Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 20 February 2007

Template:RFMF

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Multidel

Race and intelligence received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Race and intelligence was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 25, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54

What is Intelligence

• What is intelligence? Is intelligence, fundamentally, 1 import thing (Spearman, 1904), 3 things (Robert J. Sternberg 1988), 7 things (Howard Gardner, 1983), 10 things (Howard Gardner 1999), 120 things (Guildford, 1967), or even 150 or more things (Guilford, 1982)?

• Thorndike, Hagen & Sattler (1986) point out the extent to which the history of intelligence is in part a battle over names.

Source: History of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

• “Perhaps the best way to achieve coherence in the field of intelligence is to recognize that no single correct “model” or “approach” is evident and that different ones elucidate different aspects of a very complex phenomenon (Robert J. Sternberg, 2003).”

• Etienne Wenger (1978) had Moroccan and North American individuals remember patterns of Oriental rugs and others remember pictures of everyday objects, such as a rooster and a fish. Moroccans who have long experience in the rug trade seemed to remember rug patterns better than the North American individuals.

Source: What's Cultural About Cross-Cultural Cognitive Psychology? Annual Review of Psychology, January 1979, Vol. 30, Pages 145-172 Wagner (1978)

• Serpell (1979) had Zambian and English children perform a number of tasks. He found that English children did better on a drawing task, but that Zambian children did better on a wire-shaping task

Source:Standardization of the Panga Munthu Test-A Nonverbal Cognitive Test Developed in Zambia Ravinder Kathuria, Robert Serpell The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 67, No. 3, Assessment in the Context of Culture and Pedagogy (Summer, 1998), pp. 228-241

• Lave (1988) Showed that housewives in Berkeley California who could successfully do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping were unable to do the same mathematics when they were placed inside a classroom environment.

Source:"Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life (Learning in Doing)" by Jean Lave, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988) ISBN 0521357349.

• Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) studied a group of Brazilian street children. The investigation found that the same children who are able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were often unable to do mathematics in a formal setting.

Source:Street Mathematics and School Mathematics By Terezinha Nunes, David William Carraher, Analucia Dias Schliemann ISBN 0521388139

• The Berkeley Guidance study (Honzik, Macfarlane & Allen, 1948) investigated the stability of IQ test performance over 12 years. The authors reported that nearly 60% of the sample changed by 15 IQ points or more from 6 to 18 years of age. A similar result was found in the Fels study (Sontag, Baker & Nelson, 1958): Nearly two thirds of the children changed more than 15 IQ points from age 3 to age 10. Researchers also investigated the so-called intelligence lability score, which is a child’s standard deviation from his or her own grand mean IQ. Bayley (1949), in the Berkeley Growth study, detected very large individual differences in lability across the span of 18 years. Rees and Palmer (1970) combined the data from five large-scale longitudinal studies, selecting those participants who had scores at both age 6 and age 12 or at both age 12 and age 17. They found that about 30% of the selected participants changed by 10 or more IQ points.

Source: The stability of mental test performance between two and eighteen years

MP Honzik, JW MacFarlane, L Allen - Journal of Experimental Education, 1948

• Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp (1971:233) made the following insightful observation: "Cultural differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particular cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in one cultural group, and its absence in another." A similar position is held by Berry

Source1:(1974).

Source2:(The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking: An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp)

• Sarason and Doris (1979) view intelligence as a cultural invention that does not hold true across cultures.

Source:From Educational Handicap, Public Policy, and Social History: A Broadened Perspective on Mental Retardation ISBN 0029279208

• (Serpell, 1974; Super, 1983; Wober, 1974) Even within a given society, different cognitive characteristics are emphasized from one situation to another and from one subculture to another. These differences extend not just to conceptions of intelligence but to what is considered adaptive or appropriate in a broader sense.

Source 1: Estimates of intelligence in a rural community of Eastern Zambia (Serpell, 1974)

Source 2: The Cultural Construction of Child Development: A Framework for the Socialization of Affect Sara Harkness, Charles M. Super, Ethos, Vol. 11, No. 4, The Socialization of Affect (Winter, 1983), pp. 221-231

• Views of intelligence vary from culture to culture; and the majority of these views do not reflect Western ideas (See, Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Okagaki & Robert J. Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Robert J. Sternberg, 1997)

• We need to reduce the bias toward measuring intelligence through logical/mathematical and linguistic abilities and move toward looking more directly at a specific intelligence in operation (Howard Gardner, 1993).

• Howard Gardner is vocal about his disdain for a singularly psychometric approach to measuring intelligence based on paper and pencil tests. Secondly, he responds to the belief that an intelligence is the same as a domain or a discipline. Gardner reiterates his definition of an intelligence and distinguishes it from a domain which he describes as a culturally relevant, organized set of activities characterized by a symbol system and a set of operations (See Howard Gardner; Phi Delta Kappan, 1995).

• “Often intelligence tests measure skills that children are expected to acquire a few years before the taking the test (Robert J. Sternberg, Presidential addresses; Culture and Intelligence, 2004).”

• “Vernon (1971) points out the axes of a factor analysis do not necessarily reveal a latent structure of the mind but rather represent a convenient way of characterizing the organization of metal abilites. Vernon believed that there is no one ‘right’ orientation of axes. Indeed, mathematically an infinite number of orientations of axes can be fit to any solution in an explanatory factor analysis (See Robert J. Sternberg, 2004).”

• The two most widely used standardized tests of intelligence are the Wechsler scales and the Stanford-Binet. Both instruments are psychometrically sound, but Gardner believes that these tests measure only linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, with a narrow focus within content in those domains. According to Howard Gardner, the current psychometric approach for measuring intelligence is not sufficient (Howard Gardner, 1993).

• Robert J. Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define “intelligence” according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Robert J. Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Robert J. Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005).

• In Kenya, those schoolchildren whose traditional skills are most prized by the community tend to do least well in school tests (Robert J. Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Robert J. Sternberg, Nokes, et al., in press). In Brazil, street children who run a successful street business typically fail mathematics in the school setting (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994). In the West, school-based tests show correlations with career success, but they are also major gatekeepers of academic and vocational routes to advancement (Robert J. Sternberg, 1997).

• IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Robert J. Sternberg, 1998,1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).

• IQ scores do change over time. The average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals change as much as 18 points (Jones & Bayley, 1941).

• “Individuals do not necessarily exhibit their "intelligence" in its raw state. Rather, they prepare to use their intelligence by passing through a developmental process. Thus, people who want to be mathematicians or physicists, spend years studying and honing their logical/mathematical abilities in a distinctive and socially relevant way (Howard Gardner, 1999).”

• Instruments developed to quantify smartness are culturally based and cannot simply be "transplanted" to a culture with different values (Greenfield, 1997).

• In addition to learned reasoning abilities, IQ measures little more than a person's ability to take an IQ test, as scores increase dramatically as a person is trained or familiarized with the tests (See Kamin, 1974).

• "Intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture (Howard Gardner, 1999a), "

• Scientists Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, and Howard Taylor have conclusively demonstrated that there is no scientific basis for any claims of a genetic, hereditary component of variations in "intelligence."

• Research has shown that IQ type tests account for about 10% of the variation in how successful people are in various aspects of their adult lives. 10% isn't much and, maybe it's a coincidence, but when I ask people what it takes to be successful on the job or in a personal relationship and what it takes to be successful on one of these tests, or in an introductory classroom, the overlap is probably about 10%

Source: Robert J. Sternberg, interview with Frontline Read the interview here

• IQ is a culturally, socially, and ideologically rooted concept. It could scarcely be otherwise, as this index is intended to predict success (i.e., to predict outcomes that are valued as success by most people) in a given society (i.e., in a large social group carrying its own set of values). IQ has been most studied where it was invented and where it is most appreciated, that is, in the established market economies and especially in the United States. Oddly enough, the country where its testing originated--France--largely ignores it.
• Source: The Predictive value of IQ Robert J. Sternberg et al; Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 47, 2001

• The situation of itself (e.g., communicating with strangers regarding things and issues that lack context and that might appear to be meaningless) often results in the collection of unreliable data (e.g., Glick, 1968).

• Intelligence is not a characteristic of people, but rather a potential for intelligence performance that is embedded in specific situations (Barab & Plucker, 2002).

Source: Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning Sasha A. Barab and Jonathan A. Plucker

• Views on smartness vary in different cultures; the majority of these views do not match Western views (Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Lynn Okagaki & Robert J. Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Robert J. Sternberg, 1997).

Source1: Directors of Development CL: Influences on the Development of Children's Thinking By Lynn Okagaki, Robert J. Sternberg. ISBN 0805806288

• Howard Gardner (1993) emphasizes two additional points about assessment that are critical. The first is that the assessment of intelligence should encompass multiple measures. Relying on a single IQ score from a WISC-III (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) without substantiating the findings through other data sources does the individual examinee a disservice and produces insufficient information for those who provide interventions.

Source: Frames of Mind:the Theory of Multiple Intelligences By Howard Gardner. Published 1993. ISBN 0465025102

• IQ tests are convenient partial operationalizations of the construct of intelligence, and nothing more. They do not provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that tape measures provide of height (See Robert J. Sternberg et al, 2005).

Source:The Theory of Successful Intelligence Interamerican Journal of Psychology - 2005, Vol. 39, Num. 2 pp. 189-202

• At this point in history, the study of intelligence has moved well beyond the realm of psychometrics.

Race, a bad proxy

IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent. In fact, Blacks of African descents in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations (Bhattacharyya, Ilson, Blair, 2000). According to the London daily times (January, 23, 1994, as reported in Stringer and McKie 1997:190; Re-reported by Smedley in Lieberman 2001:p87) “Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.”

In the U.S. Black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians (See Logan & Dean, 2003).

- Brains -

Tobias (1970) listed a number of difficulties involved in measuring and making meaningful comparisons of brain weight. These included equating subjects on age, sex, body size, temperature etc. In addition, brain development is plastic, and brain size may be affected by early environmental factors. Because of all these difficulties, Tobias (1970) concluded that no adequate racial comparative studies had actually been conducted.

Interestingly enough, 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).

Ironically, many of the racial researchers of today who make claims about racial differences in brain size cite Tobias (1970) as one of their main sources while ignoring the findings reported in his work; I.E. Blacks on average had larger brains than virtually all other population groups!

The main correlation with brain size is height/size; because of this the average black/white brain is certainly larger than the average Asian brain (not proportionally, but in Absolute terms). Witelson’s, Kigar’s and Thomas’ (1999) examination of Albert Einstein’s brain illustrates that something more complicated than a brain’s size relates to it’s owner’s intelligence. They compared Einstein’s brain with an average specimen from a sample 35 intact, control brains. Einstein’s brain has about the same dimensions and the same weight as the comparison brain. However, in areas specific to Einstein’s unique skills, his brain was quite different. This leads one to conclude that it is overall brain structure and not brain size that determines one’s intellectual strengths.

If you are interested in learning about the nature and nurture of brain development I suggest researching the work of Joan Stiles (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscientist, UCSD).

You may also view a presentation of her work, here: <a href="http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5991955507070826102&q=joan+stiles">The nature and nurture of brain development</a>

- IQ -

There is also research that shows people with higher IQ scores to be lacking in skills relating to Practical Intelligence (See Sternberg 2001, and 2004). That is, IQ and Practical intelligence skills correlate negatively. Further, Sternberg demonstrates that tests of Practical intelligence are better at predicting job performance and real world success.

Leon J. Kamin (Bell Curve Wars, 1995 p.92): “Extensive practice at reading and calculating does affect, very directly, one's IQ score.”

Race, Genetics and IQ:

- A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children showed that there was no genetic basis for IQ differences between black & whites. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (James R. Flynn, 1980. Richard E. Nisbett, 1994. Also see, The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

- IQ differences in the U.S. are not as drastic as some would have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, 1995; Dickenson & Flynn, 2002). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire black population together as a single body. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

- In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991, 2002), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tended to under perform academically and on conventional psychometric tests in contrast to the former groups mentioned (See Flynn, 1991).

- Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children. Co-investigators include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

- Osbonre and Suddick (1971, as reported in Loehlin, 1975) attempted to use 16 blood-groups genes known to have come from European ancestors. Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation

Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation...

Ahh! what happened to the rest!? May I say, that these sources are AWSOME. :) futurebird 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, 16 blood group genes != 2 samples. These genes were the 1970s version of ancestry-informative marker, but they are essentially useless by today's standards. Neisser (or Nisbet??) has a review. The anon commenter's presentation is about as the least neutral thing you could possibly read. If you're going to spend your time reading about the results of psychology research, start by reading the APA report, the subsequent review papers, etc. --W.R.N. 00:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

“IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent." - I’ve yet to hear a study that concludes this.

“In fact, Blacks of African descents in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations” - Unsure how true this is but it may well be because Black African immigrants to the United Kingdom are not a representative sample of their population groups (Like South Asian Indians in the United States). Most of those who arrived in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s, immigrated to the UK to attend higher education institutes.

Whilst I know of no studies that compare mean black and white IQ scores for the UK, the black population does do poorer academically. Indeed the educational underachievement of black children is, unfortunately, a longstanding matter of concern. Black children are five times less likely to be officially registered as "gifted or talented” . Of all groups, Blacks perform poorest at ‘GCSE’ (equivalent to graduating high school) whereas Chinese pupils perform best. There has long been a level of under performance - “Many Black children, particularly Caribbean boys, were labelled ……..'educationally subnormal' (ESN) By 1970, in 'normal' London schools, 17 per cent of pupils were from ethnic minorities, but in ESN schools that figure was 34 per cent. “ . In the United Kingdom different group performances are consistently attributed to racism. See Romper 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A second attempt to move ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Ground Rules

I have some issues with #3 and #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jere, if it is cited prominently, it is cited prominently, and it is in - this is no loophole, i was careful about my language. However, to draw on any other discussions of race (that do not address r&i or are not cited in discussions of r&i) would violate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biologists 16%

developmental psychologists 36%'

physical anthropologists 41%'

cultural anthropologists 53%'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biologists 16%

developmental psychologists 36%'

physical anthropologists 41%'

cultural anthropologists 53%'

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

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

I agree - applying something out of context violates NOR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

troy duster - sociology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of important citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion: OR images/strawman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflating positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JK, You've become disconnected from the literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schwael has question, ideas, problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

general and specific

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg num on footnote 84

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

Request for comment

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

Following the appropriate format :

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's go!

There seems to be a lot of support for making a new article called Race and intelligence (Research) and making this article more general. We keep getting side tracked-- let's start constructing the new article, and request unprotecting for this page. futurebird 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Where has this been discussed? Prima facie it sounds like an POV fork to me. --W.R.N. 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• FB if you are talking about a prototype to replace this one, I'm game to help in th edevelopment, but if you're talking about an end result of two articles splitting this info. I'm against. --Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know that what you propose has any bearing on unprotecting this page.--Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• this is the proximal reason for page protection. --W.R.N. 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about making an article called Race and intelligence (Research) and moving the content that needs to go there to that page, then requesting unprotecting the page and doing a massive rewrite. futurebird 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by -- I agree with the idea that the page ought to be split or renamed. A page called "race and intelligence" seems like it would have to delve into the concept of "race" and the concept of "intelligence", which this page ...even the first sentence says this page is about research. Katsam 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible - because of our NPOV, V, and NOR policies, that any article on the concepts of race and intelligence not also be on research on these concepts. It is an encyclopedia, after all. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is to remove all research from the article, just to move MOST of the research to a subarticle with a link like

Main article: Race and intelligence (Research)

futurebird 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, if our NPOV policies forbid us to split these articles, shouldn't the decision to split the rest of the subjects (Media, Utility of research, etc.) be rescinded? I mean, either we can or we can't split off the articles. I'm as concerned that these split-offs we've already done are POV forks than about the possibility of creating an additional POV fork.--Ramdrake 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess, better formulated, that my point is if we already split off some articles from the original corpus of data of the topic, we then shouldn't be objecting to one more split, especially given the size of the article. Either we split or we don't; however, we've already done some splitting, so...--Ramdrake 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, with all due respect, you need to be clear on the difference between a POV fork, which is prohibited, and a content fork, which is encouraged as articles get too long. There must be pages explaining this stuff but I do not know the links off-hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted, absolutely. Then, I must have expressed myself badly: there have been content forks spun out of this article in the past. They have raised some objections of POV forking from at least one or two editors here. Now this new content-forking proposal is being turned down on the basis of possibly being a POV fork. In my opinion, I cannot find this one more of a POV fork than any of the others before. If this one is to be called a POV fork, at least some of the others before probably qualified as well. If this isn't called a POV fork but another content fork, I don't have any problems. I hope this is clearer.--Ramdrake 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is of course based on the assumption than any article that would cover Race and intelligence as a wider subject would at least briefly touch on the current research on the subject, without delving into it like the current article does. To me, that goes without saying.--Ramdrake 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is a contentious article, but I really do not understand why there is any contention over how to characterize it: it is about the relationship between race and intelligence. What if any relationship there is is controversial, so the article has to cover those controversies. Some will have to do with the nature of intelligence (is the G factor real) some will have to do with the nature of race (is it a proxy for genetic populations of socio-economic groups) and some will have to do with the relationship itself (is it causal in nature or a correlation caused by something else? Is the relationship significant? Is it based on direct or indirect evidence? Is it a statistical artefact or not?). This to me is what the article is about and I wouldn't think it would be too hard to organize an article that covers these controversies in cogent ways. Personally, that's what I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think the same way but I'd go just a tiny bit further and say the relative size of each controversy (over the meaning and utility of race, over the measurability of intelligence as a single number, and about the possible relationship between the two) and therefore the space devoted to it in the article should be on the same order (same order - not same size!!!) for all three controversies. It shouldn't make a pre-requisite that people have to accept the meaningfulness of race and its coherence with social definitions of it, and neither should it require that people have to accept the unitary measurability of intelligence. I believe all three controversies need to be eplored conjointly in the article if it is to feel balanced and NPOV.A lot of people don't even talk about the race-intelligence debate because they are on a side of either the race or the intelligence debate that precludes the race-intelligence debate from being a scientifically legitimate debate. And maybe, it could use being renamed "The race and intelligence debate(s)" ("s" optional).--Ramdrake 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think you're now moving from an area that's supported by references to an area that is not. In my experience there is approx. one article per month published about "the possible relationship between the two" and the content of article isn't focused on the "possible" aspect of that characterization. In WP, there are articles for race, intelligence, IQ, and other related topics. This is the article about the relationship between race and intelligence. To the extent that debates about the individual ideas relate to this debate, they are discussed, but otherwise (on these topics) we only need a summary of the debate here, while the actual debate is detailed elsewhere. This is my understanding of the text in NPOV describing articles about topics that operate under some controversial assumption. The actual text of the assumptions in the intro is poor -- Arbor and I at times tried to fix it -- but the APA report makes clear the working assumptions of most people in this field. --W.R.N. 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The APA report makes clear that they speak about "groups" not "races" - I think, WRN, that the APA report confounds your assertion that the article should simply be a discussion of "are race differences in intelligence genetic", rather than a more holistic view of R&I that appropriately addresses criticism of the fundamental question and assumptions itself. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover "research" is only one way of looking at the questions of race and intelligence, so creating a sub-page makes sense. futurebird 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Ramdrake. But if RIK doesn't mind I would like to rephrase his comment in a way I think Ramdrake will easily agree with: Misplaced Pages articles are (at least when they are on topics of scholarly research, whether comparative literature, sociology, philosophy, or astronmy) really best conceived as accounts of a body of scholarly literature. This is a simple way of understanding two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:V. It is not for us to interpret or synthesize that literature, only provide an account of (or "represent") it. If there are interesecting literatures, we provide an account of the intersections. If there are controversies in the literature, we provide accounts of the controversies. If you are familiar with the many genres of academic writing, I think the best model is a "literature review" or "review essay" as exemplified in the volumes put out annually, for a variety of disciplines, by Annual Reviews (Stanford). Nor, RIK, if I may speak for Ramdrake ... as you ought to understand by now, I think his goal is not to put words in scientists' mouths but rather to ensure we are compliant with the other core Misplaced Pages policy, WP:NPOV. I am convinced that NPOV and NOR/V are not in conflict in this article; I am convinced that it is possible to write an article that is fully compliant with all policies. Ramdrake, this means exploring the controversies only insofar as they exist in the published literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses, but also trade presses if by acknowledged scholars in relevant fields. RIK, this means including academic literatures that do address race & intelligence debates that you seem resistant to acknowledge, especially in sociology and anthropology. Ramdrake, this means being very careful to avoid forwarding our own synthetic claims even if based on published sources. I believe Jere made just this mistake towards the end of this section. But RIK, I believe Jere was citing an entirely acceptable source in this section. I think if RIK can be more attentive to NPOV and Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JK more attentive to NOR, we will make much more progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion, SLR - my "mistake" was intended to answer your question, and give evidence for why inclusion of the "race is an invalid proxy" is important, not intended for inclusion into the article. I understand that we aren't supposed to do original research, but my current criticism is that we should give the important context of what definition of "race" and even "intelligence" is being used by a given study cited. Too much of WRN's contributions have lacked that critical context, and as such, present an invalid implication of uniformity. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Of course, I agree with SLR's interpretation. If I can try to rephrase what I said, the "race" and the "intelligence" debates need to be reported in this article on "race and intelligence" insofar as they have an impact on the validity of the "race and intelligence" debate, or its outcome, and have been cited in some connection with the "race and intelligence" debate somewhere in the literature, whether it be the psychological, anthropological, biological, medical or even philosophical (or historical!) literature. It all needs to have already been connected together somewhere, that's a given, but I am not ready to restrict this to just the "intelligence" literature of psychometricians. I hope this was clearer, and more kosher towards all WP rules.--Ramdrake 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several outstanding issues that need to be worked out in some fashion in this thread. In that thread, my policy concern is that sourced material is being removed or bastardized. The content vs. POV fork page is WP:POV_fork. --W.R.N. 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think that much of the pruning of excessive citation is important to building a good article. Not to mention the importance of avoiding improper strawmen in framing the issue. Much of the content may in fact be useful, but what you see as "bastardization" is an attempt to move towards NPOV. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Among WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, the criteria for inclusion in WP is WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:NPOV determines how things should be written and to an extent which article they should go into. WP:NOR can also determine the inclusion or not of material in specific ways. You never have to remove something substantial that satisfies NOR and V in order to satisfy NPOV. --W.R.N. 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FB - research is only one way of looking at the questions of race and intelligence -- different ways of looking at a topic don't get "equal time", they get proportional representation to their commonality in the literature and among experts (WP:NPOV). the "research" literature is massive and it dominates the public discussion of the issue, along with the public policy related topics. find sources on non-"research" and add it to the article. if enough amasses, then a redistribution of sub-articles may occur. --W.R.N. 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are other ways of looking at this topic beyond "research" the portrayal of race and intelligence in media such as films, books and newspapers is one area, the statements of non-scientists, people such as activists and politicians are another. Especially when dealing with a topic that brings in to play the power dynamics of race, where control over research has been in the past mostly by those who support the historical views of race (though that is changing) it is important to see other sources. What if anything do the people who are being grouped in to these races have to say about this? Those ideas are important too. futurebird 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with futurebird - "proportional representation to their commonality in the literature and among experts" begs the question of what counts as "commonality" (I'd argue that prolific Mr. Rushton shouldn't get extra points just for having his own journal and publishing his own rehashed information five times a year), and what counts as an "expert" (as per futurebird, not only do you have expert psychologists, but sociologists, anthropologists, geneticists, biologists, etc). I think, WRN, part of your problem is that you believe that the statement of NPOV, requiring "commonality" and "experts", is fully in the favor of your hereditarian POV. I disagree. --JereKrischel 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

what npov says

here's what NPOV says. AFAIK, these are "non-negotiable". however, I understand experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties to be rather inclusive. --W.R.N. 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
• From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

WRN, could you clarify yourself? Are you saying that as far as you are concerned, your position is "non-negotiable"? --JereKrischel 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, more specifically, what are you implying is the "majority" view and the "minority" view? If we extend the debate to all involved walks of science, I don't think the "majority view" is what the article was at first trying to convey.--Ramdrake 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK from above: you believe that the statement of NPOV, requiring "commonality" and "experts", is fully in the favor of your hereditarian POV - not really, the literature is quite divided on the question of what causes group differences. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we've established that the literature is mostly divided along the question of the magnitude of the causes of group differences. Or was that a conversation I had with Nectarflowed? --JereKrischel 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK from this section: NPOV itself is non-negotiable. That an article should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties is non-negotiable. However, my understanding of NPOV may be mistaken, and my assessment of the facts about which NPOV judgments are to be made may be mistaken. In this sense, what NPOV demands is very much negotiable. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Now, how can we negotiate with you regarding your understanding of NPOV as it relates to this article? Do you have any negotiable points? --JereKrischel 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake: In some cases a "majority" and "minority" view is clear (e.g. the importance of g to intelligence, the existence of a BW gap, etc.) but I wouldn't pretend to know what the majority of minority view is on more controversial subjects, and it wouldn't seem to matter much given the number of "prominent" sources that can be cited for many POVs. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Change intro picture

This maybe a scholarly article but I think you are missing your audience. I still have a high schooler (senior) and I asked her to look at the article. She said the first thing that grabbed her eye was the disparity in the bright colored bell curves-Black vs White. From that point her assumption is the article is about disparities in the black race. The article touches on Race but she said it is really about the black race. If that is your goal then change the article to Black race or Sub-Saharan African descendants and intelligence. She also said the article is too long. The Evolution article had the same problem of being graduate level and not a general encyclopedic article (that is changing). This is not a peer-reviewed journal or forum for academic debate but an encyclopedia. Try and remember that with the move for improvements. GetAgrippa 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to use the average U.S. high school student as a judge, then any article that takes longer to read than it would take to watch a YouTube video would be too long.Lestrade 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I think the split we are discussing above will help with both of these problems a great deal. This is some really useful feedback. I think that the graphic needs more context. The image of a Bell Curve split was made famous by Charles Murray and The Bell Curve and surrounding controversy-- I think the graphic belongs in the main article, but it ought to be clear that the graphic itself has been a source of debate.

I'm glad that they have switch from the graph with curves for other races, since that was based on original research and it gave the impression that race and intelligence research has been about something other than "an investigation of the negro" this may have changed a little in recent years, but, historically it has really been primarily about a black vs. white divide-- We just need to be upfront about this even if it is uncomfortable to explain.

I also think two curves make sense becuase showing a bell curve for Hispanic people in an article about race is just silly-- some hispanic people identify as white and other identify as black, it's not a "race," it's an ethnicity.futurebird 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GetAgrippa's characterization and suggestion. (1) The four curve image should be restored. (2) Summary style should be tightened up further, with less detail in this article and more in the subarticles. --W.R.N. 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think GetAgrippa suggested that the OR four curve image should be restored. I believe the criticism was that the article was too focused on Black inferiority (maybe there should be a Race and intelligence (Black inferiority) page, where people who assert specific hierarchies like Rushton and Jensen can have some detail). Summary style should also be observed within references - too many times, argument and editorialization is going on inside refs. --JereKrischel 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the slander libel about Jensen, I'll bring up the 4 curve image again. Here are two images, which if any violate NOR and why? Compare and contrast. --W.R.N. 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png

Well, first and foremost, "Hispanics" isn't and never was a "race" but an ethnicity. Right there and then, inclusion of that particular curve is a misconstrusion(Eng?). Also, could you point to a specific URL which would present a figure which you feel is the closest to that 4-curve chart? As close to the research world as possible, of course. Just want to see how it compares. If not a URL, maybe a scan of a book could be temporarily uploaded for comparison purposes (don't want to break any wikirules there, just want to have an opportunity to compare by myself)--Ramdrake 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN reconstructed the curves from a Gottfredson chart that was very complex - he eliminated a great deal of it, and moved the two curves together. He went further on to add additional curves not on the graph based on data in the same figure. I don't have the URL off hand for the Gottfredson paper, but I'll look for it.

