQ
• Multiple intelligences
• Savant Syndrome as an example of the multiple intelligences theory

--Kevin Murray 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Race as biology , social construct and IQ I think can be summarized to the bare bones, just one paragraph. I think just a little context is necessary but the details should be left to the main articles.

Multiple intelligences though controversial is definitely an important part of the debate. This is meant to give alternative views as to what intelligence is apart from G or IQ. One broad definition of intelligence as those unique human characteristics that distinguish humans from other species. These include the ability to create art, music, or to throw a basketball in a hoop. As far as I know, no other animals have these abilities anywhere close to humans, at least at the moment. At the root of the race and IQ debate is essentially the question of whether some people are more human than others. The idea is those of low IQ are closer to Beasts than to humans. Thus there is need to demonstrate that there are many other human attributes that are quite complex though poorly understood.

If people are excluded from mainstream academic circles, I do not think they sit there remaining idle. They have a complex brain that in the absence of a formal education can still do wonders. If we look at some of the most naturally talented sports people, they often come from very poor backgrounds. Muhammad Ali, Pele or Maradona for example. But you rarely or never hear such natural talent emerging from rich.

A lot of folks made fun of Fantasia Barrino because she could not read. But she won American Idol without being able to read. That in my opinion is quite an accomplishment. Louis Armstrong was in and out of trouble as a youngster, a juvenile delinquent, but somehow he became one of the most influential Jazz musicians of all time. Thus if we just focus on IQ we end up ignoring so many other geniuses whom the world can't get enough of. Muntuwandi 03:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about value as a person; it is about intellegence, which is different from education it is about ability. I think that Barrino and Armstrong are examples of people with inherent ability, call it IQ or otherwise, who overcame a lack of education perhaps due to high IQs which were not measurable with traditional methods. --Kevin Murray 08:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As you mentioned not measurable by traditional methods. The whole concept of multiple intelligence is that traditional methods only capture intelligence associated with logic. Logic is the easiest characteristic to measure that is why it has been seized upon quickly by Jensen and co. But the other forms of intelligence such as musical ability at present cannot be assigned a unitary number. Yet these characteristics are of great importance. Most of the technology that high IQ geeks make eventually ends up in the music industry. Yet it is not the geeks who make the music.Muntuwandi 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A chapter titled "Blacktop Basketball and The Bell Curve" by Gregg Easterbrook in the book edited by Jacoby et al. begins this way: "Years ago, hoping to persuade The Washington Monthly to hire me, I quit a decent job in Chicago and moved to Washington. Unemployed and low on money, I lived in a seedy neighborhood behind the Navy Yard in Southeast D.C. Because the editor of the magazine unaccountably took his time in acknowledging my merit as an applicant, to blow off steam I played basketball on the local court several hours each day. I was the only white player in the game, accepted at first as a charity case. After a few weeks on the blacktop, however, I was startled to discover other players wanting me on their team. After two months of daily basketball, I found myself able to hold my own in one-on-one matches against the hot players from nearby Eastern High School. I was squaring my shoulders for accurate jump shots, ducking under other players for lay-ups--the sorts of coordinated, classy-looking moves I had never been able to do before and have not been able to do since. It would hardly be a wild guess that practice had improved my game, and that lack of practice has since eroded it. Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein would say, however, I had suddenly acquired basketball genes. Then just as suddenly, I lost them!" Skywriter 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy this as a valid analogy. He is confusing lack of training with unntapped inherent ability. --Kevin Murray 08:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And, then there's this High IQ: Not as good for you as you thought Skywriter 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A good article but I think that the title is misleading. I think this quote from the text is more pertinment: "Both IQ and self-discipline are correlated with GPA, but self-discipline is a much more important contributor..." That's like saying that oxygen and fuel are correlated to cobustion but fuel is a more important contributor; this is true, but both are to an extent required and the reduction of either reduces the brilliance of the flame. This article is not about academic performance or really any type of performace directly. It is about the measurement of intellectual ability, the most popular measurable surrogate for this ability is called IQ. --Kevin Murray 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The late Ashley Montagu, foremost opponent of the eugenicist IQ theorists (Jensen, Lynn, Rushton), would disagree with your comment. If this article ever is cut to manageable size, and no longer so lop-sidedly champions and promotes the views of the eugenicists, we can add his viewpoint and the views of others included in the second edition of the book Montagu edited, Race & IQ, Oxford University Press: New York. ISBN 0195102215. First published in 1975, the second edition (1999) includes five chapters on The Bell Curve.

