Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 8 (mediation by Uncle Ed)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

Contents

Mediation by Uncle Ed

I would like everyone to summarize as briefly as possible what they intend to do with this article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It seems the main thing being requested on this page is that Wikipedia policy regarding no personal attacks be enforced. That would be a very simple thing, compared to this massive intervention, which seems unnecessary, and I'm not sure why it's taking place. All that was requested by one of the users here is that Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks be enforced, which I'm sure we all agree about. I think we should revert.--Nectarflowed T 12:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editor #001 - Questions the article should address

  • Note that this is not my suggestion, but a sample format for each editor to use when making their proposal.
  • I suggest each editor create their own outline

Are disparities real?

  • No, statistics are manipulated
  • No, tests are defective
  • Yes, but not because of "race" at all
  • Yes, but race is not the main factor
  • Yes, and the studies seem to indicate a heritable component (among other components) that has some statistical power, for a subset of intelligence called g

Do disparities matter?

  • No, everyone should be treated the same
  • No, success in life is unaffected by IQ
  • Yes, smart people get paid more (no fair!)
  • yes, they provide clues in the hunt for the genes underlying the variation in intelligence both within and between populations and discovery of the mechanisms of those genes

What causes disparities?

  • genes - some people are just born smarter or stupider
  • wealth - rich people are smarter
  • school - education makes people smarter
  • culture - society makes people smarter
  • family - parental expectations influence study habits
  • personal effort - study more, get smarter
  • genes - there is genetic variation which influences wealth, nutrient handling and preferences, learning attitudes and aptitudes, preferences, growth rates, parenting, courage, what environments are preferred, etc.


Editor #002 (P0M)

Don't cut me up, my statement I mean. It's not here just for one individual to read. P0M

Bottom Line moved to the top so you can stop reading if you can't tolerate my conclusions

The hypothesis questioned in the article on [race] and [intelligence] is falsifiable, has received lots of confirmation, can be proven false if the evidence can be found, and is unfortunately framed in language that is inflamatory. The problem is not going to go away unless the hypothesis is falsified. Past attempts to find socially acceptable language for words with affectively contaminated language having failed, we are probably stuck with both the hypothesis and the language it is framed in.

Science -- what is it?

Falsifiability

If you want a proposition (i.e., theory or even hypothesis) to be taken seriously in the world of science, it must be falsifiable. The well-known physicist Richard Feynman had a devastating put down: "It isn't even wrong." If you say something and it turns out to be wrong at least you've eliminated a real possibility. If you say something like, "Satan has two sets of wisdom teeth," nobody can prove that you're wrong, so you can claim to be a world authority on satanic dentition.

  • The proposition, "Genetic heritage is a variable that affects the [intelligence] of so-called [racial groups]" meets the requirements in that it could be disproven. So even though I hate the word "race" and I get queasy at the idea of actually measuring [intelligence] because I have seen surface indicators (like tests) confound my expectations so many times, I can deal with the idea that people are trying to discuss.

Confirmation

We gain confidence in a proposition (theory, hypothesis) the more times we test it, and especially if we discover that as we figure out where there are imperfections in our test measures we get results that come closer to the results that theory would predict.

I started out as a physics major in a major university that had one of the best departments in the country at the time. As part of freshman physics, I and the other 300 or so freshman physics students all tested Newtonian physics. We had an apparatus that zapped a thousand volts or so across a gap every 1/10 second. We put a tape with a weight on it through the gap, turned on the juice, let the tape be pulled through the gap by the weight, measured the distances between holes in the tape. Nobody's results came out exactly as Newton's theory would have it, but when you averaged class results, could you believe it? It came out pretty damned close. Surprise! Surprise! Newton was right.[

  • The proposition, "Genetic heritage is a variable that affects the [intelligence] of so-called [racial groups]" has received lots of confirmation (much as I personally hate to admit it).
  • Wrong, people self-proclaiming their belonging to a racial group have showed different results to IQ test. This is a falsifiable proposition. However the propositions "self-proclaiming their belonging to a racial group correspond a significative genetic difference" and "IQ test measure intelligecnce" are barely falsifiable if not unfalsifiable. Ericd 23:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation is never complete

Newton was right about everything -- until we started looking at things happening at largish fractions of the speed of light, interstellar distances, stellar masses, etc. Who is this guy called Einstein anyway, and what right does he have to prove Newton wrong? Bottom line, you think you know something and you never know what is going to show up around the next corner.