Insofar as Jensen and claims of black inferiority in intelligence, see IQ and Race: A Discussion of Some Confusions Paul Gomberg Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 3. (Apr., 1975), pp. 258-266. - The current outbreak of controversy stems from the paper by Arthur R. Jensen in the Harvard Educational Review arguing that the evidence points to the conclusion that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. --JereKrischel 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inferiority is a moral concept. Intellectual inferiority elides the within group variation. Randomly libeling researchers on the talk page is hardly a way to productively discuss the content of this article. --W.R.N. 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inferiority is quantitative and means lower rank. From the Latin comparative for infra ("below" or "under"). JK is not libeling Jensen, just citing sources. "He argues that in some ways the American black is intellectually inferior to the American white." See also "Who Are the Academic Proponents of the Theory of Inferior IQs of Black People?" Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 10 (Winter 1995-96): 18-19. Jokestress 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. And thanks for sharing this source. futurebird 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original graph, on page 43. --JereKrischel 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three editions of the figure in the relevant form. (1) (p.8) (2) (p.26) and (3) (p.43). All of the data is spelled out in a single figure. Contrast with the global warming chart, which compiles 10 different studies. --W.R.N. 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the temperature studies use the same definition of Celsius and Fahrenheit. No standard definition of "race" was in Gottfredson's original 1997 article "Why g Matters". Also, was the original global warming chart in some study with only 2 of the lines drawn? --JereKrischel 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, how about just reproducing the table and/or the two-curve diagram? Neither would violate OR, as long as they were properly attributed (such as the current-two curve diagram looks to be now). However, I still don't know what to make of "Hispanics". And comparing to what another article did may or may not be relevant, as they too may have erred in interpreting Wiki-rules.--Ramdrake 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) The table and the curve are identical (nearly so, there's some problems with the originals that FB and I discovered) in their content. Tables don't make for good images, but curves do. (2) Hispanic is used in the conventional sense. It's used that way in innumerable studies in many fields, not just this one. If we can't use the common sense meaning of words when published studies we're cited do, we have a problem. (Note, I understand that a great deal of genetic and social variability is contained within the category, which I believe is noted in the article.) (3) I'm not saying they both can't be OR, but the curves are clearly "less OR" than the temp data. Arguing for OR in this case seems to be without precedent, but I am willing to be proven wrong. --W.R.N. 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :) I was just trying to suggest the simplest possible solution which coudn't conceivably be called OR or synthesis. While I acknowledge that pictures make much better images than tables, have you given a thought that the 4-curve graph may be just too evocative for the good of the article? And while I recognize that Hispanics have been used in a number of studies already, I think their inclusion in a graph or table in this article needs possibly a simple caveat. JK's main objection is the conflation of definitions of "race" together, and defintions of "race" with "groups", with "ethnicities", you name it. I think we should support resolving the conflation, especially in cases where it is easy and simple to do so. Doesn't that make sense to you?--Ramdrake 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to "shout". I obviously was heated for reasons other than you. I'm not sure what your suggestion entails. The main points of the chart are to show that while groups cluster at different points, there's huge within group variability, the curves overlap a great deal, and there are individuals from each group at all common levels of IQ. The reason for included more than just BW curves is to show that there is more to the discussion than BW differences -- though granted they do make-up a solid plurality of the material. You don't need to know much about the nature of race for these points to be made, and I don't see any disagreement with them in the literature. At least to me they seem to be the most important take-away message. --W.R.N. 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "main point" of the chart is that it fundamentally frames the question into the acceptance of racial categories as valid. A better graph would probably include known environmental factors that show how close things are once certain variables are taken into account, and simply label the remaining difference as "unexplained". --JereKrischel 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a graph from the Columbia University Teachers College and Northwest University study, which found a 15-point BW IQ gap, but found 52% of that gap to be accounted for by poverty factors, and 28% accounted for by other social and economic differences, leaving a "statistically insignificant" 3 point gap. I'll see if I can find the original study. --JereKrischel 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: we reprise something that looks like Gottfredson's graph (the two-curve one), but we skip the abscissa markers (55 to 145 or such) and we just put a measure bar between the two peaks with something like a Greek delta on it. Then, in the description of the image we can say if we want that researchers don't all agree on the exact size of the delta (7, 10. 15 points?), on whether it is shrinking or not, and that some remnant of it persists even when corrected for several factors, cause of the remnant unknown. We put in "adapted from Gottfredson" (or whatever) and the issues about how old the data is, the exact primary source, etc. should become secondary. How about it?

Also, I see that a lot of us seem to be here expounding the problems we have with this or that, but the solution proposals while we have made some, are rarer. I'd like to suggest that if you raise a problem, always try to suggest a solution that you think will resolve it, preferably to everyone's agreement if possible. I relaized I myself have failed to do that numerous times. That could also be part of why progress is... maybe slower than we'd all like. How about it?--Ramdrake 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Plotting effect size is fine (the statistic is Cohen's d, so it would be d not delta), but you lose the ability to make this about more than the BW gap with only 2 curves. --W.R.N. 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia/Northwestern curves

Their calculation for the IQ gap between Black and white on the WPPSI Full-scale IQ included the following curves:

The year for the scores was 1991, the age of the children was 5.

--JereKrischel 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about the cause of the gap. Using children also introduces issues of age-change. Here's the intro sentence from a recent SciAm article: This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. There's no need to confuse the issue at stage 1. --W.R.N. 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to report the raw gap, as Gottfredson is doing, without context. Since we have good, sourced data on the causes of the gap, a proper intro image would reflect that. --JereKrischel 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, you got a link for that study? If you can send me a little more data I can make a nice graphic for this information. I think it'd help a lot in the environment section of the article. futurebird 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap other than that's its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. The existence of a phenotypic gap is an entirely different question than its cause. For example, why not plot the scores from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, since adoption controls for all aspects of family effects? Of course we shouldn't. --W.R.N. 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this fairly recent study showed very clearly very important factors based on SES...you still have 3.42 points to explain, of course...and the Minnesota study has problems beyond the scope of this talk page: At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. --JereKrischel 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) you are ignoring my first criticisms and trying to argue about the data. such arguments are irrelevant to the point. (2) but on the data, this kind of analysis has been discussed in the sub-article on explanations: if you combine a large number of variables, you can get a proxy for biological-parental IQ which obviously eliminates IQ difference. --W.R.N. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) the Northwestern/Columbia study clearly shows that it isn't "just" SES, but simply mostly SES. I don't see what your argument is with the study results, but perhaps you could provide a reference which directly criticizes that study. (2) You're assuming a lot about intelligence there, and confusing causalities. --JereKrischel 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This study is about the cause of the gap. There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap, except that its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. Further, presentation of data using children also introduces issues of age-change that are not just controversial but hardly discussed in the literature. No figure about the cause of the gap can possible lead the article as there is simply no scholarly consensus for such a presentation. An argument that the gap is wholly or almost completely due to SES would undeniably be presenting a POV that doesn't have sufficient scholarly support. Contrast with This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. -- text from a magazine that is noted as historically antagonistic to everything IQ. The only possible lead image is something showing the IQ test score gap. Per getagrippa's daughter's comment, making it just about blacks and whites is unnecessarily narrow. --W.R.N. 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) As per age change, are you concerned that Gottfredson does not indicate the age of those tested? (2) Do you have a source which disputes the Northwestern/Columbia findings, or is this your own opinion that their study is flawed? (3) Citing a passage from a magazine is certainly permissible, but drawing up a graph to give it some sort of false authority is misleading. Picking one point in time to illustrate a 15-point BW gap misleads on the basis of the Flynn effect, which would show some significant variability.

In all honesty, I think you're trying to rationalize your POV pushing image, and are having a hard time sounding consistent when presented with a image that contradicts your POV, but is just as notable, reliable, and apparently even more well sourced. I have significant doubts about your ability to remain open-minded on this issue, but I'm open to any compromise suggestions you may have. --JereKrischel 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think you're misconstruing GetAgrippa's daughter's criticism - the fact that most of the citations are focused on the B-W gap seems to be related to racialist preconceptions. A more broad treatment of how ideas of race and intelligence have intersected historically, to justify racism for and against various groups over time, would be preferable to the narrow focus the article has now. --JereKrischel 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Adults are given the WAIS. (2) I haven't ever seen the paper, but it looks just like dozens of others that I've read. The problems with it are symptoms of the general clash between standard social scientists and behavioral genetics informed research. Disputing the data isn't my interest. Such data isn't appropriate for the lead, as it is about causation -- which is a problem for the reasons I stated. (3) This is getting totally off track. Your citing the Flynn effect is misleading. The BW gap among adults has been ~1 SD and still is according to Flynn. He projects it will change in the future.

The POV in the image is the "uncontested" POV that average score differences exist. The data you are suggesting does nothing to refute that there is a ~1SD gap -- in fact they found a slightly larger one. The data you suggest is about causation, which is different than phenotypic differences. The fact that one is uncontested and one is highly contested is proof enough of this. Failure to recognize this point is a major concern. --W.R.N. 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) "Adults over age 16" is what the WAIS tests. It may be significant to know the age ranges of the subjects tested in the data Gottfredson cites - certainly if you're worried about age, you should be worried about that. (2) Without any dispute that a significant portion of the B-W gap has been established as being accounted for by SES, it seems unreasonable to avoid that kind of important information in the lead graph. It is the "Hereditarian Fallacy" to assert that any gap unaccounted for by environmental factors must be genetic (instead of simply unknown environmental factors). As such, it seems to be POV pushing to assert that the cause of the entire difference is simply unknown or completely contested. We should clearly indicate the known factors that make a difference when controlled for - the argument is not about those differences, but the "unknown" difference. Or are you asserting that the "partly-genetic" hypothesis demands that there is no SES contribution to the gap? (3) Citation please.

The POV of of an image showing the Columbia/Northwestern study is the "uncontested" POV that when SES factors are controlled for, the B-W gap is reduced. No need to argue about by how many pixels. Treating the "uncontested" gap without context is akin to asserting that it is completely unexplained, which is not the majority opinion. Failure to recognize how your graph, without context, is POV pushing is a major concern.

Why not accept a graph that has the B-W curves as you've drawn them, uncorrected, and below that a graph that has the B-W curves as they exist when corrected for SES? This would demonstrate both the "raw" gap, as well as the clear, uncontested indication that when corrected for SES, the gap dimishes, but does not 100% disappear. Do you have any source that contends that corrected for SES does not reduce the gap? --JereKrischel 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot make the single most controversial aspect of the article the lead image. It's not ever going to work. Only the least controversial thing could possibly accompany the lead block. Scientists are seldom compelled to believe anything by a single piece of data. There are hundreds of different pieces of data like the one you suggest and none are convincing enough to eliminate the massive controversy. --W.R.N. 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought pigs would fly first... but I agree with WD here. I have absolutely no problem with the two curve image if it is presented within historical context. Please see the caption I used in the sample intro for an idea of what I mean by this. An image like the one JK is suggesting would work well in the section on environmental causes. futurebird 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Troubling reliability

In "Desegregating Gifted Education", p145, Gottfredson cites her 1997 article in Intelligence as the source for her graph (she says, "Adapted from"). However, in her 1997 article, there are no racial data. I'm going to follow the bouncing ball to Gottfredson 2003b to see if there are more clues there. --JereKrischel 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in all of her 2003 papers she listed , and could not find any indication of where she got her data from for her citation. Any help in finding the actual source of data Gottfredson used would be appreciated. At this point, Gottfredson seems to have simply picked numbers out of a hat. Any inclusion of the graph should require both the years of data for the WAIS scores, as well as the specific definitions of race used. --JereKrischel 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK are you speaking strictly against the inclusion of the Gottfredson graph, or questioning its use as the introduction graph to the article? While there can't really be arguments against the inclusion fo the Gottfredson graph (let's put aside the issue of the origin of her data), its use as the introductory graph may be questioned and a graph such as you sggest (if it can be found in the existing literature) might indeed be preferable. However, I believe we need to differentiate our objections here. The Gottfredson graph can certainly be included; its position can certainly be debated, but I wouldn't want issues confused.--Ramdrake 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The major problem, by the way, with adding the other curves is that the data for the curves shown are from a 1981 WAIS study and the "data" for "hispanics" and "asians" is from a "study" I still have not been able to track down-- we have no idea if the tests, were comparable, and Gottfredson herself didn't include all four curves, most likely because she realized that comparing data in that manner would make an already tenuous study laughable. I see no need to rehash this further, we've been through all of this when the image was up for deletion. The new version is an improvement, in so far as it is an accurate representation of a study done 26 years ago. So, it is, at least, at the level where it can be used in an article, but sources must be cited and it must be clear how old the data are. I'd recommend citing WAIS directly, since that study is more respected than anything Gottfredson has ever written.futurebird 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I think the opening image should relate to the opening paragraph. I would be OK with this graph being used if there is some mention of the bell curve controversy in the caption. I think we should choose the image after we have the text ready. The ere many valid reasons to objecting to the use of the bell curves as the opening graphic. (That said I think it's rather silly to hide this image, you can see it as a snapshot of cultural differences, the ridiculousness of IQ tests, social inequity and the effects of racism, or black inferiority. If the article is balanced, it won't make the image seem like it's saying just one thing.(another reason to cite WAIS as the source rather than Gottfredson.)futurebird 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do object to including the Gottfredson graph if it is not reliable. So far, the numbers being presented are simply numbers she's reporting, without attributing her sources properly (unless someone can find Gottfredson 2003b and any data tables or citations there).

I assume that finding an original study, rather than a meta-analysis, is preferable for making citations. Although I could possibly understand where my detective work may be considered "OR"...the line on that seems a bit fuzzy, since we're supposed to make sure things are verifiable... --JereKrischel 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, the two black and white bell curves she uses are from WAIS. It is as reliable as any intelligence test that's 25 years old could be. The numbers for "asians" and "hispanics" are of unknown origin-- and I agree we ought not include them until we know where they came from.futurebird 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Things are verifiable if they are published in verifiable sources. This is OR, but moreover it's pursuing the advancement of a particular POV. AFAIK, the "main points" aren't contested. Trying to figure out whether the curves should be a pixel to the right or left isn't worthwhile. --W.R.N. 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about finding out whether the curves should be a pixel one way or another, it is about proper attribution. At this point, we can only verify that Gottfredson said something, and cannot verify the definition of race used in the original study, nor even the original study scores. This important context should be prominent if we are to include the image. Also, AFAIK, WAIS is just a test - without information on when that test was administered, or how they divided people up into various "races", we don't have proper context. --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. futurebird 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. -- That's not how WP works. --W.R.N. 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should accept data published from unreliable sources, WRN? --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are using a pun on reliable source. --W.R.N. 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There still is no answer to the question about where the "asian" and "hispanic" data came from... That said-- I feel we are being side tracked, here. Let's stay civil. JK, could you please let me know where to look for the data so I can work on a new bell curve graphic for the "environmental" explanations section? In the mean time, let's tackle that intro. futurebird 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. Certainly Gottfredson's assertions would be more credible if they were supported by additional sources, including the one she should have cited. --JereKrischel 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a pun on "Exceptional claims". The definition of exceptional claims is about claims that run counter to majority opinions. --W.R.N. 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the APA report, the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category. - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. None of them are internally homogeneous. --JereKrischel 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's your overinterpretation of the phrase we avoid the term "race". we avoid the term "race" != the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category. that's part of what i mean by "narrowly tailored", but that's actually just an accuracy issue. secondarily, the claim that the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category has very low face validity given that race continues to be used as a variable in research of many varieties. the reasons are obviously that race has undeniable social-cultural effects -- social-construct != no causal influence -- and in the opinion of many geneticists genetic factors may also contribute to some currently unexplained phenotypic differences between races, notably biomedically interesting phenotypes, but cognitive phenotypes are also included in such discussions. --W.R.N. 02:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we simply disagree about the definition of scientific category. As a social category, it certainly is useful, but it is fairly clear that the majority opinion is that it is not a valid proxy for genetics, especially for complex cognitive phenotypes. The important thing to note is that if we're going to draw bell curves based on social categories of "race", it seems important to note the research which derives corrections based on social categories as well. Placing Gottfredson's 4 "race" graph without appropriate context misleads the reader into assuming that those categories are genetic ones, and that those curves have corrected for other variables. Presented as is, we must include the important context of a complete lack of accounting for any other variables which could (and according to the latest studies, do) affect outcomes. --JereKrischel 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

everything following "secondarily" in my reply is secondary and only FYI. it's what comes before that matters, and that's why we can't have a graph that presents some hypothesis about the cause of group differences in the lead. before it was changed, the lead figure said that the cause of the gaps are debated and the intro suggests hypotheses. --W.R.N. 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead figure not only asserted that gaps existed, but also insisted on a specific hierarchy of the gaps. This is clearly something that is only held true by a very small minority of racialist scientists. Historically, the hierarchy of gaps has been different, with earlier hierarchies asserted with Whites on the top. Perhaps we should look at Lieberman 2001, and show the historical progress of the argued racial hierarchies throughout the centuries. This would be a more balanced intro image, to have several curves, dated, showing how the conceptual hierarchy between races and intelligence have changed over the years. --JereKrischel 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In the new intro (Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07) I have included the graphic at the top, with a caption that I fell places it in context. Could this be a compromise? futurebird 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this graphic, is it the most important image? Why should it come first? It frames the whole thing as an issue about why black people are stupid-- isn't there more to this than this? I'm not saying we should cut it out... I'm just saying why should it be first. Why not one of the pictures from the scientific racism article? Why not use those images in the intro? JJJamal 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adapting the historical chart from Lieberman 2001, showing the asserted racial hierarchies as thought true over the years. Show multiple bell-curve graphs, showing how in the early days of racialist science, Whites were put on top, and how over the years, Whites were put in the middle. Seems more appropriate than asserting that a single interpretation of 1981 WAIS scores represents the end-all be-all of what "racial" gaps exist, and in what order. --JereKrischel 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, do you have a link to this image? futurebird 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "racial hierarchies" is currently attractive only to a fringe group of non-scholarly racists. It's interest to researchers (now long dead) is a matter of history. --W.R.N. 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an important historical point of information, I'm sure you'd agree. The vast majority of history regarding Race and Intelligence is cluttered with what you call, "non-scholarly racists". We can't just ignore that because we find it distasteful. --JereKrischel 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Outlines

These are the outlines that have been proposed for this article.

Proposal 1

From JereKrischel

• 1 Definitions of "race"
• 2 Definitions of "intelligence"
  • 2.1 The Psychometric Approach
  • 2.2 Multiple Forms of intelligence
  • 2.3 Cultural Variation
  • 2.4 Developmental Progressions
• 3 History of research
  • 3.1 18th century
  • 3.2 19th century
  • 3.3 20th century
• 4 Mean scores of different ethnic groups (U.S.)
  • 4.1 Test Bias
  • 4.2 Characteristics of Tests
• 5 Current debates
  • 5.1 Genetic hypothesis
  • 5.2 Validity of "race"
  • 5.3 Socioeconomic factors
  • 5.4 Culture factors

Organizing principle

This outline is similar to the article as it is at present.

if "organizing principle" = "thing you talk about in the article" then I agree and would suggest that already describes the state of the article. the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. -- Here's the salient part of the current article outline. I think we do exactly that, and take the time in sect. 1 to highlight the debate about causes.

• 1 Background information
  • 1.1 Race
  • 1.2 Intelligence testing
  • 1.3 The contemporary debate: results and interpretations
  • 1.4 History
• 2 Average gaps among races
• 3 Explanations
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Environmental explanations
  • 3.3 Genetic explanations
  • 3.4 Expert opinion
• 4 Significance of group IQ differences
• 5 Public debate and policy implications

so, if there's a dispute about this very specific item, it must be something more subtle that i'm missing. --WD RIK NEW 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical perspective

This outline tries to expand the article with a deeper and boarder historical perspective. In this plan much of the in-depth material on Race and intelligence (Research) would go in an article by that name. This plan would present a substantial summary and a link to that main article. futurebird 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 0 Intro

• 1 History

1.1 Race

1.2 Intelligence testing

1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race

• 2 Contemporary questions

2.1 Race

2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis

2.1.2 Validity of "race"

2.2 Intelligence testing

2.2.1 The psychometric approach

2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence

2.2.3 Cultural variation

2.2.4 Developmental progressions

2.3 Average gaps among races

2.4 Explanations

2.4.1 Environmental factors

2.4.1.1 Test bias

2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests

2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors

2.4.1.4 Culture factors

2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications

2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence

2.4.3 Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views (Reword? Ideas?)

2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences

2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

Comparison of explanations

I found this table in the archives, I think it draws important distinctions between different perspectives on this topic. The article should cover the entire field of explanations as will as present historical context for this kind of research. This will address the rampant "recentism" in the present article. I'm including this table as a spring board for new ideas for the outline. futurebird 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The possible explanations for observed differences in intelligence between racial groups generally occur along two axes - how valid a proxy race is for most genes that control intelligence, and primarily-genetic/primarily-environmental.

A comment: I think this attempt to map out positions orthogonally is worthwhile, but RIK had criticisms that need to be addressed. I have one criticism: in the square on "race is an invalid proxy" there are four bullet-points. I think the first one is a red-herring. We have to be very careful to introduce it ONLY if it is from a source directly addressing the race-intelligence debate. Frankly, I think the second and fourth bullet points are the real issues. JK, I think byt including all four bullet points you risk doing yourself and the whole dbate a disservice - we may end up debating the red-herring rather than the two bullet points that are clearly relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this bullet point:

Races are not useful categories for determining one's genetic background, being inferior to clines on traits, and the majority of the differences in intelligence are determined by genetics. (Environmental) This category includes those who challenge the utility of "race", but believe in strong genetic contributions to intelligence.

I don't think this is a red herring at all. It's important to point out that race may not be useful, but intelligence could still be a heritable trait. futurebird 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe my main criticism was that there are no sources which support the claim that there are two dimensions along which "explanations of group differences" fall. All sources I see suggest a mostly one dimension debate along the continuum of genetic versus environment. Discussion of race, where it occurs about the question of "explanations" occurs in parallel, as an argument for or against a genetic contribution. I didn't try to criticize the content of the table because I argued that the table itself is not founded. I asked for citations that explicitly back up the claim that there are two major dimensions and all I was presented with were papers about race, but none said there were two dimensions to the debate. --W.R.N. 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, in my opinion, the table represents a synthesis and thus OR. However (and it's a big however), to say that these positions do not exist in research (whether in anthropology, psychology or whatever science) is another thing, and to the best of my knowledge, inexact. I'm fairly confident I can find researchers holding each of these views, even if no one has summarized them in a table like this before. What I would suggest to address your objection might be to segregate the existing viewpoints in much this way. That way, we don't have to put that table up in the article(using it for our own reference in the talk page is allowed), but we can clearly make out what everyone who has spoken up on the subject has said. Plus, it avoids the nearly-infinite strings of rebuttal we currently have in this article. Criticism of another position's viewpoint should probably occur in the section devoted to the position making the critic, rather than the position being criticized. I think it would make for a clearer, less confusing expose of each viewpoint.--Ramdrake 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I never meant to suggest that the table be used in the article-- I was thinking, as I see Ramdrake is suggesting here, that the table could serve as a kind of organizational map for the article. But in any case, there are plenty of critical books and publications that makes distinctions between the kinds of research in this way or at least in a way-- see my comments below. futurebird 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that views about between-group heritability (BGH) and within-group heritability (WGH) is improperly described in the article. At this stage in the science, the fact that WGH is high for both blacks and whites is essentially uncontested. Different views about BGH is the single major dimension I described in the comment above. Everyone believes WGH is high. It is BGH that is a matter of dispute. --W.R.N. 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe my main criticism was that there are no sources which support the claim that there are two dimensions along which "explanations of group differences" fall.

I think we've been through this before. So I'll make the same exact point I made before again. Just because there is not a whole lot of research on "Why there are no aliens in Area 51" isn't proof that the pseudo-science about why there are aliens in Area 51 is legitimate, or the material that ought to dominate an article on Area 51. It is, of course, correct to mention that such research exists, what it says, and that there is considerable controversy.

In any case, texts that look at race and intelligence "research" make the same distinctions as the table above. They do this to separate what they call "scientific racism" from science. American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence does this, The Mismeasure of Man does this, Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race by Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley does this, Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth by Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Vos does this, Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth by Jefferson M. Fish does this, the PBS film I worked on about test score differences for students in Shaker Heights, Ohio "Shaker Heights - The Struggle For Integration" did this. I could go on. It's not OR, it is standard and it is also absolutely necessary if we are to present any of these criticisms. Because, you see, we can't talk about criticisms if we can't be clear about exactly what research is being criticized and why. It's not like everyone is out to attack anyone who tries to give an IQ test to some black peole or everyone who uses "race" in their data. It is the interpretations of the data that are drawn from such studies that are under-fire.

Almost no-one credible disputes that a gap exists, or that it is a 'bad thing.' Without clarity about the conclusions of the research it may make it seem as if critics of race and intelligence research that draws sketchy biological conclusions are just critics of doing research in general. Hence, the critics may be written off as no-nothing, anti-science nut-cases. That is unfair and highly POV --and it is exactly what this suite of articles is doing now. futurebird 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sidetracked again: Let's focus on the intro

We've lost sight of our goal here again and gotten sucked into to arguments about details. (I'm not saying these things are not important) Let's keep this discussion general. I suggest working on rewriting the intro section as a map for the direction of the revised article. Unless anyone else has proposal, we could start with the intro I wrote and edit it until it makes sense. Sound good? I have created a sub-page with just the intro. My idea is to get this text sourced and cleaned up and come up with something we can all agree on.

Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Quibble--The caption contains a non-sentence. I can't fix it because I have no idea of what "Idealized normal distribution comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981." is supposed to mean. P0M 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on it. futurebird 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, I'd rather we started with something simpler to help address existing concerns, like properly attributing citations and affirmations in the current artcile rather than starting right now on rewriting the article from scratch. That way, we'll have a better view of the NPOVised material already written we can use to conceive of an expanded article. What say you?--Ramdrake 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article at present is a wreck. It reads like the argument in the mind of mad grad student with six personalities. Not only are there racist undertones, but it's also really inconsistent. There are random "point, counter point" sections that confuse the reader. I feel that we do need to start over and rebuild the article one section at a time. I can't imagine how the present article could be reworked in to something acceptable, when there is still so much disagreement about the scope of the article.

As far as citations go, the present system with the references on another page is unacceptable, the references should be in the article so it is clear what citation is being used with what text. Honestly though citations are the last thing we should worry about. Let's start by working in board strokes, if not with the into, then we could start with the outline.

What should this article be? We ought not be afraid to ask this question?