For example, on IQ tests, Montagu, an anthropologist, wrote:

"It might perhaps be agreed that such tests provide a rough estimate of certain problem-solving abilities. But abilities represent trained capacities, and therefore experience and learning enter substantially into their development. Since the tested ability to a large extent represents the trained expression of a capacity, the 'measurement' of the ability can tell us nothing about the original quality of the capacity."

(...on the order of blacktop basketball, as Easterbrook observed) Skywriter 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style point- Books, articles and quotations, their similarities and differences

All books including reference titles such as Chicago Manual of Style at Wikipedia gets two individual quote marks and from that the reader can see italics, and discern that it is a book. Articles and quotes get double quote marks, "like this" that do not appear as italics. Publication titles such as The New York Times gets two single quote marks, which causes it to be italic when read. This note to point out that the references are a mess. Again, in this article, this maybe virtuous.Skywriter 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Jacoby

I began an article on Russell Jacoby who SW had recommended as a resource above. Please help to bolster my stub. --Kevin Murray 09:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This original research will be removed

"Modern theories and research on race and intelligence are often grounded in two controversial assumptions:

• that the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry.
• that intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability"

No citation has been provided to these claims despite many requests. The claims are therefore unsourced and not verifiable. They should be removed. WP:NOR WP:VERIFY

This verifiable information should replace the unsourced claims:

The hereditarian hypothesis becomes scientifically plausible only after five evidentiary prerequisites have been met: IQ differences among same-race individuals represent (a) real, (b) functionally important, and (c) substantially genetic differences in general intelligence (the g factor), and mean IQ differences between the races likewise reflect (d) real and (e) functionally important differences on the same g factor. A century of research strongly supports all five. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf

[edit] The article should have a neutral point of view about race

In the first paragraph the existence of race is denied. No alternative viewpoint is presented. However, in the Wikipedia article about race it is said that "a new opinion among geneticists is that it [race] should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on DNA analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race The paragraph in its current form is biased and will be changed. It should include either both views of the existence of race or none. MoritzB 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are on a rampage this morning, MB, and that you do not do nuance. An ought or should statement is a measure of value i.e. POV and is not an argument for empirical knowledge. Further, another Wikipedia article may not be referenced.

The title of this article is Race and Intelligence. The definition of race depends not on the views of psychologists, who agree on nothing and are social scientists, but on geneticists who are scientists. Skywriter 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is to point out that moritzb removed the reference to the findings of the first detailed analysis of the entire human genetic code — by the United States National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy — and by Celera Genomics of Rockville, Maryland, a private company, (that) "strengthens the notion that race has no genetic basis," even among people who identify themselves as of one race or ethnicity or another."Life's Blueprint in Less Than an Inch", by Rick Weiss Washington, Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 11, 2001; p. A01

No one can know MortizB's motivation for removing factual material except to say the facts do not mesh with MortizB's personal views and the views of the eugenicist psychologists who are over-represented in this article, which has been the subject of discussion for more than a month. MortizB wants to believe that the genetic code in the human genome proves differences between people of different skin colors, and yet geneticists say no such differences exist. Rather than facing up to that finding, MortizB removes the referenced fact. Why is that?Skywriter 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to my dictionary "race" can be defined as "a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. I don't see how the genetic differences between the taxonomical races pertain to the topic.

As the subjects of psychometric studies are assigned to different groups according to their socially and legally defined membership in certain races the article should not make a false link between them and genetics.

BTW, the article is profoundly anti-Semitic in its current form supporting Hitler's view that Jews are not intellectually superior to Gentiles and their relative "power" in contemporary societies is the result of other factors, i.e. some evil "Jewish conspiracy". The Holocaust was based on the lie of racial equality.

