Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:10, 17 February 2007

I am asking only out of curiosity (please assume good faith, I am not making any judgement) ... but, why do you keep changing names? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I left a number of queries for you (and other) in the long discussions and mediation sections of the race and intelligence article. I hope you know I am acting in good faith and trying to be constructive. I hope you will respond to the questions/comments there. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I do not think discussing the range of debate is necesarily tangential. In most conflicts involving NPOV it is a central question. If we can agree about the range of debate, we would make a lot of progress. For example - and this is my own view, I have not expressed it on the talk page - I agree with you against many intelocutors that the views of the APA and mainstream psychologists must be given due importance in this article (against those who attack psychology as pseudoscience). Nevertheless, the views of sociologists and anthropologists on whether race is socially constructed and to what extent it is a surrogate for socio-economic status is just as valid and relevant as the views of psychologists. The article is race and intelligence and when it comes to intelligence alone I would grant authority to psychologists, but when it comes to race I think anthropologists (including biological anthropologists) are as relevant and significant as the views of other evolutionary scientists (e.g. evolutionary biologists). I agree that the article should not duplicate extensive material in the race article (just as I am sure we agree it should not duplicate extensive material from the intelligence article) but it should acknowledge and summarize the relevant views especially as they have played a role in debates on the relationship between race and intelligence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

race

FYI: http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your note. Is there someone you would propose as a third party who you think would be acceptable to JK? As to the contents of your comment, I have two points. First, I agree with you that the research should be presented in the language of the original research themselves - but NPOV demands that criticisms of the research and the language of the research needs to be included as well. Second, while psychologists are experts in race, sociologists and anthropologists are experts in race and SES and their views should be included as well. I hope I am being clear about adding additional views and not removing the views to which you have refered. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

it's pretty, but overstates many claims:

The pattern of DNA across populations shows a nested subset. African populations harbor some alleles (gene variations) that are absent in non-African populations; however, all of the alleles that are common in non-African populations are also common in African populations.

...except for the ones that aren't. Every allele derived by an out-of-African population that didn't flow back into Africa breaks this pattern. --WD RIK NEW 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote,

One possibility is that I don't understand the points being made. Naturally, I suspect that instead the other commenters don't understand something -- and I think that something is in part related to what WP is and isn't.

Just want to be clear: you do not understand the points I made, or you do not understand the points others are making? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I

I'm following a hunch that we can start by what should be the easiest changes, those that require less work to enact, and less work to negotiate. That's why I'm suggesting stuff along the lines of better citation attribution, and the like. The easy solutions. I'm hoping this will help editors see that the gap is maybe less of a challenge to bridge than they thought. We'll see.--Ramdrake 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

papers

• Rushton, J. P., Cvorovic, J. and Bons, T. A. (2007). "General mental ability in South Asians: Data from three Roma (Gypsy) communities in Serbia". Intelligence. 35 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.002. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hartmann, P., Hye Sun Kruuse, N. and Nyborg, H. (2007). "Testing the cross-racial generality of Spearman's hypothesis in two samples". Intelligence. 35 (1): 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.004. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ashton, M. C. and Lee, K. (2005). "Problems with the method of correlated vectors". Intelligence. 33 (4): 431–444. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.12.004. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hunt, E. and Sternberg, R. J. (2006). "Sorry, wrong numbers: An analysis of a study of a correlation between skin color and IQ". Intelligence. 34 (2): 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.004. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Owen, K. (1992). "The suitability of Raven's standard progressive matrices for various groups in South Africa". Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (2): 149–159. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90037-P. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
• Barnett, S. M. and Williams, W. (2004). "National Intelligence and The Emperor's New Clothes". PsycCRITIQUES. doi:10.1037/004367. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Barnett, S. M. and Williams, W. M. (2005). "IQ-Income Data Do Not Prove Poor Countries Must Remain Poor". PsycCRITIQUES. 50 (13). doi:10.1037/041317. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ervik, A. O. (2003). "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". The Economic Journal. 113 (488): F406–F408. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.13916. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
• Nell, V. (2000). Cross-cultural neuropsychological assessment: Theory and practice. London: Erlbaum. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)

--W.R.N. 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

race

If you have a specific conflict with a specific user the best and really only resort is to the arbcom. You can say that I attempted mediation (indeed, I attempted three times, one attempt archived, and for what it is worth I still wish contributors would try to follow my advice in the third attempt, which I believe is clearer and more constructive - where I spell out groundrules and list four bullet points to focus on); before you even think of going to ArbCom, you have to demonstrate that you and others really tried to work through the mediation so my suggestion to you, tactical and practical, is to insist that Futurebird and JK focus on my comments in my mediation effort and I ask you, personally to assume good faith and really try to use the framework I laid out to negotiate compromises with them. To make a good case with ArbCom, you have to demonstrate that you did everything you could to work with others via the framework set out by the mediator, and it didn't work. If you trust Ramdrake, make a personal plea to Ramdrake to be the intermediary between you aon the one hand and JK and F on the other, in applying the mediation framework I set up. When mediation fails, the next step is RFC which as you know I already did. I think you need to give RfC at least a week before going to the ArbCom. Wait a full week. Go over all the comments. Make specific proposals at that time to JK and F on how the three (or four) of you can come up with mutually staisfying compromise edits drawing on the comments, and demand that they provide counterproposals based on those comments too.