What if each of us gave five sentence summary of the article? That might help focus the debate.futurebird 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How can I see the new intro. It was here before and I left a comment that said I thought we should use it and now I can't find it. JJJamal 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your comment is here: :::: ::::(don't comment on that page, it is an archive. The new intro is at this link- Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 it is a new subpage I created so we can get a sense of what the article might look like if we revise it. I'd love to have your feedback on this. futurebird 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamal, the missing section has now been restored, you'll find it if you scroll up. futurebird 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice start on the intro, futurebird. I put in a place-holder for an additional bell-curve graphic up at the top. WRN, could you please look at Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07, and weigh in on the presentation of the two bell-curve graphs? I think that the others are right - we should stop arguing over abstractions, and get down to working on actual compromises. --JereKrischel 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

talk page length

if anyone is having trouble with the talk page length, please make a note here. otherwise, there should be no need to archive material that's less than a week old. --W.R.N. 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. futurebird 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem when in less than a week the talk page grows over 100 kb. I think if people were focusing on one issue, and clearly working towards some sort of consensus or resolution, this would be tolerable. But when people keep repeating themselves or go off on tangents, nothing is being accomplished. In short, a lot of signal is fine as long as the noise-to-signla ratio is low. I have made a few attempts to mediate but I do not think you "need" me. What you (all of you) need to do is pick one or two issues and commit yourselves to working out a resolution that is compliant with NPOV and NOR and V. But I see topics introduced and dropped. So why shouldn't those be archived, if you all decide to drop the topic and move on to something else? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just archived 79 kb of talk that occured over only three days. Why did I archive it? Because despite the fact that I thought there were some good suggestions in them, no one followed through on them. This talk page is not just a place to register random ideas, it is to discuss how to improve the article. If suggestions are ignored, they may as well be archived. Right now the talk page is 124 kb long, still almost four times longer than it should be, and it is all from January 30-February 3. I BEG all of you: look over this talk page and ask yourself how many topics have been discussed and then just abandoned, how many suggestions made and ignored? It seems to me that the answer to both question is a lot. for example, there was much thoughtful discussion about the graphs - but no resolution was reached and the topic was dropped. What is the point of leaving that material on the page since people are not willing to talk it through until they reach a resolution? If this is the general pattern we may as well archive daily. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but at this point, I'm feeling that the very fact that the article page is locked is part and parcel of what prevents us from going forward and trying out solutions on the article. Instead, we bring up possible solutions, but since it's impossible to go and try them out, we're stuck discussing stuff ad nauseam. I believe it might be time to unlock this article. I believe there is enough agreement that the article can go forward without immediate fear of another edit war. It's at least worth a shot.--Ramdrake 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I faced a similar situation with a number of other editors on a policy page (so the stakes were high). We agreed to keep the page locked after a lengthy revert war. We then sorted out specific edits that were contentious. We then went through them one at a time, to see whether consensus could be reached. The policy page remained locked, but once all the participants achieved a consensus about an edit, an admin made the edit. Once all the contentious edits had been reviewed and revised until there was consensus, and edits made one by one, then the page was unblocked. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't a policy page. Stakes may be higher for WP on a policy page, but my guess here is the situation is more emotional. I still think unblocking is worth a shot, as my reading of the situation on this talk page is that many editors here seem to be catching the WP equivalent of cabin fever: we keep focusing on our problems, but we are lacking a bit in the solutions department, and few people seem to be willing to listen to other people's proposals for solution.--Ramdrake 14:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was not I who protected the page, but Ryan Delaney. I would defer to him. I suspect that if you and RIK agree about this, you may convince him to unprotect (if he refuses, I promise you that after a few more days - to give the RfC some more time - I will unprotect). In the meantime, I have a request: go through the most recently archived material. If you think there is anything there that ought to remain "on the table," I would invite you to copy it and put it back on the active talk page. I request (it is really advice) that you do so (if you are willing at all) only under two conditions: (1) be very selective and (2) only do it if it fits into SOME discussion already here in the active talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR, I think that futurebird has done a good job of starting us off iteratively with her Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 page. Can we focus all of our attention just on that intro section, with WRN and I holding all other topics in abeyance, and come to some consensus, and then have an admin put that edit in? I think that if you opened the page up now, the edit war would continue, with changes being made to the article that WRN found inappropriate, and his response to simply revert them. I suggest that we should work on the new intro together, then have a straw-poll to decide if it should be put into the article by an admin. We can probably do the same with other individual sections as well, although I'm certain that some of the iterations will be more complex due to the desired restructuring of the outline. --JereKrischel 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you, futurebird, WRN and Ramdrake all agree on a new intro, I will put it in. I will stay out of the process, but I think for any such edit to endure, all of you will need to agree on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SLR! It would be helpful if you were involved in the process, though, to give us some specific guidance on any disagreements we may have in coming to consensus on a new intro. I'm just afraid that even with a small section like the intro, we may essentially engage in the same talking-past each other. Hopefully I'm wrong, and we can all find some sort of compromise, but just in case, even if you don't make direct contributions to the new intro, your calm, measured opinion on disagreements is very valuable to us all. --JereKrischel 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I the page was unlocked now it'd be a mess. We need to reach consunsus. This troubles me since I think that for some people preventing us from reaching consensus will preserve the article in its present condition. I think we need to make it clear that not being able to agree doesn't imply we ought to keep the status quo, or that the status quo is good. futurebird 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to stop fighting and start doing some real work. That's what I think. This is silly. JJJamal 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop (please!)

Guys, have you noticed that in the last couple of days, we've gone back to talking at cross-purposes? Everyone here wants to go ahead with their own personal solution about what to do with the article , but it sounds like everybody is talking into thin air, way past each other. We are getting exactly nowhere doing this. I strongly suggest we go back to SLR's plan and discuss issues one at a time.

For myself, I would like to suggest that people stop archiving like crazy. As a rule, if a thread has been inactive for a week, go ahead and archive it, but I've seen threads archived in which I was writing just this morning, for goodness's sake!!! If that means the talk page gets to be 350k, so be it. The Evolution talk page is even larger than that, and nobody seriously complains. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed, but maybe I am. People are archiving left and right trying to get editors to focus on what they think is important, but we don't know that we have consensus on much of anything yet. I would suggest we go back to SLR's four points and pick up the discussion from there, one point at a time. I feel like we took a wrong ledt turn somewhere shortly after that.--Ramdrake 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. I was honestly trying to help. futurebird 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No one doubts your sincerity, but you need to fix the mess you created. Any material from Jan 31 or Feb1-3 that you archived must be restored to where it was. You have to fix it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to stop fighting and focus on what needs to be changed in this article. JJJamal 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is out of field for me, but I think it interesting. Slrubenstein's comment on a lack of productive discussion is something I'm guilty of myself. It is easy to make arguments with merit and citations. We often jab and parry, but the hard part is really working together to find a consensus or compromise that ends up in the article (not just Talk). I have removed my additions that were perfectly legitimate and well referenced and CORRECT, but I finally realized that being right was not the point because the article was just giving a simple example of natural selection with antibiotic resistance in bacteria (but my anal penchant for being accurate just got the better of me so I had to qualify with a whole spew which detracted from the point and the article). Slrubenstein is correct to work out each issue one at time. All of you editors appear bright, articulate, and knowlegeable about the topic so I believe you can put disagreements aside or compromise to produce an excellent article. I really have to believe that reason will win the day. GetAgrippa 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind motivational word GA! I will try my best to be cooperative. futurebird 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Schwael asks more questions

In light of activity on this page in the past 24 hours, I'm noticing a problematic trend: people seem to have ceased talking with one another. Talking is going on, but it is primarily within two different camps. One camp is starting to rewrite the article from the ground up. The other camp is still trying to determine how/if the original article was not neutral enough and how to fix it in a neutral way. Therefore camp 2 has not been participating in the rewrite. So I'm retracting my suggestion from earlier and now suggesting that the folks working on the new intro back up a bit first and work a little more on clarifying (like using a numbered list) the ways the original article was not neutral.

For example, it seems to me that one important POV in question is "Is race a social construct or is it biological?" Thus these would be arguments which need to be portrayed in a fair way (tho as I wrote yesterday, I don't know if a NPOV article is possible in this case -which I'd still like some feedback on, because if that's true, and some people here still hold it as a goal, then we've got a big problem). I noticed that there was some discussion earlier about this and how the general POV tends to be different depending on the intellectual community (biologists vs sociologists for example) and I didn't understand it completely, so I will go make some comments there next. Schwael 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, and it opens up an avenue to understanding the nature of the conflict over this high-stakes issue more clearly.

The question you believe is in question, "Is race a social construct or is it biological?" is probably the way many people are indeed framing an important consideration, but it is not exactly the right question. The way in which it fails to be the right question explains why "the general POV tends to be different depending on the intellectual community."

Here is the deal: All propositions that aim to be scientific and empirically-based are constructions that humans place on intersubjective observations. The biological, sociological, racialist, racist... communities may, by dint of careful vetting of observations, agree on a set of data, but each group will put different constructions on that set of data. Any new piece of data poses a different problem for each of the concerned communities regarding how to fit that data in to their currently accepted constructs, and discordant data may be put in the "pending" file by any community that finds it hard to add that data without a major reconstruction of their existing body of constructs. For instance, the man who eventually got a Nobel Prize for discovering that prions cause kuru, mad cow disease, etc., was vilified by his own community members because it so upset existing ideas that diseases were caused by viruses or microbes.

Even the way words are understood can change among communities. If a person's everyday experience with definitions of species, subspecies, etc., includes continual reinforcement of the idea that these are all to some extent squishy categories, the idea that there are sub-subspecific statistical groupings of some degree of utility called, for lack of a better word, "races" may make that word a useful tool to that individual. For someone else, the term "race" is a hurtful tool in the hands of others because in their experience of its use "race" means individuals being crammed into "the good bin" and "the bad bin", i.e., for whom experience shows that "race" is used as a rigid category that ignores salient individual characteristics and oppresses some individuals while unfairly rewarding others.

It's a pity that Loglan or something like it is not available for general use. I think the experience on this very discussion page shows that it is virtually impossible to think about the topic of discussion because of the degree of slop (an engineer's term, not a slur) in the conceptual tools is so great. P0M 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if we could just understand what people like Lynn and Jensen mean by race there would be no disagreement? I may be misreading what you're saying... because if this is what you're saying I can't see how it is true. futurebird 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullet point problems with current article

In no particular order:

• The debate is being characterized as a choice between "partly-genetic" or "environmental only". This frame is inappropriate, and gives inappropriate credibility to people who believe that observed racial gaps are immutable genetic properties of "race". WRN will argue that he can cite several sources that lay out the issue in terms of genetic/environmental, both justifying his POV pushing terms, as well as justifying the POV layout of the article.

I do not understand the problem. Is it not true that some scholars believe it is partly genetic? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true, but this way of separating opinion doesn't differentiate between say a Lieberman who thinks the genetic contribution if it exists, may not be significant, and a Rushton, who thinks the genetic contribution is in all likelihood the most important contribution. The debate is how to best describe the spectrum of opinions and properly defining each typical position.--Ramdrake 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The debate is excessively detailed in support of the racialist/hereditarian POV. There is little balance to the sections, and often times arguments put forth by hereditarians are recreated, point by point, reference by reference, in the article, rather than simply citing the figure making the claim, and the claim. Major simplifications can occur in describing the differing points of view as to the magnitude, direction, and significance of either environmental or genetic factors. WRN will argue that the excessive detail promoting the racialist/hereditarian POV is simply an artifact of the overwhelming body of evidence in favor of that POV.

Misplaced Pages motto: do not delete, add. What do you propose to add? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two answers to that question - (1) If the excessive detail of the hereditarian POV remains, I propose to add numerous, directly cited refutations of each tiny point. I'm sure WRN will do the same in return, and we'll have the slippery slope problem I mention below, with refs, counter refs, counter counter refs, etc, making the article essentially unreadable. I'm desperately looking for some sort of guidance on how that can be avoided, because currently I believe that the only way to avoid going down that road is to not start. (2) If the excessive detail of the hereditarian POV is removed, I propose adding a great deal more on the historical context of race and intelligence, how it has changed over the years, as well as its part in the history of scientific racism, eugenics, and public perception. I'm sure FB will have much to add in the area as well. --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The debate regularly conflates various definitions of "race" in an inappropriate manner without giving necessary context. Claims based on "race", when cited, should include the definition of race used by that particular citation. The citations are incomplete unless that important context is given. WRN will argue that since the racialist/hereditarian meta-analyses omit these contexts, there is no need to provide context at all.#

If they omit the context, then how do we know what definition to provide? If they omit the context/defintion, isn't this fact itself important enough and sufficient to include? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"The debate" (by this I am guesing JK means the debate in the outside world, not this debate on our discussion page) does inevitably involve participants who use different meanings for both "race" and "intelligence." If a book or article discloses the actual data, the definitions of terms, the mathematical/statistical methods used in constructing comparisons, then that individual study can be clear and, barring a poor study plan, there shouldn't be much room for controversy. The problem comes when several studies using different methodologies, at least slightly different definitions, etc. are put side by side in an attempt to synthesize conclusions from them. We are barred from making these syntheses as part of this article. The fact that "they omit the context" is indeed important enough to add. Whether it is sufficient to include that note here and there in the article sounds doubtful to me if it is indeed a real source of the problems in knowing what if any connection there is between and because the average reader will not have been sensitized to this issue as we have been and may well fail to see the connection between and significance of all those little notes. P0M 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fairly extraordinary claims are cited from unreliable sources, including IQ data in the 4-curve opening graphic. Following the nested citations of Gottfredson leads to studies and papers that don't have the data claimed to be cited. WRN will argue that these sources are reliable, and that their overall conclusions are undisputed, even if the specific details are in question.

If there are debates over the reliability of sources, those debates themselves must be included in the article. But we do not exclude a source because some people think it is unreliable. We instead say, "One controversy is over the reliability of these sources..." with an account of the controversy Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question - since the controversy over the reliability is essentially OR (I actually looked at Gottfredson's citations, and followed them back to the studies she cited, and found no such data or even mention of race - I didn't find a published critique of her reliability), is it allowed to be included? I would gather that the answer should be "no" in the strictest sense of WP:NOR, but I'm concerned that it allows for demonstrably unreliable sources. Maybe the answer is that I myself should submit a paper to a journal and get my critique published :).

I guess I would feel better if something as prominent as the initial graphic was actually sourced from several different sources, not just one. If both Gottfredson, Flynn, and the APA published the data used to build the curve, it would mollify my concerns. Otherwise, I suppose we could honestly caption the graph with something along the lines of "According to a meta-analysis by Gottfredson, using unspecified and uncited WAIS test results, argues that the B-W gap looks like this.". --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In every case, WRNs response has been complete denial of any problem with the article. Others have attempted to present various compromise positions, but none seem to be acceptable to WRN. WRN has not presented any compromise proposals of his own. --JereKrischel 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I add a bullet point?

• The article lacks historical context and looks at questions of race and intelligence only with respect to recent research (expect for a small section on history) rather than the relations drawn between race and intelligent in a boarder cultural context (stereotypes) and the history of race, racism and scientific racism. futurebird 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of that historical context I suspect belongs in another article. to include all of it here would make the article too long. I am not arguing to exclude any and all historical context. I think we should provide as much historical context as has entered directly into debates over reace and intelligence. Believe me, that still includes a lot of context. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Five bullet points, largely aimed against WRN. Let me start by saying that if anyone here takes an antagonistic attitude towards WRN, the mediation will fail and the article will remain protected. Of course this goes for WRN too - he should not be antagonistic either. Second, i am non-partisan, and have provided a response for each bullet point. My responses do not reflect WRN's POV. They are my attempts to mediate an impasse. I think you (Futurebird and JK) need to respond in a way that is consistent with what I suggest here if you ever want to improve the article Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the points aimed against WRN are simply an artifact of our particular concerns, not a personal attack on WRN. WRN wants the article to remain the way it has been under his guidance for the past 4 years, and does not have any problems with the article as written. Any changes desired by other editors are inherently going to be against his POV. I truly believe WRN is working in good faith, and hope that he will begin to present possible compromises for our concerns. If any antagonism was detected, it was unintentional. --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific example problem

So this argument might go to the WP:NOR problem. Underneath Genetic explanations, WRN has written this -

Several recent studies have found some neuronal genes have variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure and now occur in different frequencies in different global populations. Some of this selection occurred within the last 10,000 years, such as a recent variant of the ASPM gene that is found mostly among European and East Asian populations. The cause of the selective sweep and the effects of these variants are generally not yet known, although some suspect that they could be related to intelligence. Although neurogenic diversity theoretically increases the chances of functional diversity, ultimately, very little is known about the actual impact of these variants, and the researchers caution that they may not have anything to do with cognition or intelligence at all.

Certainly this is a "genetic explanation" of something, but it is not an assertion of any sort relating race to intelligence, and the researchers themselves are cautious about this. It certainly doesn't relate to social categories of "race", such as U.S. blacks and U.S. whites. Why such prominent mention in the article? Well, WRN is a geneticist, and he connected the dots together, and decided that these very recent studies were supportive of a "genetic explanation" for observed differences between "races" and intelligence. Can we agree that this paragraph should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The quoted material is certainly interesting, and it actually tends to subvert the common sense idea of that links it to superficial (in the literal sense of the word) marker characteristics. What the quotation depicts as "selective sweep" indicates that these "variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure" are "invasive" to several so-called "racial" groups in different parts of the globe. I'm not sure what ought to be done with the information, or what could legitimately be done with it without "synthesis." Isn't the problem with the quoted material that there may be some degree of "synthesis" just by the way that several summaries of cited materials are placed side by side? In the second sentence there is an implication, I suspect, that the ASPM gene has something to do with the purportedly higher average intelligence of "European and East Asian populations." But there is no citation for that claim, so where did it come from? Then there is a third sentence that confirms the implicit idea but in a weakened form. The fourth sentence also adds a note of caution. So what we seem to be left with is the knowledge that genes can be "invasive" in the way that honeybees are invasive in the Americas. They happen to be very useful and desirable in almost all ways, but "invasive" in the sense that they are outsiders that have moved in to stay. Maybe that paragraph really belongs in the race article. P0M 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another specific example

Under Genetic explanations, WRN has written this -

To support these claims, they often cite several lines of evidence that they interpret as support for a partly genetic cause of group differences in IQ:

1. Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size are observed worldwide in a range of cultures and environments. In the United States, significant Black-White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level tested, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests.

2. Jensen and other have argued that the magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlate with the extent to which those subtests measures g, which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability. From these and other findings, they argue that race differences have a partly biological basis.

3. The rising heritability of IQ with age (within all races; studies have found on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20% in infants, rises to 40% in middle childhood, and peaks at 80% in adulthood); and studies showing the virtual disappearance (~0.0) by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (for example, family income, education, and home environment), with adopted siblings partaking in the studies no more similar in IQ than with strangers From these studies, they argue that most suggested environmental explanations for IQ difference between groups do not have a strong enough effect on IQ to fully account for group differences.

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

This seems to be excessive detail. WRN has essentially recreated Rushton/Jensen arguments, and placed citations in his citation. This essentially allows WRN to write an entire section, as if it were incontrovertible based on various references, without any possible response. The NPOV fact that should be reported is that Rushton and Jensen make some assertions, not that they make some assertions, and here is the factual evidence they use to back it up. If anything, every one of their "lines of evidence" should be attributed directly to Rushton and Jensen, as much of that same evidence may be interpreted as undermining the "genetic hypothesis", depending on the viewer. It seems very weaselly, in any case.

Can we agree these four points should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, I do not think you understand our NPOV policy. If these are Jensen's views, or the view of Jensen and a few others, all of this material is absolutely appropriate as long as the article clearly identifies the point of view. If the article says, "To support these claims, they often cite several lines of evidence ..." then you are dead wrong to suggest that the article is presenting these as facts. On the contrary, the article is presenting what Jensen and others consider facts, which is all that we can do, and precisely what we should do.Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If every "line of evidence" was predicated by, "Jensen and Rushton believe there is...", I think that might be more appropriate, but I still think this excessive detail leads us down a slippery slope where I don't see a stopping point.

Perhaps you could answer this question, and help me find a solution to my ultimate concern - if these four points were put in a table, with the Rushton/Jensen assertion on one column, and a direct, cited refutation in the other column, would that be appropriate? Would it then be appropriate to put a third column, and a direct, cited counter refutation in that one? Would it then be appropriate to put a fourth column, and a direct, cited counter counter refutation in that one? At what point is it reasonable to stop doing a tit-for-tat argument?

I think that because I don't see an end to the slippery slope of excessive detail, I'm concerned about even starting off on that path. Perhaps you could help provide me with some guideline which may lay my concerns to rest? --JereKrischel 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

YASE (yet another specific example)

In the Environmental explanations section, an interesting claim is tacked onto a discussion of the Flynn effect.

Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the black-white IQ gap can be first detected.

The reference 94 is for Rushton/Jensen 2005a. Instead of making a bald statement of fact, a specific statement should be attributed to Rushton/Jensen. Looking at the reference , it seems there is no claim at all that differences would need to develop before age 3, but simply a statement that The size of the average Black-White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond.

Can we agree that this sentence and improper reference should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have made a compelling argument that it should be rewritten, not removed. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the sentence was rewritten to reflect what the actual source said, it would no longer be addressing the particular point being made by Flynn. Are you suggesting that I should both suggest a rewrite for the sentence, and a more appropriate place for it in the article? Something like, Rushton and Jensen state, "The size of the average Black-White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of ange and beyond", and then stick it in a different section? --JereKrischel 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what Jensen believes

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what hereditarians believe. To help clear that up a bit, here's some relevant text from Jensen (1998) that briefly summarizes the views of the model hereditarian. --W.R.N. 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ differences alone tell you nothing about the cause of the gap:

Because IQ is strictly a phenotype, as is every observable or measurable human characteristic, it does not, by itself, support any inference concerning the cause of either individual or group differences in IQ.

Why is there interest in race w.r.t. IQ:

Whatever their cause, IQ differences are related to variables of immense practical consequence in the modern world. The substantial correlation of IQ with many educational, economic, and social criteria has been well established. Largely for this reason, there has been a long-standing interest in the IQ differences between various populations in the United States that markedly differ, on average, on these salient criteria.

Black-White differences:

Only their strictly phenotypic or psychometric aspects are examined in this section.

By far the most extensively researched group differences in IQ are those between the two largest populations in the United States: persons of European ancestry who are socially identified as "white" and persons of some African ancestry who are socially identified as "black" or African-American.

The mean difference, which is in evidence by about three years of age, increases slightly from early childhood to maturity. These are simply the phenotypic, psychometric, and statistical facts. The average difference, of course, is relatively small compared to the range of variation within either population and, in fact, is not much greater than the average difference between full siblings reared together in the same family.

Causes:

Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes.

Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g. What I term the default hypothesis states that the causes of the phenotypic differences between contemporary populations of recent African and European descent arise from the same genetic and environmental factors, and in approximately the same magnitudes, that account for individual differences within each population. Thus genetic and environmental variances between groups and within groups are viewed as essentially the same for both populations. The default hypothesis is able to account for the present evidence on the mean white-black difference in g. There is no need to invoke any ad hoc hypothesis, or a Factor X, that is unique to either the black or the white population. The environmental component of the average g difference between groups is primarily attributable to a host of microenvironmental factors that have biological effects. They result from nongenetic variation in prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal conditions and specific nutritional factors.

More about what a "model hereditarian" believes: Recent Pioneer Fund grant recipients include race scientists Arthur Jensen and Roger Pearson. Famous for his attack on Head Start, Jensen argued in the Harvard Educational Review that black children test at an IQ of 85 and urged "eugenic foresight" as the only solution.

Of course, we could continue this for quite a while, WRN, but let's suffice it to say that how people see themselves is often very different from how others see them. You have a very favorable view of Jensen, and I'm sure Jensen does as well. Why don't we move on to dealing either with the intro proposal, or finding a better outline for the article? --JereKrischel 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, note that nothing about "eugenic foresight" has to do with the size or causes of the BW gap. Moreover, you could bother to know the context of those two words. Writing about the phenomena of low IQ individuals (who were supported by welfare) tending to have more children, Jensen wrote: "Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial portion of our population?" (Jensen 1969, p. 95). You can read the same concern in The Bell Curve (1994). They are suggesting that Welfare was harming more than helping. It is noteworthy that Welfare was changed in the Clinton years, in part addressing these concerns. Yet, none of that relates to the BW gap except to the extent that the IQ-fertility negative correlation is stronger among blacks than whites. --W.R.N. 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, I don't think it helps your position to go there: we go from a pro-racialist to a pro-eugenics positions, which if anything raises even more ethical and scientific objections.--Ramdrake 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not pro-eugenic, it's anti-dysgenic and anti-"enslavement". I'm not sure what my "position" is other than that editors of this article should bother to understand the material they are writing about. Nothing in the "eugenics" talk has anything to do with the science being described above. --W.R.N. 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In the words of JK: Why don't we move on to dealing either with the intro proposal, or finding a better outline for the article?futurebird 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop (please!) (take 2)

OK, now that I have your attention (I hope!), can we please stop arguing about what this or that researcher think or didn't think, said or didn't say, and please concentrate on what to do next to get this article unlocked and improved. To quote one of my favorite shows: Captain, we're going around in circles, and at Warp 10, we're going nowhere mighty fast!

We are going around in circles, yet I do see positive moves: I see people trying to argue their points in terms of NPOV and SOR and I think that is a huge step forward.

Unless anyone objects I would like to step-up my role as mediator. Here is my suggestion, based on what I have seen over the past week.

First, I think two bullet-points I raised are really in the forfront of people's minds; I think also Futurebird's proposed introduction is important to people.

I propose that we not discuss the overall structure or oganization of the article. I

propose that we focus on specific issues.

I propose:

1. For now, we focus on these three issues
2. Instead of debating "the truth," we restrict ourselves to proposing specific edits, and revisions of edits, and new edits, with an aim of providing an NPOV NOR account of the topic in the article
3. As JK, RIK, Ramdrake, and Futurebird reach a consensus, I will move the new material into the article. Once we compelte these three topics, we can discuss unprotecting the article.

Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just too heated, but this thread is active right now, and seemingly not getting to a solution I think should be possible. --W.R.N. 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the three issues are:

1. First two bullet points (The ones you replied to out of the list of 5??)
2. futurebird's intro

Is that right? --JereKrischel 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How to represent the different interpretations of self identified race in the verifiable literature?

• The most obivous interpretation of "self identified race" is as a social category, based first on skin color, second on specific racial features and third known ancestry (when it isn't too remote).--Ramdrake 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the phrase "the most obvious" should be banned from this distinction. The reason this question is salient is because people self-identify race when they take IQ tests. The only issue is how have verifiable and reliable relvant sources - not us, or some vague abstract general public to which things are obvious - interpreted this. We need to provide an account not of what we think, but of what participants in debates over race and intelligence have actually written in verifiable sources. Ramdrake, please, just expressing what you think is not going to move us forward. We need proposals for additions or changes to the article concerning this question, and changes have to be NPOV and NOR compliant. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I certainly wasn't doing this to aggravate you. What I might suggest then, if you wanted referenced and cited opinions from the literature only, would have been to say: What are different interpretations of "self-identified race" existing in the literature? That would have made it clearer that you wanted only cited answers. As it was clearer for your second question, I didn't answer right away to take the time necessary to look up the literature.--Ramdrake 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's how J. Phillipe Rushton interprets racial categories (as they relate to both evolutionary biology and everyday life) on pgs 42-43 of his book:

Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a "Black" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A "White" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an "Oriental" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results.