MoritzB 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What dictionary, date and year? Are you arguing that the thrust of this article s/b that Jews are a superior "race"? What is the basis for your claim that "The Holocaust was based on the lie of racial equality." Skywriter 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple intelligences

The section is quite relevant to the discussion on race and intelligence. Since the article is "race and intelligence", both "race" and "intelligence" should be defined. Not everyone agrees with that intelligence can be pigeonholed into one number G or IQ. Thus the alternative theories need to be presented. Even though many in the establishment despise Gardner's theories, they are still being actively debated. Even Jensen himself discusses multiple intelligences and savants [44] ISBN 0813342740. Therefore I believe that alternative theories regarding what is intelligence should be included. with the study of group differences, even one exception to the rule is enough to make a whole hypothesis questionable.Muntuwandi 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I just took out the subsection title and collapsed the one-word lines into one line. The sub-section, however, on Savants is too long and forks way off on tangent unrelated to the article title. I concur that the subject itself is interesting. I just don't see why it appears in this way too long article. Skywriter 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SW that we need to trim. As MW says we need to discuss alternative definitions of intellegence but only in summary with references to the main articles. --Kevin Murray 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject of multiple intelligences is germane to this article and can be expanded with the subsection title restored. My quibble was with the savant fork, which is far removed from the topic and is about a tiny population subsection that is not race or ethnically discrete.Skywriter 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The savants are a good example of the theory multiple intelligences. I believe the article needs example of MI, otherwise it gives the impression that it is a crackpot hypothesis. Kim Peek has an overall IQ of 87 but can perform complex calculations within miniseconds. This is a potential problem for the unitary theory of g which states that all intelligences are correlated. Jensen and the bell curve use g as a fundamental part of their racial hypothesis. The establishment does not like the existence of savants because they cause problems for defining intelligence Muntuwandi 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

I think that we should keep this within the perspective of an encyclopedia article, not an all encompassing reference on the subject. A brief mention of each of these with links to the main articles should be sufficient. Much of the meat of the subject has been moved to sub-articles, why should these tangential topics be any different. --Kevin Murray 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Muntuwandi on the issue of the import of MI in the context of this article. This page provides a useful overview which could be of assistance in the restructuring.Skywriter 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you two work on the WP articleTheory of multiple intelligences to incorporate the information at provides a useful overview, then we could add a paragraph or two as a summary here with a reference to the main article. It seems that the sumamry should be consistent with the main article and not a completely different approach. --Kevin Murray 21:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has done a study yet but why is it that geniuses tend to have limited social networking skills. Newton was paranoid, he was a virgin all his life. Arthur Jensen was a loner as a boy and spent much of his time playing with lizards and snakes. Isn't it possible that high IQ results in a compromise of social abilities.Muntuwandi 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that intellegence is not all of what makes a human function mentaly, but it is the subject of this article for better or for worse. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All these aspects of human behaviour seem interrelated. One issue is that writing has only been in existence for the last 5000 years. Even for much of that time only a privileged few had access to writing, it is only in the last few centuries that education has become mandatory for all. The skills that particularly require IQ have thus only been in existence for 5000 years. For the rest of human history people got by using the other multiple intelligences. For those who have a genetic hypothesis, 5000 years seems too short a time for evolution to have conferred upon certain races advanced cognitive abilities. Jensen believes these abilities evolved for some other reason earlier on in human history, Exaptation. Thus if a genetic difference exists between the races then there should be an explanation of how it came about. Muntuwandi 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last 2 edits

a/c to 64.191.93.101 talk page, 64.191.93.101 has history only of vandalism. That looks true here too as 64.191.93.101 ignored factual data on Obama. Skywriter 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that the user is a known vandal. --Kevin Murray 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive detail in the intro

I've removed two paragraphs from the intro that argues both sides of the "is 'race' a real biological concept?" debate: while NPOV, this is both far too detailed for the intro, and not thorough enough for the body of the article, which deals with the same material in much greater detail, and renders these paragraphs redundant. -- Karada 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

However, according to WP standards, these subjects, if present in the article, should be also presnet in the intro, especially as the debate over the validity of race is pivotal to the validity of R&I research.--Ramdrake 17:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a mention of this into the intro at the same time as I took the other material out. -- Karada 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Suits me fine.--Ramdrake 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work Karada. Now can you help trim some bulk elsewhere? --Kevin Murray 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Gil-White

User:BorgesFour has suggested that one of our sources, Resurrecting Racism: The attack on black people using phony science, is inadequate. The author Francisco Gil-White appears to be controversial, but also seems to have reasonable credentials. If we do accept his credentials, does it matter how his thoughts are published, whether they be in print, online or in a blog? --Kevin Murray 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Borges seems to be a single purpose account at this point, but perhaps the question is still valid.