  • The proposition, "Genetic heritage is a variable that affects the [intelligence] of so-called [racial groups]" may turn out to be falsified when more evidence gets in. Nobody but maybe Arbor seems to have noticed that Rikurzhen and I have been arguing over this very question.

Neutrality of language

Zhuang Zi said it right somewhere around 300 BC. Whatever vocabulary you choose, people will end up attaching their own connotations to it, so you try to find an emotionally neutral word for something (i.e., "mentally retarded") and before long it's "Hey, you retard!"

"Race" is a deeply flawed word. It calls forth passions derived from klesa (affective contaminations). It makes it hard for people to think straight. But that isn't all that is wrong with it. It does not have a single meaning. Think about that, please.

"Intelligence" is a deeply puzzling concept. We have tests that we perform that try to measure something that we understand only as a vague mass phenomenon. The good thing is that the tests measure whatever they measure, and we can even get useful information out of them, e.g., predictions on how well somebody will do in a university. But whether the intelligence test is the measure of the man, or the measure of the cat, is unclear. For one thing, motivations involved in doing the test are possibly more important than the intellectual capabilities of the test subject. Try to measure the intelligence of a cat. Cats do what they want to do. Period.

  • Even if we defined a word, e.g., klados, as "a population with close genetic affiliation" or something even more precise, people would translate it as "race" in their own heads. "IQ test" is o.k. with me as long as we can give people a fair chance to understand that it measures what it measures. (By the way, some of the most hurtful criminals have been intelligent enough to run huge corporations from which to siphon money into their own pockets. Intelligence is not the only measure of a human being that is important, at least to me.)

Implications

The article is a responsible and accurate report (as far as I am competent to judge) of the state of the art, such as it is, concerning the question of whether there are genetic contributions to intelligence, and whether those genetic contributions average out when we look at human populations that have gone to some approximation of equilibrium (such as the ancient nation of humans in Australia before the outside world started to move in on them) or whether these genetically dissimilar groups (different averages for various genetic components) turn out to have significant differences.

  • The only way to defeat the assertion that some [racial] group is inferior or superior to some other group in terms of their average measured IQs is to state that idea as a scientific hypothesis, establish good operational definitions for the terms relevant to the stated hypothesis, and then dig out the facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Ed's intention was for each of us to put our positions in a block somewhere that would be left along. (I reserve the right to reword what I've said if I find it needs it.) P0M 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editor #003 (Rikurzhen)

I'm not quite sure how this works, but ... I believe that P0M and I personally disagree on many things. Nonetheless his overall assesment is fair. ... actually, his conduct is exemplary ... as is the behavior of most contributors despite our personal opinions.

No original research

This article cannot conform to Zen master's demands because, primarily, they would violate WP:NOR.

Too much is already know and published on this topic for it to be presented very much differently than it is now. It is ubiqutiously described in terms ranging from "race and intelligence" for popular press (thus our choice for the article title), to "group differences in g" for the pedanctic

Major references for this article

At least three top-prority references exist for this page:

  • "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report from the American Psychological Association [1] -- including at least one staunchly anti-this-topic critic, Robert Sternberg, one time president of the APA -- note his quotation in the background section
  • "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" [2], a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".
  • Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". American Psychologist, 42, 137–144. -- which unfortunately, only I seem to have a copy of

they don't leave any room for us to make the kind of starting-from-first-principles analysis that Zen master wants to see; essentially, he wants to write a schoarly review paper from his own POV

Structure of the article

the article structure that I first implemented was cobbled together from the structure of "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" -- we go from (1) Background, to (2) less hotly debated data where most agree, to (3) where the real scholarly battle currently exists over explanations of differences