Wantednewlook

According to psychologist Arthur Jensen, "American blacks are socially defined simply as persons who have some degree of sub-Saharan African ancestry and who identify themselves (or, in the case of children, are defined by their parents) as black or African-American" ref: Jorion, P.J.M. (1999). , Psycoloquy 10(064) Wantednewlook

Wantednewlook, you are misunderstanding the question. The question is not "what does Jenson or anyone else think races are." The question is this: Jenson and others use data in which people self-identify their race. In their published i.e. verifiable literatture, how do Jensen and other researchers move from that data to the larger models of race and intelligence? What is their criteria, what steps do they take - if they have published on it. And have their critics provided other analyses of the data and any correlations between self-identified races and average IQ scores? What has beenpublished that needs to be represented in this article? How should we represwent it? Again, I am asking for proposals for specific edits to the article. Anything else belongs in a chat room or blog. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR, I understand this to be a response to criticisms that originated with JK or other. I don't believe this is going to be productive, because I believe the question has not really been asked or answered in the literature because it's not really of much interest. A review of the literature will most likely find that researchers use straightforward sampling techniques and statistics, such as those used in epidemiology. A sample of people of some self-described race/ethnicity is used to estimate the distribution of traits in the overall population of that race/ethnicity. --W.R.N. 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is of great interest, and has had significant consequences on the topic. For example, historically, U.S. categories of "race" have changed, with the 2000 census particularly departing from past options. Self-described race/ethnicity looks very different depending on the options given and the context. There are several studies showing that self-describe race/ethnicity changes depending on the context (answers given at school, for example, may be different than answers given at home, answers at one age may be different than answers at another age). I understand that it is a distraction from the question and the assumptions of "race", but I must strongly disagree with your characterization that this is not "of much interest". --JereKrischel 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen simply cite studies in which people have either self-identified as belonging to a certain race or are so identified by the author of the study based on subjective criteria. They interpret each study on an individual basis. The following quote from Ruston & Jensen] provides insight in terms of how people are classified by race by players in the field. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts:

The mean age for the entire sample (9,830 Whites, 4,017 Blacks, and 119 mixed-race individuals) was 16 years. The Black adolescents averaged a lower birth weight, a lower verbal IQ,

and a higher number of sexual partners than did the White adolescents. For each characteristic, the mixed-race mean fell between the means of the other two groups. Rowe found the social class explanation of the group differences “un- convincing” because, of the three variables, only verbal IQ showed a moderate correlation with social class and statistically adjusting for it left the main findings unchanged. He also rejected the “discrimination based on skin tone” hypothesis because it was eliminated by 'deliberately selecting only those mixed-race ado-lescents who were judged by their interviewers to be Black, based on their physical appearance.' Three studies of racially mixed individuals at first appear to support the culture-only hypothesis against the genetic hypothesis. Eyferth (1961; Eyferth, Brandt, & Hawel, 1960) reported IQ data for out-of-wedlock children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II and then reared by White German mothers. The mean IQs for 83 White children and for 98 racially mixed children were both about 97 (97.2 for the Whites, 96.5 for the racially mixed). As Loehlin et al. (1975, pp. 126–128) noted, however, these results are ambiguous for three reasons. First, the children were still very young when tested. One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two thirds were between 10 and 13 years. As discussed in Section 5 (see Figure 3), behavior genetic studies show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty,

after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, 20% to 25% of the “Black” fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e.,largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here).

Wantednewlook

Who (in the verifiable literature) says race can be a proxy for genetic population, and who says it is a proxy for something else (what)?

There has already been a LOT of discussion of this, above. But the discussion was wasted. Why? Not because it lacked thought and research. No - because it was not framed as a discussion of how, through specific edits, to improve the article. Let's get some actual proposals, and work on them, and hammer out a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article says now: --W.R.N. 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin and self-identification in the United States. In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless, on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. Concordant with this, a survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful, that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data, and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.

That introduction is fine. We should leave it as it is. Wantednewlook

I think that this section should be significantly expanded, to include more details about the historical categories of race in the United States, and how they have changed over the years (specifically as used by intelligence studies). It should also give specific examples of the use of various distinction techniques, citing intelligence studies using those methodologies. There should also be a further expansion about the biologically meaningless nature of race, with some discussion about how it is found to be biologically meaningful in certain medical circumstances, and biologically meaningless with more complex phenotypes, specifically intelligence. "Other geneticists" should be specified, as well as "geneticists" who argue that self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are invalid and not useful, specifically with regard to intelligence.

SLR - none of this particularly addresses intelligence, should we try to make this section more specific to racial distinctions made in intelligence research? --JereKrischel 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "problems" JK cites below are not problems. The section is the background about the debate regrading race. (For example, Lewtontin wasn't writing about intelligence when he wrote about Fst, but his opinions are highly cited with respect to race and thus are included.) Likewise, the background on intelligence is a general summary with note of those areas relating to race. These are the "brief summary" sections described by NPOV policy. --W.R.N. 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think those comments aren't from JK, they are from mr. The topiv is too sensitive to play fast with the rules on this one. What do you think of my revision below? futurebird 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Citation 14

With respect to these sentences:

Other geneticists(such as who?), in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful, that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data, and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.

14. ^ Risch et al. 2002, Bamshad 2005. Neil Risch argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! . . you can undermine any definitional system. . . In a recent study. . . we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome between genetic structure versus self-description, 99.9% concordance. . . So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? . . . Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility" (Gitschier 2005).

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014

This article isn't even about race and intelligence. Risch seems to be talking about the clinical applications of race. If you are going to include and extended quote in the footnotes like this, why omit these two sentences: "Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways." ?

I don't know if this source is being used properly to support this statement in this context. I agree with JK we should try to make this section more specific to racial distinctions made in intelligence research-- futurebird 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem we have here is the slippery slope I talk about elsewhere. Someone criticizes race and intelligence research for using the category of race as a basis. To respond, someone finds a study that, although it doesn't touch intelligence, replies to the racial categorization question. To respond to that, we could find a study, although it doesn't touch intelligence or self-identified race, replies to the use of multilocus genetic data and principal component analysis. To respond to that, we could find a study, although it doesn't touch intelligence or self-identified race, or multilocus genetic data, replies to the mathematical theories of principal component analysis. And so on.

Where does it stop? And why doesn't it stop once we aren't talking about both race and intelligence? WRN, SLR, have you any insight? --JereKrischel 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Citation(s) 15

With respect to these sentences:

Other geneticists(such as who?), in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful, that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data, and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.

15. ^ Harpending and Rogers 2000, Bamshad et al. 2003, Edwards 2003, Bamshad et al. 2004, Tang et al. 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005: "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe".

(Which source is the quote from?)

Tang, H., Quertermous, T., Rodriguez, B., Kardia, S. L., Zhu, X., Brown, A., Pankow, J. S., Province, M. A., Hunt, S. C., Boerwinkle, E., Schork, N. J. and Risch, N. J. (Feb 2005). "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies". American Journal of Human Genetics 76 (2): 268-275. PMID 15625622.

About race, but not intelligence. Probably not OK in this context.

Rosenberg, N. A., Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J. K. and Feldman, M. W. (December 1 2005). "Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure". PLoS Genetics 1 (6): e70.

Can't find a mention of "race" in the abstract-- this is about groups and has no mention of 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.

This is about race in a clinical context, not OK to list as a source here.

Edwards, A. W. (Aug 2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". Bioessays 25 (8): 798-801. PMID 12879450.

This one is fine, as a source here, But where was this published? It didn't say in the PDF.

futurebird 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with last part of the sentence at 16

and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.

This isn't about groups. It's about race.futurebird 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision?

Racial distinctions in the United States have been made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, social and cultural status, national origin and self-identification. Racial definitions have changed frequently over time as made evident by the racial categories in the US census.(more needed on this...)

However, some contemporary geneticists, such as Wilson, Schwartz, Stephens, Cooper and Bamshed argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless, on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. Concordant with this, a survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful for clinical purposes, such as better understanding the risk factors for heart deseise. In his paper Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy A.W.F. Edwards explains that "Genetic analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use,

if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."

futurebird 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

add the citations so i can see what the sources actually say. for example, i know bamshad's work pretty well and he's probably being mischaracterized there. which wilson? e.o. wilson? i'm guessing schwartz and stephens probably aren't very notable because I don't recongize them. the removal of citation 16 is not appropriate as it speaks directly to looking at the causes of phenotypic differences (including cognitive ability). on net you reduced the space given to "race is meaningful" and increased the space to "race is not meaningful". was that intentional? why would you try to distinguish clinical phenotypes in this section? why cite Edwards saying "What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."? --W.R.N. 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how 16 relevant if we can't know if by "groups" they mean races. You could use that to explain that biologists have said that intelligence is heritable for groups, though, maybe latter on in this article. But, using it here is stringing ideas together and making inferences for the reader that experts on this topic have questioned. That's OR.

(I'll revise this tomorrow and add sources and more about changing categories.)

I want to know what JK thinks. I'm just saying, it should be more along these lines-- and some of the sources used for the original didn't really work (as explained above). futurebird 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm still looking for guidance as to the ground rules and principles we want to apply. Going back to SLR's initial layout, I would say that this type of section is very challenging, because it rolls down a slippery slope of challenge and counter challenge, and counter counter challenge, etc.. I wish we could do something like give the candy bar to one kid, and let the other kid choose which half to take. Maybe have one person make three references, and have the other person make three references, and each person gets to deep-six two of the references of the other person, giving us just one reference left for each. It seems that the point we want to make here is that race as a category for use in intelligence testing has a long history, and conflicting beliefs about its validity at present. We should probably give some history as to its use in intelligence testing, one-drop-rule and all, and probably cite just one strong source for the argument against its use, specifically in intelligence testing, and one strong source for the argument for its use, specifically in intelligence testing. It would probably help if we quoted directly, instead of trying to summarize what the source "intended" by our interpretation. --JereKrischel 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, could you post your revision of this text? I think that's too many rules, it makes my brain hurt, let's just keep chaing it untill we agree. futurebird 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, the title of the paper in citation 16 is "Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups". What racial and ethnic groups are is fairly clear. In my opinion, it is not a good idea to assume that JK has summarized material accurately -- I do not. You'll need to consult the sources directly to see what they are saying. JK's suggestion that we simply build an article of quotes is not feasible. The aim of WP is to build an encyclopedia which summarizes human knowledge. A quotation should never be used where a summary can be substituted. See the race article for an extensive, if sloppy, review of what's been said about race. --W.R.N. 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What racial and ethnic groups are is not particularly clear. In my opinion, it is certainly not a good idea to assume that WRN has summarized material accurately - in numerous cases, fairly large gaps between what WRN has summarized, and what the actual source has said, have been found upon actual inspection of the references. (This is also a common criticism in the literature about folk such as Rushton.) Which is why I think for the most part, building an article out of direct quotes, instead of POV pushing summaries, is at the very least the safest way to start. Given the significant controversy over how to represent certain sources, it is probably best to start by quoting them, and then working together on NPOV summaries based on the quotes found. --JereKrischel 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision (version two)

How about this? Please feel free to jum in and make your own changes. futurebird 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racial distinctions in the United States have been made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, social and cultural status, national origin and self-identification. State sanctioned racial definitions have changed frequently over time because of shifting ideas about race.

Some contemporary geneticists say race is not meaningful concept for studying intelligence on the basis that more genetic variation exists within races than between them. They also point out that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. A survey of cultural and physical anthropologists in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists.

Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful for clinical purposes, such as better understanding the risk factors for heart disease. In his paper Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy A.W.F. Edwards explains that "Genetic analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."

I am not sure how to correct this text in a compliant way. My problem with it is that it conflates a theory of that sees it as a relatively unfuzzy category with categories that are "useful for clinical purposes." Recently there has been criticism of overconfidence in judgments based on factors to the exclusion of good clinical workups. The fact that, e.g., "Barack Obama is black," (his own assessment) does not guarantee that he will react better to the heart medications that are generally more effective for blacks. Good physicians apparently make judgments about what to try first on this rule-of-thumb basis, but then they watch the clinical signs carefully to see whether the statistical bet is paying off or putting the patient in the hole. (Maybe literally.) When a good M.D. says, "He's black," that means something far different than when David Duke says it. P0M 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

References

1. Template:AYref
2. ^ http://www.apa.org/releases/race.html
3. For example the periodic changes in the racial categories in the US and Brazilian censuses. See: History counts: a comparative analysis of racial/color categorization in US and Brazilian censuses M Nobles Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, US]
4. Geneticist Mary-Claire King Explores Race HPH NOW, June 13, 2003

new introduction

Meaning this - but only if RIK signs on board and is willing to work on editing this into a consensus version. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My objections are listed at the end of this thread. I believe this intro would fail to conform to NPOV and that the only way to know would be to try to edit the article itself first. I believe JK's reply demonstrates the NPOV problem for me. --W.R.N. 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we have no choice but to put this aside and focus on the above two topics first. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for changing the history section are a substitute in my mind for trying to add history to the lead. --W.R.N. 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should still be considering a major reorganization of the article outline. As per above, I'm concerned that simply working around the existing POV pushing framework will not sufficiently address the issues. The current article outline is primarily from Rushton/Jensen 2005, and frames the debate in an inappropriate manner. I would suggest looking at the APA outline as a more neutral frame for the discussion. --JereKrischel 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though we've said all of this before... futurebird 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic of race and intelligence is a big topic, and it is very important. That’s why so many people are spending so much time on this debate. This article looks at it mostly through recent research that hasn’t been discredited yet, all of the old things that HAVE been discredited are being shunted off in to one little section on history. Lots of critics see a link between the motives for that old racist research and some the research going on today. This article also shows these recent studies in a way that slants the perspective to make black people seem inferior. I think that two things need to happen-- Number One: This article needs to expand: it needs to cast a wider net to include more perspectives. This topic and this article needs to mention the history of this topic in the first paragraph. This is the first thing that comes to mind for many people when the topic is mentioned. Number Two: This topic needs to take a more balanced approach to the current science. It needs to stop confusing people deliberately about race and ethnicity and it needs to stop confusing people about heritably and genetics. They are not the same things.

Some one here said that there could be various subtopics created—I think this is a good idea—the article now is mostly on research and that really needs to change. I don’t know why people don’t want to consider doing this? It will solve so many of the problems this article has. I know I’m sort of new here, but every time I look back here there is a whole lot of new talk and no real action. It seems that futurebird has taken the time to write something balanced and I think we ought to look at that and see if we can agree on it. I can’t even find any specific criticisms of what’s wrong with the new intro. I think the new intro is still pretty slanted. If I wrote it I’d add more about the Pioneer Fund and how these people really operate, but I can compromise and agree to go with this new intro. I can’t believe that anyone would think that what we have now for an intro is acceptable. It’s omits so much of what’s most critical here—and I think about people coming to this page, wanting to know what this topic’s about and those people won’t get any idea of the real nature of the controversy— and that is the history of the controversy. I don’t like how some people seem to think they can just tell those of use who don’t think the new intro represent the whole topic that we just need to move along and give up (and hope that if the citations are changed anything is going to change about the tone of this article.) It seems like the editors are taking sides without considering what this topic is really about. I think we need someone new to moderate this whole debate—someone who can acknowledge the information quite a few users have brought to light and help write an article that will reflect this. I’m sorry to say so much, but I’m getting fed up with watching our being steered away from what important here- and that is “what is the topic of race and intelligent” really about. It’s about more than just a bunch of recent studies. It’s about a whole history of prejudice and media portrayal of black people. Can we acknowledge this? Or will my comments be brushed off too?

Full disclosure, I’m a friend of futurebird and she won’t stop telling me about this. I don’t have as much patience as her and I think she’s being way too soft on all of you. She asked me if I could share my thoughts and my thoughts are this: This article makes the wikipedia look like a joke. If a few passionate editors and obscure the truth than this project is a failure. I could say more, but I’ve been advised to keep this civil. JJJamal 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to broaden this article. It's not about the history of racism, it's about race and intelligence and so we should limit it to academic experts who publish professional studies about race and intelligence. Wantednewlook

You're right, it's not about the history of racism, which would cover much more than the scientific racism practiced through the study of "race" and intelligence. But it is about more than just academic works and studies on "race and intelligence". The study of "race and intelligence" is not just a matter of scientific exposition, but also a social topic, and a historical topic. I think the article you want to write is Race and intelligence (Research), which would only be a sub-article of the main article Race and intelligence. --JereKrischel 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusations that contemporary "race and intelligence" is scientific racism have a place in this article. The history of "race and intelligence" has a place in this article. (In fact, both have sections right now.) However, WP gives topics prominence in articles according to NPOV:

1. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
2. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Each of these envisions letting the literature speak to the importance of topics and POVs. That is, you can't balance the content of an article from personal opinions about the subject. If there are aspects of history or accusations of racism not covered which are notable, then they should be added. Then in the end, summary style will keep details out of the main article, and the lead will be made to reflect the content of the article. --W.R.N. 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just the problem I have with the intro right now: undue weight. futurebird 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Successfully changing the body is the only way to prove to me that the article/lead is unbalanced. In relation to the body of the text I don't think the lead is unbalanced. Unless you think the current lead doesn't match the current body text? --W.R.N. 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What successful changes do you think are possible, WRN? Reorganization of material? Removal of tangential information not directly related to race and intelligence? Addition of major sections? Merger of major sections? Splits of major sections? I'd like to know what kind of successful changes you don't object to, and maybe we can start from there. --JereKrischel 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be glib. Successful changes are those that are policy compliant and improve the quality of the article. --W.R.N. 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being glib, I'm being sincere. Do you think a reorganization of the material could possibly be "policy compliant" and "improve the quality of the article"? Do you think the removal of tangential information not directly related to race and intelligence could be as well? You have not shown any sign that any change to the article is appropriate, and I want to clearly understand if you a priori object to certain types of changes. I would like us to work on a successful compromise, and am asking you to identify a type of change you would not reflexively object to. --JereKrischel 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my additions to Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)‎-- I added info about how race has been seen in the media, that's the kind of thing I think this article is missing. We could have a section on that and mention it in the intro too. JJJamal 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The FB's "intro" unbalanced with regard to what is mentioned and biased towards a particular POV. There are many hundreds of references supporting the material in the article. All of these references (and more as suggested) need to be taken into account when when writing the article and in turn writing the lead. The only practical way to do this is the write the lead based on the content of the article. --W.R.N. 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think working on the intro will help use to get an idea of the true scope of this topic. How would you suggests changing the current intro to make it more balanced? In what ways is it unbalanced? Can you be specific? futurebird 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Being more specific isn't going to help much. I could write an extensive list of specific problems, but it still wouldn't address my overarching concern. Among the broadest problems are (1) the use of a historical narrative rather than a topical summary, (2) the caveats and exceptions to mainstream conclusions are presented where the mainstream conclusions themselves should be presented, (3) the narrative about the rise of Japan is trivial to the topic (4) the phrase "direct evidence" is used where it shouldn't be (5) there's a quotation about race, (5) many of the actual concerns about the topic are not presented, (6) no time is given to describing what's known about group IQ/intelligence differences despite the fact that their existence is undisputed and the central finding upon which the entire topic is based, (7) no distinction is made between ideas about intelligence before and after the invention of intelligence test, etc. --W.R.N. 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Being more specific is always more help than being too general in helping people understand your problems with suggested changes, although your broad issues raise very interesting points. I think we still disagree on what this topic really is, with you insisting on Race and intelligence (Research), and others seeing a larger view. Do you have any suggestions on how we find some consensus on whether or not the topic you want to write about is actually a sub-topic of Race and intelligence? --JereKrischel 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I could write an extensive list of specific problems, but it still wouldn't address my overarching concern." -WD

Now I think you know how I feel when editing most of the text that's up there in the protected version now. It really makes a big difference who writes the article, and the order they present things in, doesn't it? However, the project on countering systemic bias suggests that using a historical framework can help to make articles more neutral. This is why I start out with the history. I feel very strongly that this is the right direction to go. Race and intelligence are more than topics of scientific study-- arguably their interaction has a greater presence in other spears of the human experience such as media bias, cultural practices and expectations, the attitudes of different peoples towards different notions of intelligence and towards testing and towards race.

I want to be bold and lift this article up out of it's narrow focus on research and include the entire story-- from the very beginning. There is a saying "a tree is best measured when it is down" we will be able to find greater consensus and more solid facts on the historical information than on any of the new controversial topics. Let's start this article off with the ideas that are well known and widely agreed upon. futurebird 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(3) the narrative about the rise of Japan is trivial to the topic-WD

I agree, we could move it to some other section, later on.

(7) no distinction is made between ideas about intelligence before and after the invention of intelligence test, etc. -WD

I was concerned about that, can you make a change that would clear that up?

(2) the caveats and exceptions to mainstream conclusions are presented where the mainstream conclusions themselves should be presented,-WD

Don't know what you mean here....

(5) many of the actual concerns about the topic are not presented,-WD

Such as?

(6) no time is given to describing what's known about group IQ/intelligence differences despite the fact that their existence is undisputed and the central finding upon which the entire topic is based,-WD

What should we add? futurebird 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some of the changes you suggested. Feel free, of course, to edit it yourself. futurebird 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, please take a look at the new intro again, I made some changes with your comments in mind, I'd like to know if this is an improvement or not. futurebird 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New article draft

I've been suggesting that we create a prototype article where we can try to reach a consensus in realtime, while this article is protected. I've createdUser:Kevin murray IQ draft.

I'm inviting participation; however, I will revert all changes which are made without my determination that consensus is reached. I've trimmed out a lot of text, but certainly we can add back if needed. The goal is to create a simpler more readable trext at the encyclopedic level, which presents balance without propaganda. I would prefer to see summary paragraphs referencing details at other articles.

Please let me know what you think.

--Kevin Murray 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I added some things from the new intro? futurebird 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed new intro is here: Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Please paste the specific additions to the talk page at the prototype; I'd rather move the discussion pertinent to that project from here. Then we can discuss the changes more clearly as your request is a bit ambiguous. --Kevin Murray 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I think the right place for this project is as a subpage of this talk page rather than at your user page-- It gives you a little bit too much responsibility for the process.futurebird 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FB you are right that I have appointed myself as the moderator of my proposed project; I am comfortable with that responsibility. However, you have clearly demonstrated the fallacy of an un-moderated prototype by making unilateral changes right off the bat. Those who want to participate in my endeavor will have to trust me to be neutral, or alternatively be comfortable with my perceived biases.

My self perceived bias is for the success of Race and intelligence as opposed to its failure through either deletion or confusion. I see abuses from all sides to the end that we have a perpetual debate on minutia and a bloated product.

--Kevin Murray 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate with your proposed draft and mediation if WRN is willing to. Without his buy-in, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. --JereKrischel 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not going to work, clearly

Okay, I don't think this is going to work-- if you are going to try to take control of this process, by first making changes yourself then reverting any changes you don't like, I don't see how this will be helpful. Adding the curves is a comparatively non-controversial change. If you want to work with a 'prototype,' why not work with the one I've created? Why not make some suggestions about that prototype?

What do you think of the new intro? If you don't think it works, please explain why.

Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Frankly, I think that things are moving along rather well here-- It's going to take a long time but we almost have a compromise on one of the bullet points.

I agree with a lot of the things you removed at your draft-- but I don't think this method of working is going to be a good idea-- I don't want people to go off in some hard to find place to edit-- and I want see all of the comments right here on the talk page.

Could you outline what you deleted and why so other users can weigh in on it? futurebird 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• FB, I responded to your prior comment above, before this new section was posted.
• I don't think the process here is going anywhere
• I did jump in and makes some changes to strip the article back somewhat arbitrarilly as starting point. We could start with "as is" or with zero, but I chose an alternative in the middle. That's the game I'm offering for those who want to try with me.
• By looking through the history of the edits to the prototype, you can see the steps which I took. I purposely tried to work in one area at a time so that the deletions would be visible and identifiable. I tried to leave some good but brief notes as well.
• For those who don't trust me the process won't work. I hope that I can earn that trust!

--Kevin Murray 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I too hasty to say it can't work?

Okay, Maybe I'm being too hasty here-- what do others think? Can this work? Please weigh in... futurebird 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll still say it's not a good thing to do to restart this article from the ground up. I don't think deletions will work if performed by any editor before they have gathered consensus. This is still trying to put the cart in front of the horses. I'd rather Kevin make a summary of all the stuff he proposes to delete and put it here. I especially liked the detailed concerns about the citations Futurebird started to outline. Guys, this article has been kept from major changes for at least 1 to 2 years. I don't think we can expect to work out a refashioning of the article in days or even weeks. Like you, I want to see this article more balanced (towards the other walks of science besides psychology and psychometrics, and towards a better historical context to start with) but I feel we must start at the base, i.e. with the material in this article and NPOVise it. This will give us a clearer idea of how much detail in this article is too much detail (there is currently way too much detail, IMHO), and we can also work on building up the other sections (with the help of some of the article material that we can expand upon). I would suggest keeping the work on the lead or the end, as otherwise we will likely have to rewrite it to some extent. This latest proposal from Kevin has some merit, but changes need to reach consensus in order to be implemented, and not be imposed by one editor, no matter how much we trust them.--Ramdrake 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's non controversial that WP:Summary style is the proper way to handle a topic with too much detail for a single readable article. "Deletion" is not a way to reach NPOV. Secondarily, it may be helpful to temporarily reintegrate all of the material from the sub-articles into this main article for the sake of centralized editing. I haven't thought this through well, so let me know if that's an obviously bad idea. --W.R.N. 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the page would take waaaaay to long to load if we did that, it'd be a pain to edit... I agree, let's talk about NPOVing and "moving content out to new subsections" rather than just deleting. futurebird 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm suggesting that merging everything in for editing is a bad idea, but "not just deleting" is, of course, a good idea (and it's THE LAW!) futurebird 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On principle, I agree that summary style would be the way to go, again making sure we attribute all that's being said on both sides. I also like the idea of reintegrating all the subarticles to have a more complete view of the material that is readily available to us already. We can spin stuff off again as needed, and some of the spinoffs are likely to be different this time. Again, there may be good reasons why any or all of these might be bad ideas, but I can't find any right now. And FB, FWIW, yes it would be a pain, but it would be temporary and I suspect we may find it worth the pain. ;) --Ramdrake 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that deletion is perfectly reasonable when dealing with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and that simply injecting counter-points, counter-counter-points, and counter-counter-counter-points is not a way to reach NPOV. Furthermore, deletion of information that is not directly related to race and intelligence seems like a fairly good way to keep us from engaging in too much scope creep. I'm afraid that just because WRN, or anyone else, has managed to put text in the article does not make such text sacrosanct - there are many reasonable grounds for pruning.

That being said, deletion of an entire POV is not reasonable. We should not remove the entire POV that race is an invalid proxy for genetics, just as we shouldn't remove the entire POV that heritability is misused when applied to differences between groups. If there are 20 sources for a certain POV, we are in no way obliged to list every source, or to be uncritical in our selection of sources to find the most reliable. We can find a balance, if we're willing to entertain the idea of change. --JereKrischel 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 Futurebird's proposed intro

• FB I think that you have achieved a generally neutral content and tone; however, some of this is too detailed for an intorduction and might well be the preface for the history section. I still object to the graphic in the intro and question its value elsewhere, although I'm not completely opposed.
• I'd like to see the intro section cut by half or more in summary of what is to come in the article. I do think that a disclaimer of validity is important too.

--Kevin Murray 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to the graphic too, but with a good caption it could be just fine. It is one of the most famous images related to this topic. And I think there are quite a few people who would be unhappy if it is left out. (I'm not one of them) I think we should compromise on the graphic and have a caption that adds some context, while still keeping it in. futurebird 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC test case: the first sentence

"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."

Can we agree to change it to--

"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined terms used to classify and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of study and speculation for western science, sociology, and philosophy since the 19th century."