There is no requirement that sourced material be published, quotes from interviews of experts are valid source material. --Kevin Murray 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's humorous that you guys put an unknown book with zero qualifications in the same sentence with Gould's famous MoM. You guys must be very educated on the topic. However, Gil-White's hack job actually makes all the academics on the same side of the issue look ridiculous, so I will now support your advertising of this important book by this important, unemployed author.--BorgesFour 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your question is valid and I think that we need to carefully look at the sources in this article. Affiliation with a major university does not guarantee that the research is valid or supportable. I'm concerned about his recent termination from the university and then from the magazine Emperor's Clothes. Borges does make a good point that the validity of other sources become suspect if our standards for inclusion are low. I think that at minimum a source should be notable enough for incusion as a bio at WP to be recognized as a source for this article. --Kevin Murray 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • While the author Francisco Gil-White may appear marginal, I don't see his views as much more marginal than say, a Rushton, with the huge difference that Rushton has Pioneer Fund's big funding machine behind him (to the tune of over one million dollars' worth of funding during his career so far). Also, Gil-White has the proper academic credentials (he is an anthropologist), and while his non-renewal from his university is a fact, evidence shows it's not directly related to the views he expresses in his book "Resurrecting racism". Since Gil-White has his own WP article, I thnk he meets the notability criterion as well. In short, if we find we must exclude his views because of his marginality, then so should we exclude the views of other researchers, just as marginal in their views, but that have the fortune of being better funded.--Ramdrake 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm seeing merit in both considerations. One thought is not to completely omit Ruston or Gil-White, but are either pertinent to lead sections or articles or summary sections at the main article? I like the presentation here of the lead section from R&I History as the summary here, that is a good practice which makes sense for other section. But I can see merit to removing Gill-White from the lead at the hsitory article, but continued inclusion in the detailed text. Could that be a workable compromise? I don't see addded value at this summary section since we already have a credible source in MoM. --Kevin Murray 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I propose that we modify both articles to say: "Some early opinions about the differences among races grew out of stereotypes about non-whites developed during the period of colonialism and slavery. Stephen Jay Gould author of The Mismeasure of Man and other credible researchers have suggested that some modern research has similar motives." I think this caries equal if not more credible weight. --Kevin Murray 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, although the word "credible" in your proposal seems a bit superfluous. However, I would appreciate if we could also let other important current editors on this article (such as Muntuwandi and Skywriter) weigh in on this as well before we finalize the decision.--Ramdrake 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Cheers. --Kevin Murray 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been too much written on this subject by giants in the field to need a Gil-White quote. This article could be a lot sharper. Its major weakness, imho, and now that I've stared at it for a while, is that the various positions are not represented distinctly enough. Many of the weakest arguments are presented from the opponents of the Lynn-Rushton-Shockley crowd where in fact, there's a lot more focused material available, both in the book The Bell Curve Debate and online at the excellent synopsis presented at Indiana University psych department at the pages maintained by Jonathan Plucker. Further, Ned Block at NYU Philosophy, weighed in with this thoughtful tract: "How Heritability Misleads about Race" which first appeared in The Boston Review, XX, no 6, January, 1996, p. 30-35 and is accessible here: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

Further, Lucy Horwitz (who teaches somewhere in Boston and wrote a book on statistics http://isbn.nu/9780920057124 )wrote the following. http://www.bookwire.com/bbr/science/bell-curve.html Quoting a few sentences from the above would get to the heart of the debate very quickly and without mincing words.

Further, Leon Kamin, author of Science and Politics of IQ covers the angle discussed above succinctly here: http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml#gardnerconclude

Everyone should take a look at Plucker's pages at IU. He's done a terrific job of being fair and also of summarizing the various arguments. While I don't think we should steal his stuff, his outline and references are a quality standard for who is most quotable i.e. knowledgeable and credible in the field. I'm deluged and can't contribute for awhile but if I had more time, I would be mining the references cited in this comment and the Jacoby book. I think these are quality references around which a decent article can be shaped. Adieu for now.Skywriter 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rushton is a tenured scholar. You cannot compare him to the crackpot Gil-White who is famous only because his conspiracy theories of 9/11.