(4) public policy was tacked on after Psychology, public policy, and law dedicated the June 2005 issue to just that topic

by including extra sources, now 162 and counting, details and new theories have been added which were less certain or not around at the time the three major sources were written

Content of the article

if anything, the search for point-counter-point material has actually already stretch the limits of credible resources; but I've tried to take special notice that the language used to describe them becomes increasingly less certain as the credibility of the sources decreases. by a competitive editing process, we've ended up with too long an article, but at this point nearly every possible stone as been turned over. This article has been thru VfD and peer review. I have counted at least 6 recurring editors, who have all mostly agreed about content and strucuture, at least after a little consoluation on the talk page. None have called for anything like Zen master is asking for.

Article title

A great deal has been debating about the article title. One fact should be noted in any such discussion: the cognate article in Britannica is "Race" and intelligence. I'm under the impression that WP software cannot allow the (") character in titles. So for technical reasons (if not others) the current article title corresponds to the E.B. article title. It also seems to me to be the most encyclopedic of the various alternatives. --Rikurzhen 04:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) I replied at #Rename "Race and measures of intelligence" or similar. ··gracefool |☺ 28 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Restoring a limited amount of content to reply to Zen-Master -with my recommendations

Dude, I'm getting a headache just trying to figure out what's the exact problem here. All I can gather is that Zen Master thinks that the article is biased for presenting only X-causes-Y theory. (Question 1:Am I reading this right?) Second question, a rephrase of the 1st: Do you mean to say that intelligence affects race as opposed to race affecting intelligence? (I'm trying to understand your cause and effect argument above.) So, I have a question (and forgive me if it was answered in the past, but I'm not going to search a month of archives). THIRD (and main) QUESTION: Zen Master, what is your proposed SOLUTION to the problem you espouse? (I mean, specifically, what changes do you feel need to be made and why?) Thank you. I shall "watch" this page for like a day or so to wait for an answer from someone, anyone.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is one of language bias. The cause and effect argument is that the abstract disparity has many ways of being described, "race" vs "IQ" is just one possible way. Note how the article and some users on this talk page always describe everything in terms of "race" vs "IQ" even when describing alternative causes, but isn't that misleading, if the root cause of the disparity is because of "wealthy" vs "nutrition" then why is "race" repeatedly implicated as a cause? Since there is no scientific consensus on a cause for the abstract disparity why does this article hint at cause by repeatedly emphasizing "race"? Repeated emphasis and framing of the issue in "race" vs "IQ" terms wears down the mind into thinking about the issue only in racial terms, which is wrong, the disparity is abstract so the article should convey that fact. To put it even more simply, the word "race" is both a way of describing the unexplained disparity and also a possible conclusion for that disparity which is at best needlessly ambiguous and at worst POV, an article must present the issue using neutral language first. zen master T 09:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply; I've taken the liberty to replace just this portion to maintain continuity (and because I don't intend to make many comments here). First, your point is well-taken that other causes exist to explain the differences between intelligence; however, the article clearly mentions the "nature v nurture" argument. Not only that, contrary to what you say, the whole article does not say that "race" [is] repeatedly implicated as a cause, as you seem to say above, as I quote you here. Conversely, it lays out arguments both "for" and "against" this hypothesis. Further, as another editor pointed out, the article is about the cause and effect relationships "race and intelligence." It is not about "tall vs short" or "weight vs eating habits." Thank you for answering my 1st question in the affirmative. There is no way you could probably answer the 2nd in the affirmative, since intelligence probably won't make you change your race, but maybe intelligence has an effect on mating habits, which could change race for the "next" generation. However, you don't answer my last and main question: What do you propose as a solution?--GordonWattsDotCom 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me suggest something: The article can NOT deviate from the effect (intelligence), but if you think there is a deficiency, you may expand on the causes; the article mentions throughout the effect of environment, citing, for example (and I quote from the article): "nutrition, the richness of the early home environment, and other social, cultural or economic factors...e.g., socioeconomic inequality or minority culture membership...like bias in those giving grades or constructing tests...differences in socio-economic status...a persistence of racism [that] reinforces this negative effect...culture-only hypothesis [of the test administered]...family income, education, and home environment...cultural factors that disadvantage caste-like minorities...such as nutrition during pregnancy or early childhood which may produce such differences without any genetic cause...and [lastly] environmental conditions differ among nations." So, I think that other causes are covered, but if you think differently, you might expand some explanation of, say, how the differing nutrition affects intelligence. Here's research from the world's foremost researchers on the health dangers of milk and meat, which no doubt affect intelligence, and I have it on good word that you have their blessings to cite them as a reference: AOL Mirror, GeoCities Mirror, or even the Tripod Mirror.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for your courteous and clear remarks.