Making this change right now would give me a lot more confidence in the process. It is one of the biggest problems I have with the article at present. Please comment. 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• No. First, that the definitions and understandings of "race" and "intelligence" have varied with history is not as important as the contemporary understanding of the terms (see light or gravity for terms that also have had varying definitions and understandings with time and which are not yet fully understood). For example, while exact definitions of race and intelligence are currently debated, much agreement exists. For example, ostensive definitions of race are generally concordant in English speaking audiences -- we understand each other when we use racial labels. As a quantitative trait that varies between individuals, intelligence is very well defined as it relates to g, the understanding of the term that forms the basis for the vast majority of our scientific understanding of human intelligence. Second, the distinction between "western science, sociology, and philosophy" appears to be arbitrary (sociology isn't "western science"? there's a meaningful difference between western science and other science?) and without particular relevance to the topic. Speculation, rather than science, about racial/ethnic difference in intelligence is documented much deeper into human history than the 19th century. The science of intelligence really only began at the beginning of the 20th century. Mixing pre-scientific speculation with scientific findings is particularly inappropriate. --W.R.N. 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, unless you propose a counter-proposal that in some way addresses JK and Futurebird's concerns, you are not being productive. Indeed, you risk seeming uncompromising. I understand you won't conpromise on your commitment to accuracy as well as our core policies. I mean compromising as to wording and presentation and organization. JK and Futurebird have forwarded many proposals since the page was protected. How many proposals have you forwarded? How many counterproposals? How many times have you tried to meet them half-way? I am asking because I see no evidence of any of this but may easily have missed something and want to give you a chance to correct me. If mediation fails and this goes to ArbCom, my guess is they will look with favor on anyone who has madde good faith efforts to compromise, and not look with favor on anyone who seems unwilling to collaborate with other editors. This is a serious matter given how long this page has been blocked. You need to contribute to a solution either by proposing compromise edits or at least a process through which you will work with Futurebird and JK. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. First, there's an implicit suggestion in my "No." The current sentence is better than the proposed one. Second, I've made numerous attempts to explain that you can't possibly change the lead before you change the article in the fashion that FB suggests. He doesn't argue that the changed sentence better matches the existing article but that it better matches an article he imagines we will create. No one is bright enough -- not me at least -- to synthesize the many hundreds of publications that go into this article and would go into a future alternative one and come up with the appropriate 3-4 paragraph summary of that article which balances all topics and all views fairly. Not without the intermediate steps of actually changing the article a piece at a time. My comments explaining the "no" should make it clear how FB has understandably failed at that attempt. Third, I've made repeated attempts to resolve the two edits which actually locked the page. For my troubles I've had only JK not understand my suggested compromises and zero input from other editors. I have agreeded to a high degree in almost all cases with Ramdrake's proposals. Thus, here again is my main suggestion: resolve the edits that locked the page and adopt Ramdrake's proposals for the approach to editing content. But, you can't compromise on policy. Fourth, I don't really need to spell out here the problems with the previous suggestions by JK and FB. --W.R.N. 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to work on a single sentence that many editors find inappropriate. Are you saying you don't have any specific suggestions on how to change that sentence at all? I think that the original lock of the page isn't quite relevant at this point, given the great deal of conversation regarding problems with the entire article. Can you please provide at least one alternative to the current sentence? --JereKrischel 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence is better. The first sentence implies that some intelligence researchers are the only one who ever have discussed this topic. It could be appropriate for an article title "Research on race and intelligence". Even there it would be doubtful, many recent peer-reviewed articles have questioned at least the race concept. However, an article with the current titles means a much wider scope, including history, media portrayal, use by racists, and so on. Also, I see no reason to limit the scope to 19th century or later. Claims that certain races are less intelligent are much older than that.Ultramarine 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, ultra. I am aware that these things are older than the 19th century, but I could not find a good source for the ideas of inferiority of specific races with respect to intelligence that was older than the 19th century. There are bountiful sources on general inferiority, but I felt to infer that this meant intellectual inferiority was too close to being OR. However, you know of a good source-- well, I'd be more than happy to add it. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• The second opinion uses the word "classify", which gives a connotation, similar to "discrimination". There are other parts of the sentence that seem biased in similar ways. This is a controversial topic, so why not just use the word "controversial"? Overall, the second sentence just doesn't seem as neutral. In addition, the second sentence is not as informative. The first sentence gives the reader an idea about how cognitive ability is measured, as opposed to the second sentence that suggests that intelligence is hard to define. Intelligence is hard to define, but it is not necessary to state this in the first sentence. Finally, areas of "western science, sociology, and philosophy" aren't the only groups that study the relationship between intelligence and race.

Xpanzion 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the modified version below? JK and I have tried to address some of your concerns while still opening up the scope of this article to more than just scientific theories, but also the other ways race is related to intelligence. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would probably suggest slightly different wording, but it is moving in a better direction than what currently exists. The existing "Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research" is terribly limiting. That sounds like the lead to an article called Race and intelligence (Research), not Race and intelligence. I would like to know if WRN or Xpanzion would care to suggest a replacement line in lieu of the current one, or if they object to any change to the current lead line. --JereKrischel 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The words "variously defined terms" are accurate. They point at a central issue that makes evaluation of the intersection of two categories, and discussion about that intersection, extremely problematical. The problem, for me, is that the average reader who has not been sensitized to this issue will glide right over these three words. How can we make it clear to readers that a discussion involving 1 meaning for race and 1 meaning for intelligence gives us one dispute or one agreement, a discussion involving 9 meanings for race and 9 meanings for intelligence gives us 81 separate problems to analyze -- and the people involved in the field may never be looking at the same combination of definitions of the terms they are throwing around. I like the suggested sentence but I would like to make it stronger. P0M 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's use the 2nd one. JJJamal 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A question

I have a question for JK and FB: what is so wrong about not starting with re-writing the intro, and instead trying to work from the existing material? Once we have reorganized the article, we will need to rewrite the intro anyway. I think it's a given, and from what I've read here, WRN agrees the intro will need rewriting at some point. It looks to me like we more or less all agree on what to do, but now we can't find agreement on where to start... I don't know about you, but I'm a bit embarrassed.--Ramdrake 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that any single controversial sentence would be helpful to work on, be it in the body, or in the intro, or anywhere else. My frustration at this point is that WRN has provided no concrete suggestions for change, either independently, or in response to other editor's concerns. Any concrete suggestion for change and compromise by WRN regarding any of the sentences or sections or organization that other editors have found problematic would be welcome. I don't care where we start, but we should start by agreeing that the current article is not perfect in its current form, and that change is necessary. WRN, would you like to pick one of the problematic sentences mentioned by futurebird or I? Or give a suggestion for changing the organization of the article? --JereKrischel 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest we all go through the exercize of tagging everything that causes a problem in the article? I'm sure we will find a lot of common issues. Or, maybe we can start by the first section after the intro (don't remember offhand which it is) and discuss problems with that? The only' reason I would prefer not to start with the intro is because I am quite certain we would end up having to rewrite it near the end of the process. Or, we can go through the current article section by section and work on redoing the outline at the same time, as I don't see those as mutually contradictory; it may even help us move the sections around as we resolve our issues with them.--Ramdrake 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the process suggested by Ramdrake that I approved of. The complaint from several people about the article was that it didn't include all prominent views. I don't see how we can solve that Lead first. We need to know what verifiable views/topics are not yet included and we need to know the range of views about each topic so we can present a neutral summary of them in he lead. The one thing we absolutely need to do before the article can be unlocked and we can start with tagging or adding or whatever is to find at least a temporary measure to address the two edits that lead to the page being locked. It doesn't need to be a permanent solution, but it can't include the mass deletion of verifiable text and images -- why? Arbcom: It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.. Levels of detail is dealt with by WP:Summary style; also, note the threshold for WP:NOR in images. May I suggest, for example, that we (1) put back what was deleted, (2) tag it however is appropriate, and (3) possibly (discussed in some section above) merge all the material into the main article for processing in one place. Then proceed with the process Ramdrake outlined. --W.R.N. 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the dispute regarding the article has evolved beyond the original reason for the lock, and don't believe that unlocking it at this point would be helpful. Although I'm more than willing to try to come to a consensus on those edits first, and then moving onto another area of contention. WRN, can you specifically make a compromise suggestion for the two edits that first locked the article? Let's work on that first, get consensus, then have an administrator make the edit. We can proceed in a similar fashion for our other concerns. Simply putting the article back to its contested form, as you seem to wish it to remain, doesn't seem like a compromise suggestion. A concrete suggestion from you on how to address the issues that caused the original dispute, on how to change any deleted material to address the concerns of other editors, would be helpful right now. Simply saying we should return the article to the way it was is not helpful at this point.

If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. --JereKrischel 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer Ramdrake: Nothing is wrong with not starting with the intro.... EXCEPT that it is taking forever... see the section above where it took about 9 paragraphs of comments to NOT reach a consensus on the wording of two sentences and the use of sources there. Without a new intro we'll need to go through this process for almost the entire article.

Frankly, with a new intro, other revisions later in the article will become less critical since we'll have the proper context. futurebird 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectully, FB, I care to disagree. And no matter how we put it, WRN is right on this: the article should not be written to fit the intro, it's supposed to be the other way around. However, something that can also be started right away (or actually continued) is the discussion about the outline. Writing the intro now will only result in one of two things: 1)either we'll feel constrained to model the article on the intro (not the way to go), or 2)we'll end up rewriting the intro at the end of the process. I'd rather gather all the info back together, decide on an outline, rearrange all sections according to the outline, port all the sections we feel only add detail (or with little summary value) back to spin-off articles, remove discussions that may be germane to intelligence or race but not to both at the same time (unless a convincing case can be made for an exception and it reaches consensus), and then write a proper lead to the article, to which your proposal looks like a fine draft. However, it's very hard to finalize it if we don't have the finalized corpus of the article to match it before.--Ramdrake 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being clear about my intentions with this intro. What I'm trying to say is that the intro at present isn't a good representation of what is in the current article even in it's biased form. I see no deep incongruently between this new intro and the current article-- except for those revisions that we are still negotiating, and the possibility of migrating some of the text of the current article out to a sub article so it is lees research heavy and contains less of the argument and counter argument found in the article now. futurebird 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I believe my objections to the proposed lead are even more on target. There should be about 1 paragraph in the lead for every major section of the article, and it should be an ultra-precisely crafted summmary. Can we accept as a given that the lead will likely be the single most difficult aspect of the article because it must serve as a summary for the whole article and must be short? If so, then the lead is the worst place to start any editing. --W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And FB, you're absolutely right that the current intro is inappropriate for the content of the article as it is. But I don't think the solution is to write a new intro that will fit this article, if we know we're going to make some major changes to it. I know I keep repeating myself, but we'll just end up rewriting the intro at the end of the process. Could it be that your insistence to write the intro comes from a desire to better delineate the subject? If that's the case, I suggest we rather continue the work on the outline concurrently with reorganizing the corpus of the article.--Ramdrake 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

JK wrote If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. -- Coincidently, that's what I was coming here to suggest. All of the suggested editing can be done in a talk sub page if that's acceptable to people. It avoids the 'mess' problem of merging, etc. Second, my insistence is that presently deleted material must be considered in such a process, not that its previous form must be preserved in a final edit. The only way I know to do this is to restore what's been deleted as a first step. If the merging and editing is done on a talk sub page, then "restoring" can be as well and no one has to touch the locked articles in the meantime. --W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If that suggestion is adopted I have a few parliamentary-type principles to suggest to keep things productive. --W.R.N. 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your sub-page, with the merges from the other articles. Second, my insistence is that we should be considering a compromise to any deleted material before it is placed back in. Simply placing the deleted material in as before, without any compromise suggestion, isn't going to be productive. What we desperately need from you are specific compromise suggestions, rather than simply arguments against any proposed changes. I think we all understand the rhetoric of policy, procedure, and process, and we need to start delving into real changes and real compromises to move forward. Of course we are going to follow policy and procedure - the problem we have is that we don't agree on the interpretation or implementation of these policies and procedures. We'll only be able to find common ground if we try to find concrete common ground, since it is in the concrete that we have our disagreement. --JereKrischel 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we just handle those parts first? Anybody got a problem with that?--Ramdrake 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, maybe you can take a stab at it. The thread is here. I suspect that it will actually be more difficult than the simply start with the merged sub-page suggestion. But maybe thinking outside the box could help. --W.R.N. 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this merger idea, the more I think about it. Jamal and I are working together to revise the sub-articles now-- pulling that material back in seems to me to be an attempt to submerge some of these changes so they will be lost in the process. I'm happy with the article on media and I removed my POV tag from it. We're working on the explanations section next... I think a merger at this stage will be far too confusing. I don't think we should do this-- Let's revise this article and then change the subsections with "main article" links to match the sub-articles whatever state they may be in at present. We can merge and streamline later on anyway. futurebird 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand FB's suggestion. In a summary style article, the sub-articles are meant to by in linked (in sync, see the tag by that name) to the main article (analogous to the way the lead is linked to the body of the article). They form a macro/micro WP like macro/micro Britannica. Am I missing something? I'll wait for someone to explain it. --W.R.N. 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a page when I get a chance. This was the parliamentary-type principle I had in mind: per Ramdrake, we should work on one kind or a few kinds of edits at a time, starting with the easiest edits. For example, with any problem sentence we should add "tags" and then add a suggested replacement sentence inline (perhaps in brackets with a sig). This will allow for direct comparison of the original with the suggested improvements. Other suggestions: add new material where appropriate (with sigs), but don't start out by trying to rearrange sections (lets see what the totality of the material is before trying to find an outline per FB). Think of it a Round 1. --W.R.N. 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be easier to let everyone, in order, pick one particular problem line, and agree to work on that line first and foremost. After all of those first choices are done, we move onto another round of picking. Opening up the scope to tagging and arguing the entire article isn't going to be manageable. --JereKrischel 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? The single-line treatment would seem to be a problem because it takes material out of context and could be laboriously slow. If you are concerned about the manageability of my proposal, then we could do just tagging first. We can copy all the material to a sub page and then everyone can go at it by tagging anything they think should be addressed, but no other changes (no additions, moves, etc). By tagging, I mean mostly the sentence or paragraph level tags. --W.R.N. 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if we tag first, we'll be littering all over the place. Best to allow each concerned editor to pick one particular sentence, work through those sentences (maybe 4 or 5 depending on how many editors participate), and then go onto the next batch. This lets everyone have a part in prioritizing what they'd like to see addressed, and puts a moratorium on changes elsewhere until those issues are settled. Sufficient context can always be brought together for a single line edit if necessary.

And yes, it will be laboriously slow, but I think that is the nature of the beast. Opening it up to tagging will essentially mean 90% of the article is tagged. Best to have a short list to work on to begin with. --JereKrischel 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean tag in the unlocked article, but in a copy on a subpage. If 90% of the article would be tagged, then there's a bigger problem than taking a few sentences at a time will ever hope to fix. --W.R.N. 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understood you meant on a subpage. There is a bigger problem than you imagine, I think, but I still have hope that we can fix it together. But even though the end state may be a long way away, taking it a few sentences at a time will at least let us get somewhere. If we end up tagging the whole article, we'll still need to decide where to start - I suggest that giving each editor a vote for which sentence to work in the initial round is equitable - whether or not they want to tag the sentence first, or tag all sentences they disagree with first, really shouldn't matter. --JereKrischel 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most people here that - as with any good piece of writing - the intro should be the last thing we work on. I agree with Ramdrake and RIK (I strongly agree) that the only route forward is to work on one divisive isue at a time. I think JK may be on to something if he means that we should peg discussions of specific issues to specific proposals for edits - in other words, lets keep thinking in terms of improving the article rather than just having a general discussion. But like RIK I do not agree that the "line" or "sentence" is the properunitof consideration. Depending on the issue, it may make senseto focus on one sentence - or one paragraph, or two paragraphs. It all depends. So in the spirit of JK I urge people to think concretly in terms of the article as it is and the article as it should be ...meaning, a textand changes to that text - but, like Ramdrake and RIK, the discussion should focus on specific issues, one at a time, whether they take up one sentence or one hundred sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This "move to merge" a working version

Okay. Here are my final thoughts on the move to merge everything. I will be willing to do this and participate, if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake and SLR and WD is happy with the process and if the issues that are currently up in the air on this page are resolved. I and a few other users have made a number of concrete proposals, both large and small, can we work these out before we do anything drastic?

The proposals are:

• Change Media section- change to match sub-article
• Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
• Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why?
• New Intro Sentence

I'd like to see some change happen soon-- I feel as if I'm being ignored at times, and this process has been long and disorganized. In any case I'm trying to be cooprative and listen to the ideas and feedback of others. Could we just do this first and then move on to the major plan for this meerger-- that is if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake approve...futurebird 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, you're out-pacing my time availability right now. Most of the changes are workable (can be worked out), but the suggested changes to the race section are not very good. I don't have time to work on that now, and as it requires the most work, let's set that aside for right now. --W.R.N. 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Suggestion 2

"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."

Can we agree to change it to--

"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined ambiguous terms 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 since the 19th century."

This takes out the "classify" word, eliminates the separation of fields of study, and adds the important caveat that both definitions and relationships have been a matter of study, speculation and debate. Comments? --JereKrischel 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• No. All of my objections about variously defined are made worse by "ambiguous". Who says they are ambiguous? Who says they are not? Why don't the race and intelligence subsections in the background sections explain why there is a consensus that the terms are ambiguous? It doesn't. This lead doesn't mirror the body... Objections above maintain here. --W.R.N. 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide an alternative. The background sections can certainly be modified to show that the consensus is that the terms are both ambiguous and variously defined, although either term will do. --JereKrischel 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"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 since the 19th century.

WRN, would this work? futurebird 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is fine too. It addresses my major concerns. I would support either the revision I proposed above or this one. futurebird 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, I'm really busy right now, but here's a change to consider based on what you left on my talk page. b/c this article is about humans, the first sentence should be fine, but those terms also describe/measure many animals. One sentence about definitions should be sufficient, as the definitions don't figure that prominently in the debate. I'm not sure about the 19th century thing, which you left off of my talk page entry. --W.R.N. 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate. The contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.

This is great! Progress. can we make one small tweak?

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores. and other measures of cognitive ability.

Reasons for changes:

• Only a few people think there are any "practical consequences" -- it's just too Lynn-sounding
• There's still some debate about what the tests really measure.
• "especially since the 19th century", works fine and addresses issues raised above.

futurebird 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first two comments are a problem. (1) Practical consequences - everyone recognizes the practical consequences, if for nothing else than school achievement, college admissions, etc. Read the relevant section - Race_and_intelligence#Significance_of_group_IQ_differences. IQ tests have equal practical validity for all English-speaking Americans, meaning that all of the practical consequences of within-group variation in IQ port over to the between-group differences in IQ (barring confounding by non-IQ group differences). (2) The debate about what IQ tests measure is at a level of abstraction that it doesn't show up in this article except in a few sentences. (Notably, there are competing models of the sub-g factor structure.) See IQ and intelligence and read the APA report. Unless you mean something else by that comment? --W.R.N. 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we could keep the cognitive ability, the idea that IQ scores are not measures of cognitive ability (of some kind) isn't really debated much anymore. However, I think we should not have "practical consequences" this sounds too much like "policy implications" and it makes it sounds as if there has been something even remotely approaching a consensus on using this kind of research to make predictions about "consequences"

In other words, it suggests that problems, like gaps and income are a result of the IQ scores rather than the other way around. This is a huge point of debate, and it's not fair to imply from the outset that IQ is rigid and leads to outcomes, many of our sources regard IQ as quite platic, especially in the context of average differences between ambiguously defined races. if I'm misreading what you mean here could you explain so we can reword it?

So, here is a final version (I hope) I guess JK and anyone else ought to speak up if they have any questions, but I think we could make this small change, and in doing so we will have shown that we can work together even when we disagree about many aspects of this topic. That would be awesome.

And of course if after other revisions we need to change it again... we will.

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.

futurebird 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that differences in say college/grad school admission, income, and job performance are not a product of IQ differences (which are measured prior to these outcomes and are often selection criteria -- e.g. SAT/GRE)? Either way, the material is part of the article -- the consequences section is a pretty big part of the current article, and should be mentioned in that context. The policy section is included in the controversy section, which I think we're agreeing should be separate from the simple description of consequences. --W.R.N. 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This addresses the utility of R & I research in a single cultural context. That is, it is focused on success in western nations and economies.futurebird 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Developed nations and economies, yes, insomuch as the bulk of the research is done there. I think I see a fix that only requires a word order change, which I'll do now. --W.R.N. 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: My proposal to work together at User:Kevin murray IQ draft

• JereKrischel and Futurebird are willing to participate if others are as well, specifically WRN, JK and Jamal. I would like to see more people as well.
• To clarify my role, I don’t see myself as a participant or decision maker, but a moderator who helps to focus the discussion and bring about a consensus. I think that a “fair” format will have to be flexible enough to evolve through the process.
• I arbitrarily tried to cut-down the article and remove POV issues to get us to a starting point, but I would be equally agreeable to starting with the article as it stands now, or with a blank page based on the consensus of the participants.

--Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Media portrayal section

This is the current section:

Main article: Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Some researchers argue media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. Snyderman and Rothman conducted a study of this phenomenon in 1988, drawing from their 1987 survey of expert opinion of intelligence-related topics. Media attention given to William Shockley in the mid 1980's often cited his Nobel Laureate status, but frequently omitted that the prize was given for physics, not medicine.

Can we change it to this?

Main article: Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Race and intelligence are sometimes portrayed as related in media. People of various races have been portrayed as more or less intelligent in media such as films, books, and newspapers. Likewise, reporting on research into race and intelligence has been criticized: either for giving scientific theories of race too much credit, or for rejecting the theories of some researchers in the name of racial harmony.

I think this section of the main article should be expanded to include some examples, however for now can we at least change it to reflect the revsions made by Jamal and I at Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) ? futurebird 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, futurebird. The sub-article looks very good, and I've made some updates to the Snyderman and Rothman (study), pulling some of the information from the main article down into the sub-article. --JereKrischel 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it's time to make this change. And big thanks to Jere for all of the things he's added to this sub-article too!JJJamal 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine.Ultramarine 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. P0M 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and Genetics

I wonder if it might be more appropriate to put somewhere in the article a reference to Race and Genetics? I'd also like to see that article worked on a bit by folks in this group, as it seems a little lopsided, perhaps more inappropriately so. Schwael 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Race article already gives a fairly complete presentation of this issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility of research section

Can we replace the current text in the utility of research section? There have been a number of updates to Race and intelligence (Utility of research) and the text there should reflect what is in the sub-page. futurebird 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands this section is too much like a little debate, if you have ideas to revise this new proposed text... please post away! futurebird 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No current text is going to be replaced unless there is a consensus (i.e. including Ramdrake, JK, and RIK) on this page. As peoplereach consensus on specific issues/sections, I will gladly make the changes one at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that the references could be improved. I cannot find a source for either Lynn or Loehlin here or in the subarticle.Ultramarine 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility of research (current text)

One criticism of race and intelligence research, regardless of whether racial differences are genetic or not, questions its utility.

Descriptions of research into group differences in intelligence (especially genetic hypotheses) have been treated as self-evidently harmful to society by many writers, including references references to slavery, intolerance, and eugenics. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports, for which they have been criticized

The Southern Poverty Law Center has stated: "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this 'science' to legitimize racial hatred."

Another cricism is that it "causes major psychological harm to millions of black children and adults (with respect to self-esteem, career expectations, interracial relationships, etc.)". For example, in response to The Bell Curve Ashley Montagu, who famously stated the ideology of race is "man's most dangerous myth," wrote:

It is generally held that anyone who cries "Fire" in a crowded theatre should be held responsible for the consequences of his conduct. The same rule should apply to anyone who, motivated by racism, publishes inflammatory falsehoods concerning others, whether they be individuals, groups, or populations; they should by law be held responsible for their conduct. More than 200 years of racism, libel and slander, are enough, and so it is with use of IQ tests, which in a very real sense represent demeaning falsehoods, whether they maliciously intended or not.

Some scientists, including evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, argue that suppressing race and intelligence research is actually more harmful than dealing with it honestly. Linda Gottfredson, a prominent professor whose work has been influential in U.S. workplace policy and who's also a Pioneer fund grantee argues:

Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpability, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy.

Utility of research(new text)

Theories of race and intelligence that conclude the average gaps in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites are significantly due to genetic differences between Blacks and Whites have been challenged on grounds of their utility. Critics want to know what purpose such research could serve and why it has been an intense an area of focus for a few researchers. Some defend the research, saying it has egalitarian aims or that it is pure science, others say that the true motivation for the reserch is the same as that of the eugenics movement and other forms of scientific racism.. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports.

As to whether research in this area is desirable, John C. Loehlin wrote in 1992, "Research on racial differences in intelligence is desirable if the research is appropriately motivated, honestly done, and adequately communicated." Defenders of the research suggest that both scientific curiosity and a desire to draw benefits from the research are appropriate motivations. Some of the proponents of the research, such as Chris Brand feel it is important to maintain a perspective of race realism. The term "race realism" describes the theory that racial distinctions areenduringly important because racial groups differ by nature (genetically) with regard to such important behavioral tendencies as intelligence and impulsiveness. Reachers such as Richard Lynn have suggested that conclusions from the research can help make political decisions, such as the type of educational opportunities and expectations of achievement policy makers should have for people of different races. Researchers such as Charles Murray have used their conclusions to criticize social programs based on racial equality that fail in Murray's eyes to recognize the realities of racial differences.

Sociologist and demographer Reanne Frank says that some race and intelligence research has been abused "The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)"

This section seems weighted almost entirely on the side of the possible benefits of this research and policy decisions that could be made on the basis of the research (policy decisions that, as outlined above, seem incredibly stupid to me). There is nothing specific about the damage of such research. (First, do no harm.) There is only a criticism of the "malignancy" of "true believers," which comes across as mere name calling.

I have a tape sitting in my VCR right now of a program presented to educators about the effects of testing that measures only outcomes and does not measure learning over a semester or other time period in which a student has been working to improve his/her own competency -- with the aim of giving appropriate feedback in the course of the learning process on what is working and what is not working. One of the speaker's main points was that it is a strong disincentive to future work and progress when an individual is told that s/he is not competent enough.

Has nobody done any research on the impact of telling students (directly or indirectly) that they are not intelligent enough that they ought to be planning for higher level pursuits in life? P0M 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A video could be a fine source, what is it called? Can you pull a good quote from it? I think I remember a study that we could add here that relates to the potential negative impacts of the research... let me look around a bit. futurebird 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The program was on our statewide public tv network. The speaker was from the Assessment Training Institute, he had "StarNet" in the background while he was lecturing, so that may be a website, and he mentioned that his organization has a book entitled Student Involved Classroom Assessment. P0M 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.assessmentinst.com/ General information

http://www.assessmentinst.com/forms/TIP-pub.pdf A seven-page summary, which begins:

From their very earliest school experiences, our students

draw life-shaping conclusions about themselves as learners the basis of the information we provide to them as a result their teachers’ classroom assessments. As that evidence accumulates over time, they decide if they are capable succeeding or not. They decide whether the learning is the commitment it will take to attain it. They decide if should have confidence in themselves as learners and in teachers—that is, whether to risk investing in the schooling experience. These decisions are crucial to their academic well-being. Depending on how they decide, their teachers

may or may not be able to influence their learning lives.

P0M 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to bring bad news, but I don't think this source will work because, while it shows the impact of testing on future achievement, it's not really about race. If we were doing original research we could easily and legitimacy link these two ideas-- but, on wikipedia we must only summarize pre synthesized information, not create new conclusions by drawing links between research. However, you have inspired me to dig up some sources (I know they are out there, I've seen them, but I can't remember where) who have talked about the impacts of testing itself with respect to race. I'll respond here as soon as I find them. In the mean time, I think we should both keep looking and try to get this text approved, since it is better than what is there at present. We can (and should) revise it in the future. futurebird 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I found it!

Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.

Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (Steele CM and Aronson J. 1995)

Steele then talked about his findings in many studies that when a person’s social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype.

It works on white people too: When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat J Aronson, MJ Lustina, C Good, K Keough, CM Steele … - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999

I think this will work, it shows how stating there are fixed differences based on race can cause people to fit those profiles. Can you suggest a few sentences to work these ideas in to the body of this text? The best way to do that is to simply edit Race and intelligence (Utility of research) I'm watching that page and I'll duplicate the changes you make here. futurebird 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this project is somewhat of a waste of time. It would be more efficient to recompile the material in the super-section "Public debate and policy implications" and make that into a single sub-article, rather than having it be a section with many sub-articles. Partitioning material between the sub-articles is a problem. I have several issues with the way its been done now. Rather than raising them individually, however, I think the move to a single sub-article would be much easier. --W.R.N. 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple change we can ALL agree on: templates

This is a small change that has nothing to do with adding new text or revising anything. So I hope we can all agree on this change. The templates:

• {{Race and intelligence vertical navbox}}
• {{Race and intelligence}}

contain a listing for "Public controversy", it redirects to Race and intelligence (explanations). Could we remove this link, since anyone can get to the explanations sub-article by clicking on "Explanations"? It's really confusing... futurebird 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes made

I've made these changes, since the page is now unlocked (I requested that it be unlocked late last night, all of the debate in here was getting silly) Let's all be rational and not get in to edit wars OK? Otherwise it will be locked again... and we know how much fun that is.