If you do all of the above and feel that you are still at an impasse it is then (and only then) that you should consider arbcom. But be careful - arbcom can be very very picky about what cases it accepts. You will need to make a careful case that (1) ArbCom is the appropriate place, and (2) people earnestly tried mediation and it failed and (3) people earnestly tried RfC and it failed. When you go to ArbCom you will need specific complaints.

This is the best advice I can give right now. For starts, ask Ramdrake to lead discussions concerning the bullet points, between you and them, with an eye towards reaching a resolution one bullet point at a time.

Final piece of advice: forget what you personally believe or even what you think is a compelling or reasonable argument. If they propose any edit that complies with both NPOV and NOR, accept it, no matter how you feel and what you think. And insist they do the same. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look at my latest edits on the talk page. My plan is to overhaul the article starting by the simplest things: attribute stuff properly, don't mix and match research unless warranted, and if you do, specify who said what. Once all that's done, I think we need to rethink the importance of some sections of the article, to focus less specifically on "intelligence research" and more on research bearing on the relationship of race and intelligence (of course, following the criteria that have already been discussed). Once all that's done, I'm guessing FB will find that a lot of the material he wanted to add was already in the article, just maybe not with the proper priority. I'm not proposing to delete anything significant from the article, or to add tons and tons of new material, but rather to find out how close we can come, with the current material reorganized, to something that would cover the topic more generally and less from a specific niche's view, which when all is said and done, is probably the most consistent problem people find with the article once they've had the occasion to go through it while calm. :) If you feel that's something you can live with, I'm ready to do as much as I can to sell the ideas to the others. Let me know what you think.--Ramdrake 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on a note: One general note: phrases like The most common view among intelligence researchers is are important, even when it's just intelligence researchers who hold that view. Between the APA, WSJ and S&R documents, the commonality of views among intelligence researchers is attributable/sourced/spelled out on most issues. I have no doubt it is, but in the article, these statements aren't always attributed, and they need to be, as I think you'll agree that they're far more controversial than the Earth revolves around the Sun, at least with the general public. I personnally don't care if there's a string of 12 people who said the same thing, but such statements need to be attributed, otherwise, they look like they're editorially endorsed, and that violates NPOV. Hope we agree.--Ramdrake 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm glad that you agree that the history is an important element of this topic. Maybe we're getting somewhere. futurebird 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I need your feedback

Since we don't always agree I think it's important that you share your feedback on the revisions I've proposed to the summary sections for 'Utility of research' and 'Media portrayal' on the R & I talk page. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.

• Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Utility_of_research_section
• Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Media_portrayal_section

futurebird 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments on the talk pages of these articles. I hope that the changes I've made address your concerns. Could you please weigh in at the links above, that is on the talk page for the main article, about changing what is in the main article as a summary for each of these sub articles? I have also modified the requests there to match the changes you suggested on the talk pages of the subarticles. Thanks! I look forward to your comments. futurebird 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence

I feels as if our conversation about the first sentence has stopped. I had last proposed a change to meet some of your concerns about the new first sentence. Could you comment on this new version:

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. Both the definitions of, and the relationship between race and intelligence have been a topic of considerable study, speculation and debate.

Please put your comments here

...so we can get that part of our consensus reaching process going again.futurebird 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence

After more than two weeks I decided that I at least was not going to accomplish much more in my attempts to mediate. I do believe that many people have more clarity as to the crucial points of contention. At the very least I hope the last couple of weeks discussion shows contributors places where the article needs to be clearer.

I have un-protected (that is, semi-protected) the page so you can all work on it again. I know you to be rigorous in your adherance to our verifiability standard. If you do not mind a personal suggestion - and my only agenda is to prevent or forestall another edit war that can lead to the page being protected again - I urge you to reflect on the possibility that you are over-invested in the article. I am not asking you to stop or even reduce your contributions to the page, only to be more open-minded about others who have different ideas about how the page should develop. Surely you agree such open-mindedness is critical to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. As long as other contributors are complying with our core policies please respect their work. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (Research)

Hey WRN, I think you might be right about requiring protection on the article, but I'd like to suggest that maybe a lot of this can be avoided if we move most of your contributions into a sub-article, and leave the top-level Race and intelligence for a more general treatment of the issue. I know it's a drastic measure, but I think that in a more narrowly tailored article, you'll be able to preserve a lot more of your ideas without such strong resistance. Anyway, something to think about. --JereKrischel 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

my experiment

I tried informal mediation, and it went no-where. My advice now is, if you think that there is an intractable problem on the page, you request formal mediation and seek to work using that formal mechanism. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying my experiement has failed. So? The question is why, and I have a pretty good idea. As I said, the solution is not page protection. It is mediation - not informal - you and one or two other parties need to officially request formal mediation. Otherwiese, file a complaint at ArbCom. But whatever you do, it has to lead to a solution. Page protection is no solution, just an abdication. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Little request...

Could you stop calling me "he" I'm a "she" it's kinda' annoying. I know it's hard to know in the internet, but I just wanted to let you know. Thanks! futurebird 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it was good faith error...

WRN, FYI, when you restored the "Model Minorities" section you restored it without the sourced additions I made about African high achieving minorities. I just need to be reassured that this was simply a good faith error. I hope it won't become a pattern. Please remember you cannot simply remove blocks of sourced information unless talking about it first and getting something like a consensus. futurebird 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)