You're welcome, Uncle Ed.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen master has brought up some interesting questions about causation, particularly the idea that "race" may not be the only factor related to intelligence. I'd like to see some suggestions for other factors. My own list above is meant as a sample format. Please do your own work, I shan't be editing the article (too busy).

We understand: As an admin, you are busy; I plead a different excuse (reason?) for not editing: If I were an angel, I would be a guardian angel of the Terri Schiavo article, and my superiors would not let me edit here on a full-time basis.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that Zen-master wants us to consider only the other factors, not the possibility that [intelligence] varies with [race] in some interesting (if, for me, problematical ways). If I had been able to come up with any more confounding factors I would have put them in the article. I mentioned some in the Rfd and then discovered that they were already in the article (and regretted looking stupid, but, TIA). P0M 17:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and regretted looking stupid" Dude, we all make mistakes. Don't be so hard on yourself. "but, TIA" -huh? Ah: "Thanks in Advance." No problemo -you're welcome; and thank YOU for your efforts.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I don't think Wikipedia policy places any limits on the article such as the pre-determination that race is an "effect". Let's be a bit more broad-minded and just report what the scientific literature and other published texts say on the topic. The scope of the article includes all aspects of race and intelligence which relate to each other in any way. The question of causation is but one such relation, indeed the most controversial one.

Uncle Ed, you and POM below make good points.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think I've already mentioned somewhere that if you find a corelation between [race] and [intelligence] that does not imply causation. It tells you that something interesting is going on that bears heavily on the lives of the disadvantaged and so good could be done by digging out the real causal factors -- be they genetic, nutritional, whether your head points north or west when you sleep... P0M 17:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I come across as high-handed, but as an admin I feel called upon to enforce the civility rules as well as the NPOV rules. Previous discussion got out of hand, but I'm sure we can all deal with this politely and responsibly now. A fresh start usually helps.

And would someone please set up the archive, I'm awfully pressed for time this morning. Thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