Regarding these nav. boxes. I've added Stereotype threat to the box-- I feel it would be a good subsection under "explanations" in the main article... however I'm wary of adding any more content to this article as it is too long. What are your thoughts on this? futurebird 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the controversy article? The nav box was originally meant to join together the sub-articles of this article. It has now grown to include tangentially related articles. If we're doing the latter, there are many more articles to include and the box will greatly grow, substituting for the see-also section. I don't think that's a particular good idea. Which is it going to be? --W.R.N. 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultra seems to have merged in in to another article...

I wonder if anything was lost in that process... there are edit summaries for this, but even when I think the text is "wrong" it bugs me when people just delete things... I think that nothing was deleted, though, I trust Ultra's edits, but you'd better check to see if you are okay with this whole process...Me? I need a wiki break, this page just got protected again. futurebird 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Contained mostly duplication of info from other pages. I moved the rest to "Accusations of bias". Title was extremely strange, implying that there is some kind of public controvery and misunderstanding regarding R&I not shared by the wiser researchers. No support for this notion was presented in the text.Ultramarine 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put

A quick read through article shows only one mention (Footnote 86. Aristotle) of the uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put. Slavery, genocide, aparthied, segregated schooling, non-enfranchisement, and racial streaming spring to mind as prhaps having been justified/excused/explanained/necessitated on these grounds. Is this article the place to mention this aspect of "Race and intelligence"? What confidence can we have that this is not a current use of this topic? SmithBlue 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are absolutely right about the article not having enough information about how this research has been used. I have made some changes that I hope will improve it, both to the main article and to this article: Race and intelligence (Utility of research) There is still a lot of work to be done... if you aren't still busy, I'd love to have your help on this project. I've found a few sources and made some suggestions here:

Hope to see you around! futurebird 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't have confidence is anything except what's been specifically reported. The history of racism != the history of "race and intelligence". to the extent that it is, we are better off with a summary section here and the details elsewhere. --W.R.N. 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The two, however are related. The fact that this isn't clear some of the time is one of the big problems with this article.futurebird 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that space/size precludes a comprehensive section focussed on the "historical uses on R&I" however to confine this history to a footnote would be amazingly POV. Somewhat similar to writing about nuclear fission and missing out the bit about nuclear weapons. I can see that this article is developing rapidly and am not in a hurry and would like the product of this development to state the historical uses of R&I. SmithBlue 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest some sources to help us meet this goal? I would simply start adding content, if I was you. It's OK that the article is too big, we're in the process of moving bits to subarticles, even now. I'd like to see a few hefty paragraphs on this topic. futurebird 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

lead image caption

only 1 bell curve was featured on the cover of TBC, not two. the relation of TBC to the lead image appears tenuous -- they both talk about IQ, which has a normal distribution of scores. is there a reason to mention it there? also, the claim that comparing IQ scores of different groups is tantamount to scientific racism is not one expressed by, for example, psychologists when writing the APA report. is there any evidence it is a significant opinion among scholars? if so, which groups can it be attributed to? historians??? --W.R.N. 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen "The Bell Curve" is what got me all mixed up in this non-sense topic in the first place. That book was all over the news. Most people I know still cringe each time it is mentioned. It's gotta be in this article right at the top. Because that's what the people are going to be looking for here. In fact maybe this page should just go right to the page on The Bell Curve! I don't even like graphing normal curves anymore because of that book.. Jesus!JJJamal 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The caption should clearly be "These are idealized normal curves comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981". Romper 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

lead image itself

ramdrake suggested a modification to the lead image. here's my attempt at that suggestion. if we aren't going to have four curves, then probably shouldn't single out any particular groups. --W.R.N. 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This would work better with the caption and reduce the number of people coming here saying "WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE???" ... but I need to think about it. other people... share your thoughts.... futurebird 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not gonna stop until we close this stupid gap, Susan. JJJamal 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is some good in this, but I don't think that the average person will understand it. I think that the meaning will have to be clearer with more understandable captions, if that can be done without identifying the populations all the better. I'm convinced that there are differences in IQ among populations due to adaptations to various environments, but I'm uncomfortable with the buckets of black, white, asian and hispanic. I think that these are overly aggregated. A problem that I perceive is that the graphic is too simple and the discussion too complex, therefore, casual visitors to this article walk away with a black and white view of the issue. --Kevin Murray 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that those categories are "overly aggregated" isn't a workable criticism for the lead because research on less aggregated groups is thin on the ground. The other concerns are workable. I'll give it more thought, but I think I'll just come back to the conclusion that a graph with 4 curves is the best way to address those other concerns. --W.R.N. 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this new lead image will work because it gives too much emphasis to IQ testing as a means of measuring intelligence. The current Image with the black white Gap, and the caption that lends historical context is best. futurebird 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• are there any measures of intelligence other than IQ that any substantial minority of people agree on? psychologists only discuss IQ type tests in the content of group differences. is there some other group with a competing claim to having measured race differences in intelligence? this is a difference between specific and nonspecific criticisms. the nonspecific criticism that X doesn't like the use of race and Y doesn't like the use of intelligence, in general, doesn't give us (editors) reason to not directly discuss race and IQ as so many other sources do. --W.R.N. 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Should we have a sub-article Race and IQ (Research) for the more specific discussion of any observed differences? Perhaps we should narrowly tailor our focus, and keep only a very general discussion of intelligence in the main article... --JereKrischel 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• a priori crafting of article content won't work. you throw what's been said about the topic into the article, organize it, summary it where appropriate, and let the thing reflect the literature as a result of your efforts. we already have a subarticle dedicated to the nature (psychometric, academic, biological, etc.) of the gaps. NPOV doesn't mean giving each topic equal space, but proportional representation. what would you suppose is the IQ to non-IQ ratio in the literature? --W.R.N. 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if I were to venture a guess, it's a significant proportion on both sides - the issue really comes out when people use different tests, of which only some purport to measure anything comparable to IQ (brain size and reaction time, for example). In any case, I would suggest that as per summary style, there is enough material on Race and IQ (Research) to merit a sub-article. --JereKrischel 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see value in this insofar as it opens up questions e.g. what exactly do IQ tests measure and who is being tested and how are they being identified. I know that there is some research that assumes simple answers to these questions, research that goes to great lengths to answer these questions with an eye towards precision and accuracy, and finally research that challenges answers to these questions. As long as this whol range of research is represented in the articles, as well as any controversies surrounding them, it is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing image is better, as it is simpler to grasp the nature of the issue from it. The above suggested image is a bit to technical and abstract.Romper 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A question on research results

A number of years ago I had a real-world experience that makes me wonder about the validity of simple measures of intelligence as correlated to any disadvantaged population. I had a student on whom I used a test derived from Max Wertheimer's Productive Thinking, Judging by the test, the student was probably more intelligent than I am. However, he had a couple of "shortcomings" that were probably all genetic. To look at him you would think that he was fat, but in fact he was enormously strong and the contours of his muscles were softened by a little fat. He was also enormously full of fun, not a trait that is valued among all primary and secondary school teachers. I think the reason he ended up in disciplinary school may have had something to do with an outbreak of exuberance and expression of those two traits. (I picture a 6th-grade teacher being given the airplane spin...) So, enormously strong, enormously fun-loving and good willed, IQ around the 140 level. How would he test out if given standard tests? At 15 he had a fourth grade reading level and was doing everything possible to evade attempts to teach him because of his embarrassment and unwillingness to make mistakes in front of his peers, and he did not even know his multiplication tables. I could not communicate to this young man how intelligent he was, and his goal in life was a construction job with his uncle.

If his was the only case like this, it wouldn't make any difference in a large study of intelligence measures correlated to . But how is it known what percentage of individuals among a disadvantaged group are similarly handicapped? The IQ tests that are used in large studies would not have measured this student's IQ accurately because he had never really learned to read or to do math. To make matters even more complicated, humans are enormously resistant to anything they interpret as being manipulative, so even well-intentioned attempts to evaluate the real intelligence of individuals may be frustrated when applied to a population that views the testers as their enemies. (I had another student who had a perfect "dead stupid" act that I would never have penetrated had he not intentionally revealed his real abilities.) P0M 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The kids I taught on the Bronx did this all the time. Only if they trusted me would they reveal how smart they were. Teenagers are the same everywhere from the Bronx to the Upper East Side. But, oh my, they do grow of differently! But, alas, personal experience isn't a "source" so what we need to do is focus on adding the sourced information that we all know exists out there to these articles to show the other side of this story.

It's gonna' be a lot of work, but it will be worth it.

It might do some good to look into the complex stigama around "acting white" for some inner city kids. Doing well in school, trying to do well on tests, that's all part of it.futurebird 13:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"A number of years ago I had a real-world experience that makes me wonder about the validity of simple measures of intelligence as correlated to any disadvantaged population .... But how is it known what percentage of individuals among a disadvantaged group are similarly handicapped?" Personal experiences are useuless on this page and only obstruct the urgent task. And this is a question that is important if one is conducting original research but we cannot do that and wasting time on such questions only takes time away from the urgent task. "It's gonna' be a lot of work, but it will be worth it." Agreed. There has been so much discussion on this page, there is no point in wasting any more time on personal experiences and personal beliefs. Everyone has clarity on these, and they do not do what this page is meant to do which is produce improvements to the articles. Focus on finding verifiable NPOV sources and putting them in where they belong. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are reputable sources that deal with the methodological probled I have presented. Any suggestions? P0M 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe there are no reputable sources dealing with this question. Too much work. Not my job. If so, shouldn't the reader be informed? P0M 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this ready for unprotection?

The discussion seems to be slowing down, which suggests to me that the debate might be cooling off. Is everyone ready for this page to be unprotected? --Ryan Delaney 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just because JK is not around. futurebird 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy, but trying to pay attention. I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of faith that we're ready for unprotection yet, but we can certainly open it up and try. My guess is that futurebird, myself and others will try to make some significant organizational changes, and WRN won't be happy with it. I'd still like to build some real consensus with WRN, but it may not be possible. --JereKrischel 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will unprotect the page - well, I will semi-protect it. I want to share my reasons and make a comment I hope everyone will consider before going to it, editing the article. I have, informally, been trying to mediate this dispute for two weeks which can be a lifetime for many articles. I think I have failed in that I have not produced any consensus including - just to pick two prominent examples - JK and RIK. However, I do think the mediation has been partially succesful in that it has produced more directed, engaged discussion focussing on specific contentious issues. I want to give active contributors to this page some advice about editing the article that I think will prevent the need for future mediation:

1. Our WP:NPOV policy demands that the most hotly debated issues be fully represented in an article.
2. An article on race and intelligence must provide appropriate background concerning both Race and Intelligence. This background should be consistent with the linked articles on race and intelligence but need not reproduce everything in those articles, only that which is relevant to this topic (the relationship between the two, or any explanations which try to link the two, or arguments against explanations that link the two). Do not be afraid to summarize points made in those articles, and allow readers to use links to learn more.
3. literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominently in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence. I understand that many of you feel this is unnecessarily restrictive. But I am just being practical. If you want a stable, unprotected article that will not have to be protected again because of an escalating revert war, follow this suggestion. I assure you there is LOTS of published material that is explicitly about race AND intelligence from all points of views, including yours!
4. Such sources will not be limited to one academic discipline. We agree that psychologists have special expertise on intelligence, but that sociologists and anthropologists as well as evolutionary biologists have expertise on race, and if what they write has entered into debates on race and intelligence, it constitutes an appropriate source for this article.

Be civil and assume good faith and more than aything else, be focused. Take material from this page that everybody or almost everybody agrees is verifiable, make sure you incorporate it into the article in a non-argumantative, non-tendentious way ... put it in solely to illustrate just one more of the many views here, and I think you will be okay. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably still contentious issues

Just to list them out, and to be aware of them going forward:

• Is this Race and intelligence (Modern Research) or Race and intelligence? The entire tone, tenor, focus, and scope of the article changes depending on which one you believe it to be.

• Is the question regarding causes as simple as genetic vs. environment? Or are there multiple axes upon which an answer can be found? This question is especially important when deciding how to characterize research and conflicting POVs.

• How important is it to cite the specific definition of "race" and "intelligence", if any, when citing a study? More importantly, what should we say when a given study does not use an explicit definition?

• If a source makes a five point argument, is it appropriate for us to walk through all five points with extensive detail? If that five point argument is attacked in another source, is it appropriate for us to walk through all of their points with extensive detail? Short version: when is too much too much?

I'm sure other people may have other things to add to this list, but IMHO, these issues still loom large, and have not been settled. I intend to attempt to address these issues with my own edits, and others may as well, but I would venture to say that these are the areas which are going to come to a head once again. Good luck everyone! --JereKrischel 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. race and intelligence, which is in terms of things specifically written about the topic is mostly about the results of contemporary research, unless someone finds sources which document other important threads of publication
2. g vs e; that's what the sources i know of specifically say; what sources specifically way it has multiple dimensions? (as compared to simply multiple facets?)
3. you can't possibly compare and contrast without a source doing the comparing and contrasting. you can't emphasize something some published source doesn't emphasize. (what's the point of saying one study used WAIS and another used RPM? who says they should be distinguished?) we'd have no more reason to do that than to document the race of every person being discussed or the impact factor of every journal in which things are published. we're not writing a research paper on methods of IQ testing and race ascertainment.
4. macro/micro wikipedia by WP:Summary style answers this. --W.R.N. 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, WRN's opinions are nowhere near consensus with all the other editors. It is very difficult to imagine what kind of common ground we'll be able to come to on these contentious issues, but I'm willing to entertain suggestions. --JereKrischel 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Should this article be concerned with what people who are not defined as scientists in this particular field of research may think and write? Whose definitions of "scientist" rules?
2. Should this article accept the argument that if one is capable of functioning at a high level of competence in mathematics and language then that person must be highly intelligent, and also accept therefore the argument that if someone is highly intelligent that that persom must be highly competent in mathematics and language?
3. If one study involves a "three races of humans" categorization, and another study involves a "five races of humans" categorization, can even the groups that happen to share an English name be meaningfully compared?
4. When is less writing more work for the reader, and when does it mean more possibility of misinterpretation, more need for backtracking, etc.? P0M 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ distribution image

I think the colors on the right and left side of the distribution image should be switched because they have counter-intuitive meanings.

direct-indirect

sources need for this distinction; it simply can't be taken for granted. I don't think scholars of mental chronometry or neuroanatomy would necessarily agree that their windows into intelligence are more indirect than psychometric instruments. --W.R.N. 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling a section "Average gaps among races" begs several questions. Average gaps of what? Well, the sub-sections included everything from directly measured test scores, some IQ based, others not, some estimated IQs, and even reaction time and brain size. Why not some metric of how racist different races are? Or penis length (for the Rushton fans)? Or SES? If we're talking about "Average intelligence gaps among races", I'd argue that we should limit ourselves to citing direct measures of intelligence, not hopeful correlations of anatomy and reaction time, which are sufficiently removed from "intelligence" to muddy the issue.

The section was poorly titled, and should probably be more narrowly tailored into sections like, "Average IQ gaps among races", "Average test score gaps among races", and we put the anatomy and reaction time information into a hypothesis section ("Brain size explanation" or "Reaction time explanation"). I did my best to split out direct measures of IQ to clearly indirect measures, but I'm open to ideas on how better to fix that troubled section. --JereKrischel 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

direct measures of intelligence - what is the criteria here? the correlation between the measure and g? - if so, then brain size is better than the worst IQ and achievement tests and reaction time is as good as the modal IQ test. your distinction between direct and indirect is original research. --W.R.N. 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you change it back without discussion? --W.R.N. 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you change it back without a compromise offer? The problem, as stated, is that "Average gaps among races" is not specific enough. Including assertions of brain size difference are a step removed from assertions of intelligence gaps, and should not be included in the same section as direct measures on IQ tests. If there are IQ test measures being included in direct measures that are inappropriate measures of intelligence, perhaps we should be even more specific - "Average gaps among races on IQ tests well correlated to g", "Average gaps among races on IQ tests poorly correlated to g". I look forward to hearing any alternatives you could suggest, since it is obvious the original text was improper. --JereKrischel 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

SES cause

JK has changed to caption of the SES-IQ regression figure in two inappropriate ways: (1) attributed a majority view to a single author rather than to the majority and (2) presented a minority or fringe view (which it is is not clear) in the same caption. here's what the APA report said about SES: --W.R.N. 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Socio-economic Factors. Several specific environmental/cultural explanations of those differences have been proposed. All of them refer to the general life situation in which contemporary African Americans find themselves, but that situation can be described in several different ways. The simplest such hypothesis can be framed in economic terms. On the average, Blacks have lower incomes than Whites; a much higher proportion of them are poor. It is plausible to suppose that many inevitable aspects of poverty, such as poor nutrition, frequently inadequate prenatal care, and lack of intellectual resources, have negative effects on children's developing intelligence. Indeed, the correlation between "socio-economic status" (SES) and scores on intelligence tests is well known (White, 1982).

Several considerations suggest that this cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES (Loehlin et al, 1975). Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that excluding extreme conditions, nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores. Finally the (relatively weak) relationship between test scores and income is much more complex than a simple SES hypothesis would suggest. The living conditions of children result in part from the accomplishments of their parents: if the skills measured by psychometric tests actually matter for those accomplishments. intelligence is affecting SES rather than the other way around. We do not know the magnitude of these various effects in various populations, but it is clear that no model in which 'SES" directly determines "IQ" will do.

A more fundamental difficulty with explanations based on economics alone appears from a different perspective. To imagine that any simple income- and education-based index can adequately describe the situation of African Americans is to ignore important categories of experience. The sense of belonging to a group with a distinctive culture, one that has long been the target of oppression, and the awareness or anticipation of racial discrimination are profound personal experiences, not just aspects of socio-economic status. Some of these more deeply rooted differences are addressed by other hypotheses, based on caste and culture.

The original SES caption was touting a minority view, that "the black-white score gap persists at all socio-economic levels." This is not true. Perhaps a better way of stating it would be "uncorrected for anything except income level, a black-white score gap exists at all socio-economic levels".

Furthermore, the "These kinds of findings suggest that simple differences in socio-economic status cannot explain all of the IQ gap" was misleading - a better term than "simple" would have been "trivial", since arguably, the SES variables taken into account by the Columbia/Northwest study weren't particularly "complex", they were simply more significant.

I guess the problem with the image itself is that it does not say what it thinks it says - "Parental SES by Decile" is an ambiguous term.

Also note that the Columbia/Northwest study refuting the older 1975 study was conducted after the APA released its statement. --JereKrischel 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) You've ignored the problem about attribution of a majority view.

(2) The various views can be described in the article, but there's no reason to outline such a study in the caption of that figure. You suggest that the 1975 paper cited is the only basis for the APA's conclusions. Clearly the finding is well replicated enough for them to speak confidently about its truth value. Clearly it was replicated in the NLSY analysis in the APA. Moreover, the tactic of using a large list if "independent" variables in a regression on IQ differences has a long history of debate. It's highly controversial for reasons that are easy to understand if you know about regression. You can read about it in Murray (1998) amongst other sources. You have to consider how many times (and in what sense) a study has been cited as a measure of how important the scientific community thinks it is. Otherwise, the paper's views can be assumed to be fringe. --W.R.N. 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great point Jere, here is one study where they call the adjusted gap "negligible" Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics In fact, I think you sent it to me! In any case, it's not like everyone agrees on this, nor is there general agreement on how one might do a "controlled" study on such a topic. You can't control for racism without ending it, I mean, for one thing. Jere you should look at this article: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study it needs work but there is good information buried in there. futurebird 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, you used a 1995 statement citing a 1975 study to make your claim against a 1996 study which addresses those issues directly. Suggesting that we use some sort of "been-cited" metric to determine whether or not a study is important seems to be missing the point - certainly the Columbia/Northwest study has been cited and received favorable reaction from the scientific community.

Of course, we could propose some sort of "been-cited" metric if you'd like - it certainly would filter out a great many fringe hereditarian views (especially if we discounted pioneer-fund intra-citation, and counted negative citations against articles). I'm not sure if that's a worthwhile path to go down though.

Suffice it to say, we have provided a well-sourced scholarly citation, more recent than your own, and we have no reason to believe that it is anything but respected and accepted in the scientific community. If you require more rigorous defense of such citations, I'd kindly ask you to provide the same such rigor for pro-hereditarian citations - starting with every one that is contradicted by the APA statement regarding evidence for genetic causality for group differences, and how all direct evidence does not support the genetic hypothesis. --JereKrischel 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the inclusion of this single study in an image caption that is the problem, a figure found in the introduction to the explanations section. Positive arguments for one side or another do not belong in that section. Moreover, you're trying to contradict the conclusion of a multiauthor 2ndary source with a primary source. Why cite this study and not some other? I see no evidence that this study represents a significant view, and I know of many famous sources (anti-hereditarian) which ignore it. Why stop at one paper? Why note cite this one also: when Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150 (Jensen 1973, pp. 107-119) or this study: Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents (Jensen, 1998b, p. 358). The answer is that we have good reason to cite the APA report, no reason to doubt it (contrast that with direct negative commentary about its treatment of the hereditarian hypothesis) and no reason to annotate their findings with studies which seek to argue for a particular explanation in the introduction of that section. --W.R.N. 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fb's changes to the lead - media portrayal

FB has made media portrayal an entire paragraph in the lead. however, it has only a two sentences in the main article. this is inappropriate. moreover, FB's changes to the lead are highly disputable. these changes should be reverted and explained on the talk page. you can't write an article lead-first. --W.R.N. 03:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These changes reflect the new content in the media portrayal sub-article, and the new section for "media portrayal" in this main article. That's why I worked on those sections before changing the intro. If it would help, we could move that content in to this article-- though I think we need to move some other content out to sub-articles first since the main article is way too big as it is. futurebird 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) why is media portrayal an entire paragraph in the lead? it's not proportional to its representation in article (series) and transitively to its representation in the literature. (2) consider these sentences: Press coverage has given considerable positive attention to theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence even though there is no consensus among researchers regarding their validity. Upon publication, The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity, including cover stories in Newsweek The New Republic, and The New York Times Book Review. Still, few strong propionates of the genetic theories of differences in intelligence do not think that press coverage has been positive enough. For example, media opinion of the role of genetic and environmental factors in explaining individual and group differences in IQ was studied in 1988 by conservative researchers Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman. They found it to differ from the opinion of mainstream experts.

NPOV and V problems with a dash of NOR:

1. the genetic hypothesis has received positive attention? who says this, not nisbett as far as i can tell
2. positive attention for TBC? who says this? why aren't the accounts of the publicity as mostly negative mentioned?
3. "still, few strong proponents" ... who are they, who counted, and why is there position treated as if it were unreasonable (assuming they exist)
4. "for example..." Snyderman and Rothman take a position themselves? i don't think so.

--W.R.N. 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our real problem is the meaning of "Media Portrayal". You seem to think it means "Media Portrayal of Race and Intelligence Research". Futurebird seems to be writing in terms of "Media Portrayal of Race and Intelligence".

Arguably, the history of stereotype and oppression due to media portrayals of different racial intelligences, is highly significant to the topic of "Race and Intelligence", although it may not be as crucial to the topic of "Race and Intelligence Research". I can't imagine how to find compromise between the two positions. --JereKrischel 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The compromise that I think would work would be to summarize both ideas in the main article then provide links to sub-articles. In the present situation this would me migrating a fair amount of the information in the main article on "research" to a sub-article. That's my proposal. futurebird 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've not addressed the factual accuracy, verifiability and neutrality issues I've raised. --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound exasperated, but it's as if the last weeks of discussion never happened. We talked about starting with details, adding needed material to the article, making further use of summary style, etc. I argued that you couldn't start lead first -- it would be all but impossible to do this correctly. Now we're debating the inclusion of a 1 paragraph entry to the lead for a diminutive aspect of this topic -- where the lead includes more details than the body. I hope this demonstrates that I was correct -- you can't write an article lead first. I find it all but impossible to believe that the final product of any policy-abiding editing will be that the media portrayal of race and intelligence will be of comparable length to a discussion of the nature or cause of the gap. My suggestions again -- leave the lead alone for the near term, add material the article where appropriate, add tags where appropriate, don't delete anything that's sourced, possibly merge back all of the subarticle material so it can be tackled all at once, and stop trying to craft the article in a top-down manner (this has various implications, which I've outlined before). --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We also talked about starting with reorganizing the outline, redacting or moving inappropriate material, and a half-dozen other points. I think it's pretty obvious that we never came to agreement on any of the most contentious points I've mentioned elsewhere, and displeasure with the edits of others is to be expected.

My suggestions again - we expand the scope of the article beyond Race and intelligence (Research), remove excessive detail when a simple point can be made simply, avoid false dichotomies, and provide proper context for citations that use various or unspecified definitions of "race" and/or "intelligence". Maybe such suggestions are useful, maybe not...but what might help in the short term are specific compromise suggestions - think about what the other person is really trying to get across, and help them accomplish that goal in an alternate manner. I know that just disagreeing in the abstract hasn't gotten us very far... --JereKrischel 07:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't write an article in the abstract either. You can't organize it a priori. Referenced material is the currency of article construction, and most of the article is about research. I believe my relatively specific suggestions listed above are the best and most reliable pathway forward. --W.R.N. 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

lock the article?

I think it needs to stay locked until the dispute is better resolved. I've refrained from reverting them, but the majority of the edits made since it was unlocked need to be reverted. --W.R.N. 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have compromise suggestions for any of the edits you think should be reverted? --JereKrischel 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in protecting the article. The problem here is not trolls, but a groups of people who refuse to work together. For two weeks I tried to mediate conflicts on this page. Some peopel bent over backwards to address the concerns of others. Some people refused even to acknowledge the concerns of others. In Misplaced Pages, articles are products of ongoing collaborations. In Misplaced Pages, if you know how to work with others, your work will survive. If you do not know how to work with others, it will not. We had two weeks when the page was protected for people to lay out their views and discuss proposals and compromises. These issues are as clear as this talk page can ever make them - more talk would accomplish nothing. People would only start repeating themselves. All new facts and ideas that should go in the article are already somewhere on this page. It is now time to work together to improve the article. Unprotected, no one has a choice: you have to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR, you can't "compromise" NPOV/NOR/V itself. --W.R.N. 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, you can certainly compromise on personal interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V. Let's at least try to imagine that we all have valid interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V, and we need to find some middle ground. If we sit around believing that the other person cannot be compromised with because they don't know the true meaning of NPOV/NOR/V, we'll never find consensus. --JereKrischel 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

african immigrants

this text breaks soooo many rules: --W.R.N. 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, African immigrants to the US have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority, raising further questions about the benefits of affirmative action programs based on race as well as stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of races.

I've improved the sources. Now it cites a NYT's article and the US census in addition to the website.futurebird 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen and others

someone tagged "Arthur Jensen and others" with the tag. NPOV calls for naming a prominent proponent, not an exhaustive list. what did the tagger have in mind? --W.R.N. 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know, who are the "others" futurebird 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you make that a personal research project so we can remove the tags? --W.R.N. 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you name at least one other? Or can we more narrowly tailor the line to a citation only to Jensen? --JereKrischel 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton, Gottfredson, Lynn, Rowe, etc... They're listed in the expert opinion section. --W.R.N. 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to name names on this one. In this case the word "others" is vauge-- There's no rush to fix this, but-- it'd be better, I think, to just say who the people are. futurebird 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

history - immigrants

The history section needs some balance that focuses at the rise of IQ testing around WWI and the restrictions in immigration. At some point there is a suggestion of prejudice against high-achieving minorities, but when IQ tests were first devised Jews wwere not considered high-achievers, they were considered intellectually inferior as were many European immigrants. Today much of the debate about race and intelligence has to do with "whites" and "blacks" but a hundred years ago many of the grandparents or great-grandparents of todays "whites" were not considered white and were among the races considered unintelligent ... this section needs better balance and coverage. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if you can point out a few sources we can work on doing this next. futurebird 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be a section called "jim crow and segregation" dealing with ideas that were used during that era, and another new section on "immigration" --the time periods will overlap, but this may be the most coherent way to organize it. I think the book "Gotham" the comprehensive history of New York City might have some quotes about how immigrant populations were seen as races and how they were considered intellectually inferior. It's worth mentioning all of the now mostly forgotten stereotypes about the irish from that time period.