MoritzB 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

I agree with the IU article. I find these standard deviations and correlation coefficients least exciting and not very informative, possibly even easy to manipulate.Muntuwandi 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "race and intelligence" is an incomplete and misleading method of presentation and should not be the title of this article

Because the phrase "race and intelligence" is a one sided way of presenting this general subject I don't see how it meets Wikipedia's neutral presentation standards? Because this issue could just as easily be presented as "Nutrition and Intelligence" or "Wealth and Nutrition" wikipedia should not choose sides in the issue and use the incomplete and misleading "race and intelligence" phrase without attributing it (and noting critics that dispute that method of presentation).

I believe there are propagandists and/or racists that have chosen to frame all aspects of so-called "intelligence research" in terms of "race" so third parties are tricked into thinking about this issue only in terms of "race". There are many many other ways of thinking about this issue, don't be tricked into thinking about this or any issue only in terms of "race". There are also many people, such as myself, who believe that nutrition is a much more likely and excluded potential cause. Wikipedia should not allow this travesty of non neutral presentation and language confusion to continue.

I propose we present this issue more generically, we should note exactly which points are disputed, we should note that there are many experts that believe IQ testing to be useless, and we should note that there is a dispute over how this issue should be presented. When a dispute exists over how to present an issue Wikipedia should not choose sides, instead Wikipedia should search for more neutral ways of presenting the issue. Also, the word "and" should not be used in the title of this or any article because it suggests a conclusion that is simply not true in this case and/or is at least disputed by myself and many others. Proposed conclusions about a subject should come from evidence presented within an article not from an incomplete and misleading title. Matthew L Foster 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection. This article is about the measured differences between the average IQs of different racial groups. These differences are notable and their implications are often discussed in the media. The phenomenon that blacks are significantly less likely to succeed professionally and academically is important irrespective of the actual reason.

However, your view that black parents cause terrible harm to their children's development feeding them wrongly is racist and also false.

MoritzB 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said what you claim I said regarding nutrition. I am also not claiming this subject shouldn't be presented on wikipedia. What I am claiming is this subject has to be presented much more neutrally, it currently violates Wikipedia's neutral presentation principles because it excludes alternative (and equally valid) methods of presentation. There is way too much danger for anyone reading this article to confuse description with cause. The word "race" is both one way of describing the issue and it's also a possible cause. I think there are some people trying to confuse description with cause for racist propaganda purposes. Also, many dispute the validity of IQ testing, given just that dispute it is non-neutral to present this issue this way, right? People also dispute categorizations and definitions like "race". Given these disputes wikipedia should not choose sides in the debate and present this subject using one sides' method of presentation, please try to work with me to find more neutral ways of presenting this subject. How about a more generic article on the claims of some IQ testers and some intelligence researchers? Something like IQ test results controversy or IQ test controversy or Intelligence research controversy? Matthew L Foster 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that race is not the only interesting and controversial issue related to IQ tests. For example, the roles of Nature and Nurture in explaining the IQ differences between individuals are debated.

An article encompassing both genetic racial and individual differences in intelligence would be large and an independent subpage of race and intelligence would still be needed. Therefore, it is not a good idea to rename this article.

MoritzB 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is debated which is why the word "race" should not appear in the title of any article on this subject. I don't just think this article should be renamed I also think this entire subject should be presented differently given the violations of neutral presentation. I can't stress enough the bias and danger with the current dichotomy of "race and intelligence", it's a subtle yet profoundly non neutral method of presentation. Matthew L Foster 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Foster, it's one thing to suggest that the topic be presented in a different, more neutral way; it's quite another to actually show how that may be done. You can try to cut the issue any way you like, but people who are interested in the question (which has merit in being commonly discussed and debated, in receiving media attention, etc.) should be able to find and understand it in the terms in which it is common currency. To think that couching the topic in the language of nutrition and wealth while taking it on assumption that race does not exist amounts to a neutral portrayal of the subject is baldly political and hardly even-handed. W.M. O'Quinlan 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The origin of the differences

Explanatory hypothesis of their causes are relevant and a section has been added. MoritzB 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that the section is now full of spelling errors and nonsense. Muntuwandi is also guilty of outright vandalism as he attributed his own opinions to Prof. Meisenberg. Reverting.

MoritzB 07:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)