But Ed, there was an archive before you blanked it. You say you'd like to see "suggestions for other factors". At the danger of sounding snarky: What factors do you think the article is missing? They're all there. The "interesting points about causation" that Zen "brought up" are covered in amazing detail in the article itself, with a standard of validation and reference far surpassing everything else I have seen on Wikipedia. This is the most meticulously researched and most NPOV article I have seen in the entire encyclopaedia, and about a controversial issue to boot. Please see the VfD debate for some 40 editors who share this assessment. (Well, now you blanked the link to that debate it's hard to find). That being said, I am happy that you want to help, and some monitoring of this page is appreciated. Arbor 11:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Archive is not gone. It's here. *yawn* Must I do 'all the work? Click on "Page history", go back a day, and copy what you need. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Avoid the risk (of being snarky ;-) and don't ask me to edit the article. My role is to get discussion back on track. And *huge yawn* have you even read the outline I placed way above? Its contents (hint, hint) may be relevant to your first question above. And to get you started, here are some links. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Race is neither cause nor effect, it is merely an easily identifiable marker for different gene pools which may have different genes and/or different frequencies of gene variants due to genetic drift or a history of different selection pressures, such as diseases, available foods and nutrients, etc. --Silverback 11:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Race" (if defineable) is one of many possible "easily identifiable markers". Why do you feverently support a unscientific presentation of this subject? Any comments on the fact that there is no consensus whether IQ tests are an objective measure of intelligence? Presenting the issue only in terms of "race" leads the mind to thinking about the issue only in terms of race which makes it easier for a language propagandist to then come along and create confusion/errant assumptions between description and causation. In lawyer terms it is "leading the witness" but in this case it is leading random joe wikipedia reader's mind. zen master T 08:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you are questioning human nature, it is hard to think of other easily identifiable markers than the clusters of characteristics that we call races. For some reason when describing people in mixed societies we mention race before other characteristics. Weight and height are about the only other characteristics as univerally mentioned. Clothing and distinguishing marks probably come next. Hair color is not completely independent of race. If race had no correlates other than assisting in identification, then there would be no point in studying it scientifically. Just because race is not a well or consistently defined term, doesn't mean that the gap in average IQs is invalid. Since it is reproducable, it is at least a scientific curiousity and a stimulous to further research, whatever it is that IQ measures. Whether you think IQ measures intelligence or not, the fact that it is reproducable and has predictive value should at least make you wonder what it is that IQ measures and what factors influence it, and it makes a contribution to a discussion and study of what intelligence is. Given that there is so much that it doesn't predict in terms of success outside of academia, I suspect, that IQ measures just a subset of what we might call intelligence, and it is perhaps quite weak in measuring various kinds of social intelligence. This article is as extensive and balanced a discussion of the issue as I have seen.
You must remember, that while the scientific evidence points to a strong genetic component to the IQ differential, there is no judgement as to whether one set of genes are better or not and furthermore the results are environmentally dependent. West African gene pools may very well result in larger brain sizes and higher average IQs in an environment of uncontrolled malaria, testse fly and other parasitic infestations. Given more knowledge about the specific genes, we may also find more positive environments which result in a reordering of the average IQ results. Best IQ results for different gene pools may require different environments. --Silverback 09:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
You say it is "hard to think of other easily identifiable markers [other than] race" yet you ignore the fact that numerous scientists have presented over half a dozen, why? When did difficulty of thought become a part of the scientific method? You don't start presentations with a conclusion. "Race" is just one bit of data warehouse type information that could be and is in many cases asked of the test taker, such as: nutrition level, education, parent's education, childhood environment, wealth level, access to health care, etc etc. Where is the scientific evidence that "race" or "a genetic component" is the cause of the "IQ disparity"? A simple or one bit data correlation does not prove, and definitely should not hint at, causation. You also ignore the fact that many scientists consider IQ tests to be a dubious measure of intelligence, so aren't all conclusions based or inferred from them tainted? More importantly, there is no consensus to present the issue or infer conclusions based on the tests in the manner you and the article use. If someone simply honestly believed that "race" is a cause for the "IQ disparity" they would still want to present the issue neutrally. In my opinion, only a racist would feverently desire to present this issue exclusively in terms of "race". If you are "right" why do you resist a neutral presentation of the issue? zen master T 09:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you give an example other easily identifiable markers that have been presented? Why do you think others think race is a cause of the IQ disparity? There is an IQ disparity statistically associated with race both before and after proposed environmental confounders have been controlled for and both genes and the environment are thought to be the causes, not race. Fortunately this article does not present this issue exclusively in terms of "race", but appears quite balanced. I am not aware of what racists would fervently desire, and don't see how it is relevant.