WD doesn't like it when I change the lead without having substance in the main article to back this up, so I'll start by working on the media portrayal article. Sound good?futurebird 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"jim crow and segregation" --- Keep in mind, because it saves me time, that the history of "race and intelligence" is not the same as the history of race, the history of racism, or even the history of intelligence. WP policy indicates (to my reading) that material not be repeated in more than one place, especially if its characterization will be controversial, and that instead summaries and links should be used so that multiple instances of the same topic can be minimized/synced. --W.R.N. 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that so long as we focus on characterizations of intelligence based on race, we're on safe ground...we should definitely link to other articles on the topic of jim crow and segregation in general (and perhaps have them link back here to see the more specific notes of justification based on intelligence stereotypes). Arguably, this article should be the primary source for examples of assertions of racial intelligence levels justifying poorer treatment for that race. --JereKrischel 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

when IQ tests were first devised Jews were not considered high-achievers - FYI - this is a legend. the army's alpha IQ test was a little screwy, but it wasn't so screwy to show that Ashkenazi Jews had low IQ. by the time the beta test was introduced, the scores were a little more reliable. the differences between the alpha and beta, IIRC, account for most of the reports about early Euro immigrant differences. --W.R.N. 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Information regarding how "screwy" the alpha IQ test was, in addition to how it was cited, would be very relevant. --JereKrischel 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. I mention it here so people know to look for these things if they are doing research. Don't trust my memory if I can't remember the cite. --W.R.N. 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN's reverts

1) POV characterization of the current debate inappropriate, and uncited. Please don't add back in again.

2) Caption for SES differences graph claiming statements from the APA report misleading - please keep the quotes directly from the report instead of using POV characterization of what they really said. The best way to avoid misunderstanding is to use their words directly. Also, burying the 1996 study accounting for 80% of the gap with SES factors inside the ref inappropriate - information is significant enough to show directly in the article.

3) See ref regarding the "genetic hypothesis" of Jensen. "partly-genetic" in this context is a weasel-word.

--JereKrischel 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will also keep an eye on this. I felt the changes you made were on target-- I agree, no reversion. futurebird 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't removed cited material over POV dispute, not without discussion.
2. You introduced your own analysis of their opinions into the text, but it was misleading -- don't assume you know more than the authors. Summaries are preferable to quotes, and the summary we had was accurate. The study you cited was put there to contradict the APA report, but the caption of a figure in the introduction of the explanations section is not the place for contradicting a multiauthor collective statement with a citation of the primary literature. I added summary text which captured the range of opinions, including this paper, which was appropriate for the introductory section.
3. Per NPOV you must characterize people as they characterize themselves. It is not acceptable to use label a scholar using a term that they do not use for themselves.

And so I'm going to revert these NPOV problems. Discuss them here and achieve consensus before you change anything back. --W.R.N. 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest compromises, and address the issues I've raised, before reverting further. Starting an edit war without addressing the issues I've raised isn't helpful. --JereKrischel 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically - section on how to characterize the contemporary debate was not only POV pushing, but uncited;

An alternative summary would be appreciated, one that doesn't mischaracterize what the APA report really said;

As a compromise, why not make a note that Jensen prefers the term "partly-genetic", although others consider his theories the "genetic hypothesis"?

--JereKrischel 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, please note that your most recent reverts are actually duplicating a paragraph that replaced the original POV pushing paragraph. Please work on the compromise paragraph, instead of simply reverting. --JereKrischel 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the substitute paragraph is POV pushing. I left the one you wrote and put the old one back so they can be seen side by side for resolution. This shouldn't be a big issue. I'm putting it back so it can be considered--not lost. --W.R.N. 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest a compromise. The original is not acceptable to me, so I proposed an improvement. If the new one isn't acceptable to you, please propose an improvement that does not involve simply reverting. --JereKrischel 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "revert". I *added* both alternatives. NPOV doesn't recommend *removing* "biased" text if what's written actually is *someone's POV*. The two paragraphs don't seem like substitutes to me but rather two different POVs. This suggests that each POV should be represented. An initial step is to have both (non-neutrally written) paragraphs side by side. Please add it back so that when I or someone else has time they can work on fixing up both paragraphs. --W.R.N. 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fyi - minor edits

Help:Minor edit - A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor.

I never know what people will think around here so, I never check it.futurebird 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

merge of flynn effect

the flynn effect is not a sub-topic of R&I. otoh, it's discussed as it related to R&I in depth in the explanations section. i don't think we have any intention of merging the f.e. article into this one or redistributing its contents into subarticles of this one, so we shouldn't move the content here. --W.R.N. 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The merge

Is just making editing the sub articles more work, since now changes must be made in two places. Could we "de-merge" quickly? What are the plans for doing this? futurebird 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The same plan that I've proposed for some time -- you can't edit the entire topic and propose moving things to new subaritlces if you don't have everything in front of you (no a priori organizing). I'll replace the sub-pages with redirects for now, but not Flynn effect, which is its own topic distinct from R&I and should not be merged here per the above thread. --W.R.N. 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the content from that article and from stereotype threat need to be considered as a part of the whole. I agree on not redirecting these, though. The trouble is my internet connection is too slow to effectively participate in this. The page now take about 2 min to load on my computer and there are these giant blank sections. futurebird 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It could have been easier on the talk space, where we could have split it into chunks to make each page easier to edit. That suggestion was never adopted, so we're stuck mucking around in the article space. I don't know of any technical work-arounds otherwise. --W.R.N. 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging all articles is a big decision. Where is the consensus for this? Ultramarine 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's temporary. There are calls for reorganization. The only way to reorganize is to know what there is to organize. --W.R.N. 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no discussions of this. You did this on your own without discussing this? Ultramarine 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone except W.R.N. want this gigantic page? Ultramarine 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want a gigantic page, I want an end to this edit warring. However, this is the only way forward. Other JK will recommend moving everything he doesn't like about this topic to a sub article, FB will agree, and I'll disagree. Copied from above: --W.R.N. 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions again -- leave the lead alone for the near term, add material the article where appropriate, add tags where appropriate, don't delete anything that's sourced, possibly merge back all of the subarticle material so it can be tackled all at once, and stop trying to craft the article in a top-down manner (this has various implications, which I've outlined before). --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no real consensus for this... but, I'm trying to go along with it... I mean as long as it's not like this for too much longer I can "deal" I don't see HOW it helps in any way though... I just went ahead and merged in the section WD didn't merge to try to be fair about things. I don't know what to do now. Every edit I make is taking FOREVER and it's getting on my nerves. futurebird 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That you do not like what is moved to subarticles is not a justification for deleting all subarticles and creating a gigantic, unworkable single page. It is a Misplaced Pages:POINT violation. Unless there is some support for your action or a better explanation I will restore the prior version.Ultramarine 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a point, I'm making what I think is progress towards a resolution to our edit disputes. Nothing has been moved to sub-articles, rather that's what has been proposed at times. To that end, I've moved everything here so that it can be made policy compliant and rearranged into sub-articles. I'm sympathetic to FB's problem with editing, but I don't know of any technical work around besides editing off-line. --W.R.N. 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating an unworkable page when you do not get your way is a Misplaced Pages:POINT violation. Futurebird, should we restore to an earlier version before this unilateral action? Ultramarine 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we just undo this stupid merge? It's going to crash my computer. Editing off line isn't such a good idea, since by the time I get changes back online they will overwrite the edits of others. I'm willing to believe WD did this in good faith, and I tried to go along in good faith, but the article is absurd in its present condition. WD, let's move the stuff back, Ultra and I can help if you want.

We can't just retore since it will erase some changes made since the merge. We need to copy and paste the material back. The things I merged in can simply be cut since I didn't delete the sub articles. I'll undo my changes now, but it may take a little while due to my connection.futurebird 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to edit offline, just put a tag on the top of the article that says so. If you want to merge back, then I won't try to stop you. But I have no faith that a solution will arrive through the kind of edits we've done so far. I'm out of out-of-the-box solutions. --W.R.N. 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I know how to build a page that actually exists in multiple sub pages. It wouldn't be appropriate in the article space, but would be fine on the talk space. All the editing could be done there, and I think it would solve your problem. --W.R.N. 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean by including sections as templates? That could make it too hard for new users to edit. futurebird 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially. I was recommending that all the editing would have to be done in the talk space, not the main space. --W.R.N. 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for reverting the merge, and applying futurebird's additions directly. At best, information from sub-articles should be incorporated point by point, so that they arrive in this article in an agreed upon form and consensus manner. I'll revert, and start looking for futurebird's diffs. --JereKrischel 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

while you're thinking about that

i note that there are now 3 big and 2 smaller top-level sections. for those interested in the organization of the article, are there any thoughts about this? i'm thinking along the lines of WP:Summary style, opinions about what's missing, etc. --W.R.N. 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

irish

fyi - average IQ scores of the Irish in Ireland have been studied by Lynn but I'm having trouble finding the papers. Here are the scores I know about:

87 - Gill & Byrt, 1973 97 - Buj, 1981 93 - Carr, 1993 91 - Carr, 1993 --W.R.N. 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think this is relevant why don't you make an edit and source it too? Please edit the sub article so we don't end up with a content fork... I'm working there on a section on stereotypes about Jewish intelligence. (Still reading the sources, it's just a stub now.) But if you think it is important to point this out then ... please, go ahead, and by all means, and make the changes. I can't wait to see the sources for this. Race and intelligence (media portrayal)futurebird 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If I can find the 2ndary source that summarizes it, I will. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of primary sources, which is an NOR violation in the making. --W.R.N. 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JK are you serious?

look at this edit --W.R.N. 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We need to separate out claims that imply or assert a natural black genetic inferiority in intelligence. It is not sufficient to say that there are competing claims of genetic causality, or environmental causality - there is a difference between someone who will assert that they have found a genetic difference between two groups, and those who assert that the genetic difference must ipso facto mean that observed differences are a direct reflection of the proper ordering. Genetic causality and environmental causality are not opposites in the case of explaining group differences. --JereKrischel 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this change... it's more clear this way. futurebird 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, look again at the net result of the change. JK, the only response I can muster is an incredulous stare. That's the worse NPOV violation I can possibly imagine. --W.R.N. 01:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, WRN, I think our problem is that in the table you think should exist, you leave out these critical categories of argument. If presenting your detailed arguments in such a bald fashion, associated with the POV they are actually representing, seems like an NPOV violation, then perhaps you can understand why divorcing them from their actual POV, and conflating them with a large category of "partly-genetic", is distasteful to others.

When it comes to Race and Intelligence, there are a multitude of arguments being put forward. Some assert a primary genetic causality with an implicit racial hierarchy (Rushton/Jensen/Lynn/Pioneer Fund folk). This is dramatically disputed by many folk who otherwise believe it reasonable to assert that there may be some genetic basis to group differences (with magnitude and direction unknown). There are also those who dispute any genetic component based on the same sort of implicit racial hierarchy assumption, believing that if the gap is accounted for by environmental factors, then there must be a 0% genetic component. Then you have the large squishy middle, where in general a joint genetic/environmental cause for any differences is assumed (sometimes under the assumption that even genetic causes are essentially environmental, since there are gene expressions mediated by environment), but no hierarchy is assumed, nor percentage contributions, magnitudes, or directions are asserted. This isn't even mentioning the people who argue that race is not a valid proxy for genetics.

So each of these different sides argues in different directions, some of them agreeing on certain points, others contesting, and the layout is simply not as simple as "is it environmental, or genetic?". There is significant history regarding the "scientific" study of race and intelligence where both the study and the results were simply used as a gloss and confirmation of existing prejudices, and great suspicion that much of the "kinder, gentler" hereditarians are simply making the same points with more subtlety.

You can present the issue as "genetic/environmental", and someone else may just as rationally present the issue as "white racialist rationalization of racism/black activist claims of victimhood". I think if we're going to present the issue in any way at all, we need to accept the complexity of positions, and find a way to structure our presentation accordingly. --JereKrischel 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't characterize people's views as others report them but as they report them themselves. NPOV -- It's just that simple. --W.R.N. 07:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my problem is that you aren't reporting the characterization as a self-characterization, but as a self-evident fact. Can I take it that you wouldn't object to the characterization of anti-hereditarians as "anti-racialist" or "anti-racists", if it was the term they used to describe themselves? --JereKrischel 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What shall we merge to sub-articles?

We all know the page is too long. What should be moved to sub-articles? I think there is too much information on IQ, which is only one way of looking at intelligence. Let's propose merging portions of the article out here. I don't want to just dive in and start, because I think we need to be on the same page about this... or at lest in the same book... :) Ideas?futurebird 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Average gaps among races on direct measures" -->> Race and intelligence (Average gaps among races) merge out enough so that it is about the same size as Media portrayal of intelligence differences Media portrayal of intelligence differences, with two graphics.

• "Utility of research"-->>Race and intelligence (Utility of research) Trim down a little.

• "Public debate and policy implications:Potential for bias" -->>Race and intelligence (Potential for bias) merge out most of this section, it's mostly counter argument, often without the original argument that the counter argument response to presented in any depth or with any sources. There is no need to "refute claims political correctness" in an article that never tries to make those claims in the first place. To a reader who's unfamiliar with the topic it's confusing... so merge it out.

• "Appendix - IQ Data from various sources" -->> Race and intelligence (IQ data) (is this a good title) This section is too long.

FB, the only way to do this is to first merge current subarticle material into the main article, then organize all the content, then make subarticles that summarize the content. Why? Because, for example, the notion that "there is too much information on IQ" seems completely implausible to me. Of course... Also note, the fine line between WP:Summary style and a POV fork. --W.R.N. 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions -

• Race and intelligence (Intelligence test gaps between races) - put IQ, and other administered tests here

• Race and intelligence (Proxies for intelligence) - deal with brain size proxies, reaction time proxies, and any other indirect measures (possibly GRE scores, academic achievement measures)

• Race and intelligence (Research bias and counterclaims) may be a good place to discuss issues of Pioneer Fund racism driving contemporary research and publication of R&I works insisting on racial hierarchies, as well as the response accusations of political correctness by racialists

It might help to name these sub-articles more appropriately. The current structure is mostly taken from the Rushton/Jensen 2005 paper, and as such is already a bit slanted.

I'd also suggest that there is more than one acceptable way to attack this problem, and our disagreement as to which way to proceed is legitimate on both sides, since some people work better in different styles. --JereKrischel 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1

The structure of the main article and the explanations sub-article is based on the APA report. I know this from first hand experience. The direct-indirect distinction is a non-starter. --W.R.N. 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The structure of the main article and the explanations sub-article is not based on the APA report. As a quick review of the APA report:

I Concepts of Intelligence
    The Psychometric Approach
        Intelligence Tests 
        Interrelations among Tests
    Multiple Forms of intelligence
        Gardner's Theory 
        Sternberg's Theory 
        Related Findings 
    Cultural Variation 
    Developmental Progressions
        Piaget's Theory 
        Vygotsky's Theory 
        Biological Approaches 
II. Intelligence Tests and their Correlates
    Basic Characteristics of Test Scores
        Stability 
        Factors and g 
    Tests as Predictors
        School Performance 
        Years of Education 
        Social Status and Income 
        Job Performance 
        Social Outcomes 
    Test Scores and Measures of Processing Speed
        Cognitive Correlates 
        Choice Reaction Time 
        Inspection Time 
        Neurological Measures 
        Problems of Interpretation 
III. The Genes and Intelligence
    Sources of Individual Differences
        Partitioning the Variation 
        How Genetic Estimates are Made
    Results for IQ Scores
        Parameter Estimates 
        Implications 
IV. Environmental Effects on Intelligence
    Social Variables
        Occupation 
        Schooling 
        Interventions 
        Family Environment 
    Biological Variables
        Nutrition 
        Lead 
        Alcohol 
        Perinatal Factors 
    Continuously Rising Test Scores 
    Individual Life Experiences 
V. Group Differences
    Sex Differences
        Spatial and Quantitative Abilities 
        Verbal Abilities 
        Causal Factors 
        Hormonal Influences 
    Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups
        Asian Americans 
        Hispanic Americans 
        Native Americans 
        African Americans 
        Test Bias 
        Characteristics of Tests 
    Interpreting Group Differences
        Socio-economic Factors 
        Caste-like Minorities 
        African-American Culture 
        The Genetic Hypothesis 
VI. Summary and Conclusions 

On the other hand, Rushton/Jensen 2005 has "Section 6: Race, Brain Size, and Cognitive Ability", "Section 13: Evaluating the Culture-Only and the Hereditarian Research Programs", and "Section 15: Implications for Public Policy". If you'd like to adopt the APA outline, I'd be more than happy to start there. --JereKrischel 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, only this part relates to the article:

   Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups

       Asian Americans 
       Hispanic Americans 
       Native Americans 
       African Americans 
       Test Bias 
       Characteristics of Tests 

   Interpreting Group Differences

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

only we moved test bias to the interpreting group differences section. --W.R.N. 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Average gaps among races" is not congruent with "Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups" (note, the APA report didn't put brain size under that section). Neither is "Interpreting Group Differences" done as per the APA report - you've subsumed three sections the APA called out into "environmental", and failed to create a section for any of them except "culture". Neither is there a "Test Bias" section. If you assert that you intended to follow the APA outline, we can go in and change section titles accordingly. --JereKrischel 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

2

FB, if what you're actually saying that WP:Summary style should be implemented in a much stricter fashion (a long time ago the article approximated this), then I actually agree. Here's what that might entail based on the current article/subarticles content:

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. history (subarticle - R&I (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. group differences in intelligence (subarticle - R&I (average gaps))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. significance (subarticle - R&I (significance))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
6. controversy (subarticle - R&I (controversy)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
7. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

ideally, this would cut the main article down to the 30-60kb range of text (excluding refs, figs, tables), preferably closer to 30k which is close to the attention span of most people. --W.R.N. 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, WD, we could

1. Take the summaries now in this article and put them on the pages of the sub articles.
2. Remove redundancies
3. Clean it up a bit
4. write a summary/intro
5. merge back.

I think this will be more workable in terms of page size.

JK: Race and intelligence (Intelligence test gaps between races) sounds like a good name for the data tables. (Better than, "Race and intelligence (IQ data)") - I'm going to put all of the current content there, then prune down the content here. So don't get alarmed and think I'm "deleting things."

Race and intelligence (Proxies for intelligence) - we can do this, but it needs a clear intro, that section isn't terribly long... so it's not on the top of my list for merging out. You need you explain what you mean by "Proxies for intelligence" clearly if you want to prune any of this out, I think. futurebird 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No... wait... this Race and intelligence (Intelligence test gaps between races) sounds too much like something we already have as a sub article. I think we need to use Race and intelligence (IQ data)futurebird 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet Race and intelligence (test data) futurebird 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like the idea of Race and intelligence (Intelligence tests and their correlates), based on the APA outline:

II. Intelligence Tests and their Correlates
    Basic Characteristics of Test Scores
        Stability 
        Factors and g 
    Tests as Predictors
        School Performance 
        Years of Education 
        Social Status and Income 
        Job Performance 
        Social Outcomes 
    Test Scores and Measures of Processing Speed
        Cognitive Correlates 
        Choice Reaction Time 
        Inspection Time 
        Neurological Measures 
        Problems of Interpretation 

This might be a better way of laying it out, although in the APA report, this is not in the group differences section. --JereKrischel 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's material for the IQ article, not the R&I article. Race differences in those variable are of interest to this article. --W.R.N. 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The APA report section regarding group differences has this outline:

    Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups
        Asian Americans 
        Hispanic Americans 
        Native Americans 
        African Americans 
        Test Bias 
        Characteristics of Tests 

Which may imply something along the lines of Race and intelligence (Average test scores), but that still leaves us needing a place for other correlates. I'm not sure which would be best, but just about anything would be better than "Average gaps among races". --JereKrischel 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the title of the section/article, just it's contents and treatment. --W.R.N. 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

workflow

FB wrote:

1. Take the summaries now in this article and put them on the pages of the sub articles.
2. Remove redundancies
3. Clean it up a bit
4. write a summary/intro
5. merge back.

if you are keeping the same subarticles, that works just fine. --W.R.N. 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate outline

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background/history (subarticle - R&I (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. research (subarticle - R&I (research))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.1. intelligence test data (subarticle - R&I (test data))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.2. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. media portrayal (subarticle - R&I (media portrayal))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. controversies (subarticle - R&I (controversies)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

I say we move most of the research related stuff into its own sub-article, instead of starting with the implicit assumption that "R&I" means "R&I Research". --JereKrischel 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we move History up? If we did that it'd be P-E-R-F-E-C-T! Even if we don't do that I think this is a great outline! futurebird 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it work better if we considered history part of "background"? I've made the changes to the outline above...--JereKrischel 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

what you've called "research" is like 200k of material and the bulk of what's written in books with straightforward titles like "race and intelligence". per the apa report you need to discuss phenotypic differences separately from the explanations, which are the two subarticle/section we have right now. making media-portryal a section of its own is debatable depending on how much there really is. fussing with history into/out of the "background" section is trivial i would think. --W.R.N. 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we do need an explanations section... come to think of it... as sub section of the section on research...My brian is shot... time for bed... don't do anything too wierd while i'm gone :Pfuturebird 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added back in an "Explanations" section as a sub of Research, media portrayal could fill up 200k easy, given the wealth of examples of media stereotypes over the past 100 years.

I don't know what section of the APA report you're referring to - I was originally intending that the explanations should go into the research sub-article for the most part, but I can see where futurebird is coming from. --JereKrischel 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the bulk of what's written in books is what would go under "research" - there are a host of books regarding race and intelligence that talk about the historical stereotypes and the myths of race, etc, etc...how have you come up with your measure of what the "bulk of what's written in books" is? --JereKrischel 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I look at a book's table of contents. I'm reverting the moving of the gaps section to the bottom of the article. This has no support in any 2ndary source. The APA report is the appropriate model for organizing that material. --W.R.N. 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is top down organization and it doesn't work. You can't do it. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you organize the article you've got. --W.R.N. 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a single book's table of contents hardly seems sufficient to make a claim about the "bulk of what's written"...but thank you for the clarification. If you'd like to help move the test data section into a sub section of a research section, please feel free to help organize according to our suggested blueprint.

And although you may disagree with top-down organization, I hope you can respect that it can and does work for others. If you have any particular needs for clarifying how it can work successfully, I'm more than happy to answer any specific questions you have. --JereKrischel 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's failed just now. So has collaboration as you've moved massive amounts of material out of the main article without reaching consensus. Undo your edits and discuss these kinds of removals. --W.R.N. 08:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been doing nothing but discussing these kinds of sub-article moves. And it is succeeding, just not to your liking. Please help us with concrete compromise suggestions instead of simple reversions. --JereKrischel 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As per WRN's strenuous objection, I've moved the sections around to conform closer to our intended outline, and moved the test data underneath a research section. --JereKrischel 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair warning, 3RR coming up on recent reverts by WRN. --JereKrischel 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

nm, I undid it for you. You've never presented an argument to support your claim that the description of all research related to this topic should be a single sub-section of the article. I've presented numerous sources which treat the research related to R&I extensively (book length treatments), and the most notable include a distinction between the gaps and their causes. A conclusion to that debate is a prerequisite to any such changes. --W.R.N. 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are also numerous sources that treat the historical nature of R&I assumptions and stereotypes. How would you suggest we arbitrate and conclude any debate on this issue? --JereKrischel 08:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an answer. --W.R.N. 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a question, not an answer - how do you suggest we arbitrate and conclude debate on the issue? You have presented one POV, I've presented another POV. How do we conclude the debate which you see as a prerequisite to changes? --JereKrischel 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

with evidence. and reason. without double reverting edits that one or the other disagrees with. you decided to move most of the research literature out of the article in less than a few hours of me proposing a different alternative. what kind of consensus is that? --W.R.N. 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What different alternative did you propose? I thought you had agreed we needed to move text to sub-articles. And how does reverting the reorganization (instead of reorganizing it further as per a compromise suggestion) help? --JereKrischel 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We have presented our evidence. We have discussed our reasons. How do we reach a conclusion? Do you think it is possible that we will never reach a conclusion, and therefore preclude any change at all? --JereKrischel 08:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

no, you presented your opinion. you didn't present any evidence. what is the value of an opinion not backed by reason and evidence? --W.R.N. 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What will you accept as evidence? I've provided numerous sources for you, just as you've provided numerous sources for me.

More importantly, do you have any answer for what we do after I present evidence, such as from google scholar? You seem to be avoiding that question. --JereKrischel 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

what in a search for "race+intelligence+media+portrayal" tells you that all of the psychology / sociology / neuroscience research results and their proposed explanations should be removed from the article? --W.R.N. 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being removed. We're simply moving things to sub-articles. --JereKrischel 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, down to 68K now, hopefully we can trim it down even further...the intro seems like it could use some significant trimming at this point. --JereKrischel 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

requested page protection

requested it. --W.R.N. 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This page was protected from January 22 to February 11 - a ridiculously long period for an article to be protected. During that time I attempted to mediate and three weeks is plenty enough time for editors acting in good faith to resolve their conflicts. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative policy and I do not see any editors who are acting in bad faith, violating rules of etiquette, or violating our core policies. I think there is only one issue now: are editors willing to work together? I sanyone acting as if they own the article? That no one owns an article is a very important Misplaced Pages policy. Let me remind people of what that policy states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It seems to me that page protection would serve only to protect one editor's text from any changes. I urge all editors to rely on established core policies and refer to them in arguing over edits. If an edit is fully compliant with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, let it stand. But what would be the point of protecting the page? To allow people to repeat themselves over and over on the talk page, which is precisely what people have been doing over the past couple of years? That serves no purpose. I attempted to mediate informally, but that did not work. If anyone feels frustrated right now, or fearful about the article, I urge them to make a formal request for mediation. But another day, week, or month of page protection serves no purpose except to sever this page from Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

the bottom line

WRN, please, you've worked on this series of articles for years, and you've done a great deal of work here. The article needs change, and you need to accept that. I believe everyone here who disagrees with your POV is more than willing to compromise, but simply reverting to an earlier state is not a compromise.

If you don't like how I moved a section, suggest an alternate move (as I did when you initially objected to moving test data to the end). If you don't like what got moved to a sub-article, suggest an alternate move to a sub-article, don't just blanket revert.

Strenuously objecting, and really meaning it just aren't going to work. We can use your help in crafting a better R&I article, but you have to be willing to give that help. --JereKrischel 08:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no point merely to objecting to an edit, because no Wikipedian has a veto (this would violate our policy, nobody owns an article. If you object to an edit, try to understand what motivated the edit, and address the other editors' concerns, and propose alternatives or a compromise. Otherwise, you are not collaborating, just dictating. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In all due respect JereKrischell, I think the reason you have so much trouble getting along with other editors on wikipedia is because you try to make too many changes too quickly. Give other editors a chance to absorb your changes. Don't just march in authoritatively and try to revolutionize long standing articles. I fear your approach is alienating experts in the field who no longer come here because they don't want to deal with all the stress. Wantednewlook

Ad hominem is not very interesting, especially not borderline incivility. I agree with JereKrischel and Slrubenstein. Please instead discuss usng factual arguments and suggest alternative texts.Ultramarine 17:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Going to the 3RR limit instead of to the talk page isn't WP:Consensus, it's mob rule. --W.R.N. 17:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As per Wantednewlook: WRN, I'm more than happy to try and slow down edits, if you're willing to slow down as well - if I seem like I react quickly it is because you do as well - you made your first revert last night 34 minutes after my edit, your second revert 3 minutes after my edit, and your third revert 3 minutes after my edit.