--Silverback 10:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I gave examples above, "nutrition" and "weatlh" are two. I think others think that way because you and others have tricked them. This belief is not an objective conclusion but has as its foundation tricksy language, so it is tainted. Your statement that the "IQ disparity" vs "race" still exists after stuff has been "controlled" for is entirely untrue. The citations I presented on this talk page, and even info already in the article prove 1) there is no consensus that "race" is the cause, and 2) there is no consensus that the issue must be presented exclusively in terms of "race". Are you ignoring what I am saying? To be neutral and scientific, alternative hypotheses should not be presented within the "race" vs "IQ" framework. The title of the article is also wrong as it focuses on just one bit of data warehouse information correlated to dubious IQ tests. zen master T 10:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize you were proposing "nutrition" and "wealth" as easily identifiable markers. I view them as factors revealed only after further investigation. You are correct, perhaps the title should be Race and IQ, since IQ is actually designed to be independent of environmental factors such as education, so is likely to vary with markers for different populations. As the article makes clear, IQ variance does not manage to be completed explained by genes. Keep in mind that any IQ variance attributed to genes, does not necessarily imply the genes are related to the brain, they may very well be related to nutrition, e.g., how certain nutrients are handled, and whether they allocate the nutrients to brain developement, versus perhaps the immune system. To get the same amount of a nutrient allocated to the brain, may require higher levels of the nutrient, so any study "controlling" for nutrition and other environmental variables, will attributed unexplained variance to the genes. A race showing "poorly" on the IQ tests, may actually have BETTER genes for "intelligence" per se, but have nutrition genes that allocate the resources to different priorities. Surely you can see, that it is important not to suppress research out of some kind of misguided political correctness, opportunities to intervene and improve quality of life may be missed.--Silverback 11:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nutrition and wealth are likely causes for the abstract issue, calling them "easily identifiable markers" confuses things. I did not suggest "Race and IQ" as a title, that still is wrong because this issue should not be framed in terms of race AND because IQ tests are dubious at best. There is no consensus for either, if you are "right" why do you reject working towards true consensus? Why do you want lies to remain hidden in darkness? Also, the word "genes" is pretty much the same as the word "race" so you can't keep using that/exclusively framing the issue with that and remain neutral. IQ test controversy or Bell Curve controversy are the only objectively neutral titles that I can think of. Why do you keep choosing to present nutrition as a factor within the "race disparity"? Instead, the truth is: "race" may not be a factor in the nutritional disparity, that hypothesis exists scientifically so the article and title have to be rewritten to accomodate it and others. Your and the article's inferred conclusions and method of presentation are completely tainted and unscientific. zen master T 20:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very good point. Thank you for a very useful contribution. P0M 18:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's get silly! See comment to the left before deleting; See "Zen-master.27s_basic_concern.2C_as_P0M_interprets_it" below and comments to the left; I increased size of feline pic to get attention to my comments because they are few in number but address the dispute with aims of being a peacemaker.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Let's get silly! See comment to the left before deleting; See "Zen-master.27s_basic_concern.2C_as_P0M_interprets_it" below and comments to the left; I increased size of feline pic to get attention to my comments because they are few in number but address the dispute with aims of being a peacemaker.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm merely posting this pic of a cat to get attention that I've posted a comment on the bottom of the page (immediately below). As soon as it's gotten the other editors' attention and given them time to respond, y'all can safely delete it: MEOW! (See "Zen-master.27s_basic_concern.2C_as_P0M_interprets_it" below and comments to the left; I increased size of feline pic to get attention to my comments because they are few in number but address the dispute with aims of being a peacemaker.
I have two questions: QUESTION #1 with introduction - At: Google's search for "twin studies" "reared apart", the similar "Yahoo" search, and also as a search in another favorite search engine, "Excite.com" for these, we find that even when there is nothing else in common but genetic makeup, identical twins are still more similar than what we'd expect on average. Since zen master T is critical of the link alleged between race and IQ, he is my main target for this question: How do we explain the similarities between the IQ of the identical twins if they've been separated at birth and raised (reared) apart? QUESTION #2 with intro: Your concerns are interesting, Zen Master, and others have good feedback. Like the first question, this is directed at everybody, but mainly at you, since you are critical of the article. What specifically would you suggest for a title, and what specific improvements do you think would be helpful? (Since you are the main critic or recent, it is mainly -but not totally -your responsibility to propose specific solutions, hence question #two here.) I may stop in later to check on y'alls' progress. ("Y'alls'" is an informal plural possessive pronoun.) Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 22:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... no reply from Zen Master...?? ...Anyhow, it's been nice visiting, but, as I've said, I haven't been assigned here, and I wouldn't wanna tick off my superiors! Besides, my current assignment is placing me in meltdown mode: I've discovered loads of previously undiscovered errors on my current assignment. Y'all will have to take care of this page yourselves. Have a nice day. Ta!--GordonWattsDotCom 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civility again

Gentlemen, please: no more N-word. Zen master, please do not mention Nazis for the next week at least. Patrick, do not respond if he does. The next person who makes a personal remark will get ... well, I don't know, but it probably should involve a vacation from editing or discussing this article. Go swimming, or have a beer! (Not at the same time, of course: I want you to live long enough to finish this article.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

huh? I thought I was clear I am describing people's words and method of presentation? What plausible explanation is there for subtle language confusion combined with repetition other than naziism or racist language propaganda? If some random person just happened to believe that "race" is the cause of the "IQ disparity" they would still want to present this subject neutrally and scientifically, which means basing conclusions on fact rather than on mentally tricksy or assumption inducing language. The problem with the way this subject is being framed is at least 2 levels deep. First, "race" is not the only way to frame or describe this abstract issue. Second, other hypotheses or explanations should not be described or presented within the limiting confines of framing the issue exclusively in terms of "race". Every scientifically recognized hypothesis or possible cause, such as nutrition, should use their own way of describing the abstract issue, to equal degree. zen master T 08:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, that didn't last long. ZM, I'm afraid I can't agree with your final statement, that hypotheses should have equal weight. First, a "scientifically recognized hypothesis", to the extent there is such a thing, is generally associated with supporting data. (Otherwise, it is called "argument" or "speculation.") It is rarely if ever true that hypotheses are given equal weight, particularly when data are available as with the present subject.
Stepping back, I view this article very simply: an association between race and intelligence has long been noted and quantitatively established; no causal link has been established; the subject appears important and interesting whether or not a causal link exists; and significant science has been carried out. Our job, as encyclopedia editors, is to honor the interested reader with a careful compilation and presentation of what is known. We did not choose the subject; a community of scholars did. We do not generate the data; ongoing scientific practice does. We must simply report on the state of knowledge as best we apprehend it. ZM's beef seems to be with a debate that has long ago been framed in particular language. In my view, to change the language or reframe the debate is to distort what we are supposed to report. --DAD 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This supposed "link" is from results of dubious IQ tests is it not? This "link" is based upon just one bit of information about the test taker when there is a plethora of bits? Where is the scientific consensus to present it the way you want to? The problem is indeed with language or manner of presentation, the article Race and intelligence does not just report facts, it tricks the mind into assuming conclusions too early in the process. How the issue is framed and presented is how the mind will think about it, describing the issue only one way makes it too easy for a racist propagandist to switch from description to inferring cause without logical support. What WP is suppose to report is scientific neutrality. Only someone that would desire to trick people, or has been tricked themselves, would want to frame this issue exclusively in terms of "race". The "compilation" was not "careful" as far as neutrality and the scientific method are concerned, it effectively excludes valid research by presenting it unfairly through misdirecting language. To not change the language means alternative explanations and possible solutions can never be presented fairly, which is racist. Someone might assume from these facts that certain entities desire this as their goal? If an average human truly believed in something they would want to present it fairly so it could stand up to scrutiny in the light of day, why cause people to errantly infer conclusions about an issue if you are "right"? Language, or the way a subject is presented, should encourage deep critical thinking about the core of the issue (especially when abstract), rather than encourage initial gut reaction assumptions which is what framing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" does. zen master T 23:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ZM, you seem to be arguing about the very existence of the article, not its content. The article is explicitly about a link between race and intelligence that has been discussed in hundreds of studies, several books, popular articles, websites, and so on. In other words, that WP has an article called, explicitly, Race and intelligence is not novel or biased, but simply reflective of the existing landscape of knowledge and inquiry. This article is not about what causes differences in intelligence, except inasmuch as such content pertains to why racial groups show differences in measured intelligence. The article Intelligence (trait) treats the scholarly definitions of intelligence, and g theory and IQ both discuss biological and social correlates/causes of cognitive ability. You're welcome to add more pages examining different aspects of intelligence.
Your objections seemingly would hold even if we had pages for Nutrition and intelligence, Socioeconomic status and intelligence, Playing Mozart for your unborn child and intelligence, and so on. You appear opposed to any such article on the present subject, simply because the existence of a topic like "Race and intelligence", to you, validates something which must not be validated. But the validation battle's long over (see the Reference list). As a Wikipedia editor, you're not to be framing the debate, just reporting it.
Finally, your claims about language bias contradict the language used to discuss the topic in general. "Intelligence" is the common-use term, as is "race". I note your general reticence to suggest terms, consistent with your apparent (fatuous) aim of obliterating the topic entirely. Kindly demonstrate what terms are both equally inclusive (IQ testing is a subset of intelligence testing) and in common use. Also, as I'm still a bit confused, kindly explain what non-nihilistic purpose you serve with respect to the topic of racial differences in cognitive ability. --DAD 03:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no scientific consensus that a "link" between "race" and "intelligence" actually exists! A mere data correlation between results from dubious IQ tests and one bit of information about the test taker means nothing. I have suggested IQ test controversy as a title, "nutrition and intelligence" was mentioned as an example of what is not getting a fair presentation because the issue is forced to be framed in terms of "race". There is not even consensus that IQ tests are an objective measure of intelligence. zen master T 28 June 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Well, this exchange seems civil enough. I'm not going to get involved in the contents of the discussion. I just want you guys to carry on with good courtesy. (You are the expert contributors, not me :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)


Reorganization

The organization of this [talk] page is confusing, with older talk randomly interspersed (restored?) in the midst of late June 2005 talk. Anyway, it's 234 kilobytes long and way overdue for an archive. I started archiving but got overtaken.

Would somebody please archive this page? Nectarflowed, you'd be the best one to do this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You guys are the ones that deleted numerous but selective talk page discussions earlier today, why? zen master T 23:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of us requested Uncle Ed, as an admin, intervene. The request was specifically to enforce Wikipedia's policy of no name-calling.--Nectarflowed T 00:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the reorganization was unnecessary and may have been disorienting, and that we should simply merge any new additions from today into the old version. Following that, we should archive. POM conducted the most recent one. I would like to hear what Rikurzen and Ultramarine think about this, as they are most responsible for the article and are most affected by what is chosen to be done.--Nectarflowed T 00:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're talking about the reorganization of the talk page, not the article, right? I have little idea what's going on with the talk page, but there's only a few active threads about article content (Arbor's work on references, and the Proposal 1 work, which may be finished). --Rikurzhen 00:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Uhh any alleged "name calling" was one or two sentences, how did that justify removing entire threads? zen master T 02:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to archive the older threads, does anyone feel we need to keep the reorganization?
I'd like to add that Zen master and I are trying on his talk page to reach a mutual understanding regarding the concerns he's brought to this page and how they relate to the state of the article. I don't think it's necessary (if that's ok with everybody else) for that discussion to occur simultaneously on this page, as it might be harder to keep it focused when there are multiple users responding.--Nectarflowed T 00:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ZM & NF, it sounds like you got something going, so why don't I just bow out? If anyone needs my help again, you all know where to find me. Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's role

Hey, is this mediation over? Everyone on speaking terms again? Can I comment on the article as an ordinary mortal? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

From my vantage point, yeah, please! --DAD 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)
Okay, here goes nothing! -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:47 (UTC)
I do not consider you a mediator or neutral as far as this subject goes, nice try though. Did you just appoint yourself "mediator"? You guys are masters at deception and misdirecting away from the core of the issue. zen master T 30 June 2005 02:56 (UTC)
As explained previously, Uncle Ed is an administrator who's presence was requested by one of the users here because a user was making accusations and name-calling in a way that some users felt to be inappropriate.--Nectarflowed T 30 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Now that the name-calling has stopped, I have resumed ordinary participation in the crafting of this article - and related articles. In case you haven't noticed, I started: *IQ test controversy, and also

You should be flattered, Z! Both articles were inspired by something you said. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 19:58 (UTC)