I'm sorry Wantednewlook feels that we're trying to "revolutionize" long standing articles. I know WRN has years of experience with this article, and a lot of investment, but we're here to improve things, not to ruin things. It may not be moving in a direction everyone is comfortable with, but we are all trying to help.

3RR is simply a last resort, and I'm more than willing to keep that policy to the side if WRN willing to work on concrete compromises. Simply saying that things "can't work" and reverting isn't helping improve the article from its current state.

Please, we can use your help, WRN. The Race and intelligence (Research) article is probably a great place for you to start - maybe you can help organize that section with a little more acknowledgement of the various POVs of different researches, besides cut and dry "genetic" vs. "environment". I can send you the Brian Mackenzie article as a guideline if you wish to take a look at what I see as a good outline of the issue. --JereKrischel 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, it is the organizational choice to have a Race and intelligence (Research) article that I think is a wrong move. I assume that isn't non-negotiable and that we were in fact in the middle of a discussion about organization when you made the change before consensus was reached. --W.R.N. 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What alternative do you propose? --JereKrischel 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In case that's not clear, here's what I wrote: what you've called "research" is like 200k of material and the bulk of what's written in books with straightforward titles like "race and intelligence". per the apa report you need to discuss phenotypic differences separately from the explanations, which are the two subarticle/section we have right now. making media-portryal a section of its own is debatable depending on how much there really is. fussing with history into/out of the "background" section is trivial i would think. --W.R.N. 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this edit: 07:54, 15 February 2007 WD RIK NEW ... (rv - i object strenously, see talk, don't edit war)

Which was reverted. This is not WP:Consensus. --W.R.N. 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From the article: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.. How can we get you to agree to abide by any given outcome you may disagree with? --JereKrischel 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My 200k guess was close, it's actually 183k . The full length of the article is 310k. So "research" is roughly 60% of the entire content of the article series. Presented with these figures, I don't see how it's unreasonable to expect debate on that kind of organization -- where 60% of the article content becomes a few paragraphs in the main article. --W.R.N. 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you give us a month to get, let's say, 150k of material for other articles before reverting? I think that simply measuring the existing size of the research articles doesn't necessarily make the point you want to make - given the level of depth spent quoting individual research, various data tables, etc, it seems that makes the research section particularly important to move to a summary style. Simply having 60% of the article content does not take into account the many redundancies and duplication in the current research articles, with copious citation and argument over esoteric points.

It sounds like you're arguing that R&I research should be the primary focus of the article and series, given the fact that you've spent 4 years building 200k of text on the topic. I think other editors and I have a problem with using that metric as a determinant of the primary focus of the article, since a) you've got a head start of several years, and b) it seems simply like a defense of the status quo. Can you help us find a compromise that will sufficiently open the focus of the series to alternative and significant POVs, but still give the prominence to the research topics you'd like to see showcased? --JereKrischel 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the article text count as evidence of what's been written, and my constant refrain is that you have to build the article from the bottom up, which means you organize actual article content, not hypothetical article content. Grow any missing article content and then return to the organization question if you like -- that's always been my primary suggestion. But to return to the organization question, I also made references to the contents of books and review articles that generally cover this topic. They likewise give the majority of the room to discussing research. I suggested an article outline that I think was an appropriate compromise. You suggested one in which discussion of research results and interpretations was mixed together and cut down to an impossibly diminutive size given its importance -- the mixing is a terrible idea for reasons I described above, in short the APA report and the WSJ statement recognized the need to keep these topics separate and so should we. I think my suggestion is the balanced one. In case you missed it, here it is again:

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. history (subarticle - R&I (history)) 
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. group differences in intelligence (subarticle - R&I (average gaps))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. significance (subarticle - R&I (significance))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
6. controversy (subarticle - R&I (controversy) 
     - 2-3 paragraphs
7. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

this is what we were debating before the edit war began --W.R.N. 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i wrote this on the sub-article talk page, but it belongs here too: a single research article (e.g. Race and intelligence (Research)) is a bad idea for reasons I outlined on the main talk page. you need to have two articles (one for the phenotypic differences and another for theories that explain the differences). briefly-- the data and the interpretations need to be presented separately. in a scholarly science article, these would be called the "results" and "discussion" sections. both the WSJ and the APA report took this route in their presentations, and for good reasons. please trust me when I say that it is a vital measure to make NPOV presentation of this topic possible. --W.R.N. 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that your "average gaps", "explanations" both belong in the "research" category - you can have a main article Race and intelligence (Research), and sub-articles of that Race and intelligence (average gaps) and Race and intelligence (explanations). I agree with you that both of those should be separate articles.

Significance seems to be part of "controversies". "media portrayal" certainly seems like a significant topic.

Is having two sub-articles of the Research sub-article sufficient to meet your requirement for two separate articles under research? --JereKrischel 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your statement, But to return to the organization question, I also made references to the contents of books and review articles that generally cover this topic. They likewise give the majority of the room to discussing research. - if you limit yourself to articles discussing R&I research, you'll of course get those results. Please examine the search results for "race and intelligence" on JSTOR or MUSE, or SAGE Journals for a clear indication that there is a whole host of material, not primarily focused on research. Futurebird has already done a great job of showcasing some of that material.

Again, I agree with you that "results" and "discussion" should be separate facets of "research", but I think we can still do that with sub-articles. Clearly, the existing Race and intelligence page is already too long, and we definitely need to move to more sub-articles. --JereKrischel 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the existing Race and intelligence page is already too long, and we definitely need to move to more sub-articles. -- there's no difference between our two proposals on this matter.

There's no need for 3 levels of articles in this topic. It's a complication with no obvious benefits other than to make the presentation of research results as diminutive as possible. The notion that this is a diminutive aspect of the topic is beyond all imagining. NPOV requires proportional representation. The suggestion of selection bias in sources (if you limit yourself to articles discussing R&I research) is a nonstarter. Literature searchers which include mentions of media portryal do not demonstrate that research results are not a major concern. By any reasonable metric, it is the single most notable aspect of the topic. The fact that ~200k can be written about the subject is sufficient evidence of its importance beyond what you're suggesting.

The majority of the "controversy" is about the results of research. Should the controversy also be a sub-article of "research". Likewise, the significance of R&I is an extension of the research results. Should the significance article be a sub-article of research? Assuming the answer is yes, which only makes sense under your scheme. The only content in this article would be background, history, research, and media portryal (except the part about research). That's nonsensical.

There's absolutely no reason to have three levels and no reason not to have the nature of race differences as one main section, the explanations as a main section, and so on. There need to be individual 2nd tier articles about (a) the nature of the gap (b) explantions for the gap (c) the signficance of the gap (d) controversy over the topic, etc.

The example of media portrayal only demonstrates how bad an idea it is to organize content a priori. So far, the only synthesizing references in media portrayal (besides those that are about the portrayal of research) I see is unpublished masters thesis. There's a reason FB named the main section in that article "Examples" -- it's just examples he selected to build an argument for his favorite POV.

--W.R.N. 02:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, What would a better title be? I'm open to ideas. futurebird 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you suggestion is actually nothing more than this, which seems like an odd suggestion for main article organziation:

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. history (subarticle - R&I (history)) 
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. research (sub-article R&I (research)
3.1. group differences in intelligence (subarticle - R&I (average gaps))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3.2  explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. significance (subarticle - R&I (significance))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. controversy (subarticle - R&I (controversy)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
6. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

--W.R.N. 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ::There's no need for 3 levels of articles in this topic. It's a complication with no obvious benefits other than to make the presentation of research results as diminutive as possible.. Given the amount of detail already present, 3 levels is hardly excessive. In the original format, the main article was well over 100k, and there were sub-articles well over 100k. Without pruning vast amounts of information, additional levels are virtually a mathematic necessity. I would turn it around and assert keeping only 2 levels of articles in this topic has no obvious benefit other than to make the presentation of research results as dominant as possible.

Regarding The majority of the "controversy" is about the results of research. Should the controversy also be a sub-article of "research". This isn't quite true. The majority of the 'controversy' is about the history of eugenics, scientific racism and racial oppression, and assertions of "natural orderings" of races from inferior to superior. This has little to do with any results, and a LOT to do with interpretations of the results. Many on both sides agree with the raw data, but strongly disagree on how to interpret it. (IMHO, conclusions of meta-analyses aren't really "results" - I would use that term for raw data.)

Regarding The example of media portrayal only demonstrates how bad an idea it is to organize content a priori. If fb's a priori construction of media portrayal based on concrete examples is a problem, then I would expect you to apply the same critique to your own construction of the research section based on concrete examples as well. I think you're being hypocritical in your criticism of fb's contribs to media portrayal, since they're directly congruent to your exhaustive collection of every racialist R&I study and argument. I'd be interested to understand how you rationalize a difference between the two. --JereKrischel 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like we're not speaking the same language. --W.R.N. 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can be more clear - You have just criticized fb for gathering multiple individual examples of the media portrayal of race and intelligence from primary sources as OR. You have built entire sections by gathering multiple individual examples of the arguments proposed regarding race and intelligence from primary sources. Why is your action not OR, but her action is? --JereKrischel 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What FB did would be fine if there were secondary sources to back up outline of the construction. I noted there's a (unpublished?) master thesis mentioned as support of the presentation (1st sentence of the section), which is the right kind of publication, but probably not enough. The 2ndary sources are needed to guide the building of the text, so it's not a novel "thesis" being presented. What FB wrote would be fine if not for NOR, but I'm afraid that it's her own novel intellectual creation. --W.R.N. 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The same problem will/could occur if the history section is written with a novel narrative. --W.R.N. 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Current suggestion

WRN, I believe our current suggestion lies along these lines:

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background/history (subarticle - R&I (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. research (subarticle - R&I (research))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.1. intelligence test data (subarticle - R&I (test data))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.2. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. media portrayal (subarticle - R&I (media portrayal))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. controversies (subarticle - R&I (controversies)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

Background and history seem identical, and "significance" seems a sub-article of "controversies". --JereKrischel 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Diagnostic: this appears to be product of a lay-man view of how science works. Research is an activity - a messy variegated activity. Science is the product of some research efforts. But knowledge of history can also be a product of research, etc.

The significance of group differences is a scientific question which is distinct from both the nature of the gap and the causes of the gap. Research produces science about the significance of group differences.

Moving around material in the main article doesn't change the content of the subarticles. Putting the nature and explanations of the gap into the same top-level category only confounds the two questions. If the subarticles themselves are too long, that's a separate issue to be addressed.

Controversy is about the extra-scientific controversy. Racism, utility, bias, policy implications, etc. It's a controversial article/topic -- if controversy just means controversy, then everything would be in that section.

Nothing about this topic makes sense except in light of the contemporary science. There would be no need to separately mention the history of R&I or to have a separate article on this at all there were no contemporary research results that indicated race differences in intelligence. The the pre-scientific history would just be a paragraph in an article on the history of racism. The collective effect of your edits and FBs recent edits are to obscure to the point of uselessness that there is a science which drives contemporary interest and attention to this subject. --W.R.N. 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In case that rant doesn't translate fully, here's one more take-away: the "average gaps" section is more important than the "explanations" section in terms of the details it contains for the main article. the explanations section could be summarized in a few sentences, such as "some say environment, some say genetics, they all disagree a lot about every little detail." whereas the details in the average gaps section are, as you pointed out recently, something most scholars can agree on. there are lots of specific things that that can be said to be mainstream/consensus, and much fewer cases where a short summary is forced to just say there's a disagreement. the average reader will be satisfied with an explanations section that's considerably shorter than the one found in the article now, but needs a gaps section much longer than the one in the article now. --W.R.N. 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, please forgive me for interjecting comments into your text as I'm going to do. I'm coming down with some kind of flu and this will probably be my final coherent comment till I get well.

Forgiven. Hope you feel better soon! --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The significance of group differences seems to be less of a scientific question, and more of a moral one - I think again, you're approaching this from the idea that Race and intelligence must mean Race and intelligence (Research). The significance of group differences is not solely a scientific question, it also speaks to our own value judgments and the value judgments of others. It may be a scientific question as to the magnitude, direction and cause of group differences, but significance is a subjective measure. You may be confusing it with statistical significance.

You're right to the extent that you've defined your subject, but we're not talking about the same thing -- look back into the history to see the content of the section in question. It's about the non-intelligence consequences of intelligence differences. Call it social and economic "consequences" if you prefer. Regardless, it's a question that's answered with the standard set of social science research methods, and is linked closely with the "practical validity" if IQ. --W.R.N. 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You're taking it from the POV of racialists like Rushton - they've prejudged the question, and are asserting that race is the proper unit of division, and that because of that there are certain expectations - i.e., since Blacks are less intelligent as a whole, we should expect them to be less educated, less healthy, less wealthy, etc. You're trying to play off "significance" in a way I think is unwarranted. Perhaps you could find a different term to describe what you're trying to describe? After all, if you're just talking about non-intelligence consequences of intelligence differences, rather than specifically about non-intelligence consequences of racial intelligence differences, you're talking about two different things. One is a simply social science question perhaps, but the second, framed around the construct of "race" is tightly wound with value judgment. --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy should include some of the "scientific" controversy, insofar as there is some work claimed as "scientific" that is arguably not very scientific. I see this area as a place to discuss things like TBC and REB - both purporting to be "scientific", but in many ways more opinion pieces attaching values to research. --JereKrischel 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility is about the utility of researching the question. Bias is about researcher bias. Racism is ... you get the point I hope. These are "extra-scientific" in that they extend beyond the subject of the science, extending into matters of values and matters of how the science fits into a social context. --W.R.N. 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility of research seems more of a controversy - a meta-thought about research. Bias is not only about researcher bias, but also about societal bias and the controversy around that. They extend well beyond the subject of research, and enter into values and social context even if divorced from scientific research.

I think what you may be leading up to is one of the critical issues with considering "race and intelligence" a scientific question - truth be told, nobody has come up with a truly consensus view on how to define the questions to be asked. --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you think that, Nothing about this topic makes sense except in light of the contemporary science, indicates to me that your view of this topic is very narrow. That being the case, Race and intelligence (Research) seems like a good place for you to start, with a more narrow focus. --JereKrischel 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not going to work for the reasons I presented above. There are three main topics related to "research", and each needs to be presented in summary form in the main article. Making an additional "research" article would seem to be completely redundant when that is taken into account, unless you know of some form of presentation in that article that would differentiate it from the set of the three sections in the main article.

I think research as a sub-article of Race and intelligence is easy to find boundaries for - we can talk about the test data found, and the hypotheses generated. The controversy about how to interpret the test data, or if the hypotheses are even valid questions, seem like meta-thoughts and are much less about the research, and much more about the fundamental beliefs which drive the framing of the question. --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, just because some group differences and gaps may be generally accepted, that doesn't make the conclusions based on them generally accepted, and I think that much of the excessive detail on cherry-picked studies supposedly demonstrating "gaps" isn't very useful in its current format. --JereKrischel 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're arguing that summary style should be used to reduce the size of the main page, then I agree. You could find my calling for that kind of change with Ultramarine objecting in the history of this talk page.--W.R.N. 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please accept that even before there was a single "scientific" study, or intelligence test, the topic of Race and intelligence loomed large in the minds of society. Also accept that beyond the attention of a small group of researchers and commentators, the topic of Race and intelligence is more about how it is portrayed by the media, and how it creates stereotypes that affect the way people treat each other. This is not just about contemporary science, but if you'd like to rename the article Race and intelligence (Contemporary research), perhaps that would satisfy your needs and ours. --JereKrischel 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

before -- yes, but i was talking counter-factually. it would be of no more than historical interest if (1) the science didn't exist and (2) actual differences in intelligence between races weren't of continued interest. I am dubious about claims that media portrayls of race and intelligence are a considerable subject of scholarly and public interest, but have already outlined how that can/must be demonstrated. my objection to it is merely conditional on meeting WP standards. --W.R.N. 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, I think you may be ignoring the POV that 1) the "science" that exists really isn't "science", it's more polemic (i.e., how many actual studies has Rushton or Jensen conducted, rather than simply aggregated?). We need to respect that POV, and asserting that every discussion of race and intelligence must of necessity be focused only on the "scientific" research is not going to allow that to happen. --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In case that doesn't translate fully, let's just say there is a science which drives some contemporary interest and attention to this subject, and there is also social context which is just as significant.

If we were in the year 1930, and writing this article under the auspices of a world that truly believed that races were essentialist, and that blacks were inferior, what would be more significant to put in the article, the test scores on IQ tests and a description of the statistical analysis which concluded blacks were inferior, or would it be about the social question of whether or not the science was driven by objectivity or as an excuse for white racism?

In many ways, this same context permeates the topic today, with the racialists a bit more toned down no doubt, but the social context is what looms the largest. Even Jensen was criticized more for his conclusions and proposed remedies than his data - and his conclusions about eliminating social programs may have been driven by his view of the research, but they weren't strictly science. --JereKrischel 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the point of that, but I stand by my position that there are three aspects to what you describe as the "research" component of this topic, each of importance as a individual topic in the main article. If there's a point in having a "research" subarticle intermediate to the main article and the detailed "research" subarticles, it's lost on me other than as a POV fork to obfuscate the the three aspects of the research from the main article readers. This would be no more appropriate than to remove large sections of science from evolution or global warming because so much attention is given to the extra-scientific concerns related to those topics. --W.R.N. 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and global warming are fairly clear scientific areas. If this article was called Genetic hypothesis of racial differences, and there was an article called Environmental hypothesis of racial differences, you may have a point (as analogs to Evolution and Creationism. However, race and intelligence is not a theory, and therefore not specifically a scientific question.

I think what you propose to do is akin to an article Fossils and living creatures, where evolution and creationism as theories would be bandied about and argued right on the page. Clearly Fossils and living creatures is much broader than that, just as Race and intelligence is much broader than hypotheses as to the causes of observed group differences among arbitrary groups. --JereKrischel 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

White pupils make slower progress than other ethnic groups: Indian and Black-African

Children from ethnic minority backgrounds make more progress at secondary school than their white classmates, research found today.

The Bristol University study said the improvements were most dramatic in the crucial two years before teenagers take their GCSEs.

Ethnic minority families with high aspirations may particularly encourage their children to value education as a means for "getting on" in life, the researchers said.

The academics looked at results for all pupils in English secondary schools between the ages of 11 and 16.

They found children from all ethnic groups made more progress on average than white pupils.

Deborah Wilson, who led the Bristol team, said: "Some groups make very substantial gains, in particular Bangladeshi, Indian and Black African pupils.

"Pupils with Black Caribbean and Black Other heritage remain on average below their white peers at age 16 although the gap between them closes."

Children from most ethnic groups improved faster than white pupils at the vast majority of secondary schools.

The study found that cultural factors may help explain the differences in results between white pupils and children from ethnic minority groups.

"One often proposed is the importance of aspirations and values inculcated by families and reinforced by communities, notably the importance of education for getting on in life," Dr Wilson said.

"Our finding that a key part of the relative progress of minority ethnic groups comes in the most important, high-stakes exams lends some support to this view.

"Whether the differential aspirations and the importance ascribed to education are an ethnic difference or a feature more generally of (relatively) recent immigrants is beyond the scope of our study."

The research is reported in Research in Public Policy, the bulletin of the Centre for Market and Public Organisation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389384&in_page_id=1770 --84.131.184.128 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Caid

This isn't really related to "race and intelligence". It also seems to be looking at "rate" differences, as in mathematical ones. Maybe the actual study is more informative, but this "media version" of it it is anything but. Ernham 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A new census report reveals that black Africans are now the most highly educated members of British society, with over 26% holding academic qualifications higher than "A" or college levels, in comparison with only 13.4% for white adults in British society. (SLD) http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ488935&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8003c118 --84.131.184.128 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Caid

This fact is mentioned in the model minority section. I'll look in to the paper to see if it has any useful data. futurebird 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstract and Link to study

I found the study!

Abstract: We exploit a universe dataset of state school students in England with linked test score records to document the evolution of attainment through school for different ethnic groups. The analysis yields a number of striking findings. First, we show that, controlling for personal characteristics, all minority groups make greater progress than white students over secondary schooling. Second, much of this improvement occurs in the high-stakes exams at the end of compulsory schooling. Third, we show that for most ethnic groups, this gain is pervasive, happening in almost all schools in which these students are found. We address some of the usual factors invoked to explain attainment gaps: poverty, language, school quality, and teacher influence. We conclude that our findings are more consistent with the importance of factors like aspirations and attitudes.

Sounds like support for "Ogbu Theory" I'm reading the paper now. Here is a link. The Dynamics of School Attainment of England’s Ethnic Minorities, Deborah Wilson, Simon Burgess and Adam Briggs (2005 version) futurebird 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird's summary of the study

In the UK, black children enter school at the same level as their white peers if one controls for a number of covariates. Black children then fall behind, even controlling for covariates, in the first two years of schooling, and stay behind until secondary school where they make greater progress then their white peers substantially, but not completely closing the gap.

"This suggests more systemic factors. One such often proposed is the importance of aspirations and values inculcated by families and reinforced by communities. This involves the importance of education in general, and the role of education in getting on."

The paper makes the case that "immigrant identity" and aspiration play a big role for these children, but it says little about the reason for the steady decline upon entering school. It would seem that for these minorities going to school seems to somehow makes them dumber relative to their white peers! Why is that? There's a question I'd love to read more about.

Where and how shall we use this? Probably in the section on "model minorities"

Anyone know of any studies about the resion for the "dumbing effect" of UK schools on minorities? futurebird 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

futurebird, be wary of biases. when whites progress more quickly, the schools are making minority students "dumber" relative to white students, and we must have an explanation! a study! but when minority students progress more quickly, there's no problem at all. the immigrant children are "aspiring" and have better values than lazy old whitey.

i'd imagine the case is something like this; here in the UK schools, like many US schools, don't know what to do with students that have reached a 10th grade level of understanding. the students continue to go to class and learn things here and there, but for most not in ways that show up on standardized tests. take a look at the SAT one of these days, nothing you learn past 10th grade is useful on it. so the white students plateau while the government wastes their time and in the meantime the other students catch up.

and why do the immigrant students fall behind early on? knowledge and capabilities grow geometrically. if you know x today, you won't know x+1 next year, you will know 2x, then 4x, then 8x. imagine the infant who takes two years to learn his first word; will he know only two words by the time he is four? white students enter at a higher level, so of course they progress at a higher level, until they reach the limits of the pathetic UK schools.

lastly, don't take these studies too seriously. academics needs jobs and grants, but they can't go around saying standardized tests are useless and out of the other side of their mouths tell us about their "interesting results" using data from standardized tests and why they should be given more funding to "study the issues more deeply".

I added the study to a sub-article here. Let me know what you think (or just change it if you think it could be worded in a better way.) futurebird 17:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In defense of WRN

This comment is mostly to fb and jjj, but it holds for anyone - WRNs recent revert seems justified. The point of creating sub-articles for research, and under that explanations and test data, is not to denigrate or obscure the topic or the hereditarian POV. Selectively pulling only research that refutes the hereditarian explanation and putting it into the main article really isn't appropriate. Probably the best thing to say when developing the paragraphs for the Race and intelligence (Research) sub-article intro is to assert that there is great debate, and nobody really knows the answer. Let's leave specifics, on both sides, in the sub-article.

The goal of this reorganization is to open the article's focus, not to filter the existing research article in a selective way to promote a certain POV. I think much of the problem was that when we had an article at this level, with significant detail pro/con, it was awfully hard to find a good balance. Let's work on making sure our intros to the sub-articles comply with WP:NPOV, and don't prejudge the issue. I'm sure we can fight on the sub-articles all we want, but let's do our level best to present the fact here that there is contemporary research, with various positions, but no definitive answers...it's probably the only statement we can all really agree with. --JereKrischel 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

how many articles with the title Race and intelligence (X) have been created in the last day? this is why i suggested putting all of the article content into a single place for consideration. much more than writing text, organization requires cooperation and careful thought. --W.R.N. 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We have been cooperating, and carefully thinking. I don't think your attempt at merging all the articles back into one main article really went all that well technically, given the problems it caused with peoples' browsers and their ability to successfully edit the pages. The current path we're on, organizing sub-articles, seems to be working fairly well, and had reduced the page length and opened the door to significant POVs very well. The sub-pages still need a lot of work, but at least they are in cow-sized chunks instead of elephant-sized chunks. --JereKrischel 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful!

WRN, The trouble is, that in the process of reverting you deleted some new material I'd added. I've added it back. This is the first time this happened tonight. I've left a message on your talk page about the 2nd time it happened... It's a little worrisome to me, we need to be more careful with these massive edits. That goes for you WDK, me and JK. futurebird 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i didn't "revert" i copied it from the history. --W.R.N. 02:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. that's odd, some things that I added disappeared in both cases. But, I know it's easy to make a mistke. So, I'm just saying let's all be careful. futurebird 02:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I assumed the material was deleted, so went back to the last instance I knew of. --W.R.N. 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New sections?

Are these all of the new ones Jere?

• Race and intelligence (Controversies)
• Race and intelligence (test data)
• Race and intelligence (Research)

futurebird 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, please let me know if this list is complete...futurebird 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you intended to do. It may have seemed to be an easy and good move, but it was actually an easy and poor move. You probably didn't realize it because it is only really obvious if you're familiar with all of the text in all of the articles. (Why I was trying to make everyone look at all of it at once.) The good move is going to be a lot harder, but I don't think being hard justifies taking a sub-standard route. I'll explain that in a less cryptic manner later. --W.R.N. 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Ownership_of_articles#Ownership_examples - At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting but that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it. I submit to you that our disagreement has nothing to do with who is more familiar with the existing articles, but represents justifiable rationale on both our sides. --JereKrischel 07:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason #1: the content of Race and intelligence (average gaps among races) is actually not much more detail than what grew up in the main article. For summary style, the main article content should be merged into Race and intelligence (average gaps among races) and replaced with a new shorter summary. Moving it to Race and intelligence (Research) was easier, but just resulted in massive duplication between the two subarticles.

Reason #2: Race and intelligence (test data) is bound to become an exercise original research, and will be a duplication with what should be in Race and intelligence (average gaps among races) or the achievement gap article.

Reason #3: ... --W.R.N. 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Was this to me or to JK? futurebird 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whos idea it was to create the articles, so probably both. --W.R.N. 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Test data to me seems significantly different than "average gaps among races", although probably the better thing to do is simply merge everything to test data. "Average gaps among races" seems to prejudge a lot of the fundamentals. --JereKrischel 06:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I made "test data" the other two are JK's I've been editing the content at these new articles, so if for some reason we end up restoring the content, we need to copy it from there to bring it back in... rather than just restoring to an old version of the article in the history of the main page. I've added a lot of content, and I hope that it won't be lost in the shuffle. We need to be careful about this. futurebird 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Whatever the newest version is, can you copy that to the main article, overwriting what's there? --W.R.N. 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait... we're not merging again... are we? futurebird 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It my contention is that the organizational scheme chosen was bad. I started outlining that above. I'm afraid that's all the energy I've got left right now. --W.R.N. 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New article layout

As per the suggested outline:

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background/history (subarticle - Race and intelligence (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. research (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.1. intelligence test data (subarticle - Race and intelligence (test data)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.2. explanations (subarticle - Race and intelligence (explanations)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. media portrayal (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. controversies (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Controversies)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

--JereKrischel 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

is this a suggestion? --W.R.N. 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of sub-articles recently created, as per an earlier suggestion we are trying to implement. --JereKrischel 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

does that make sense?

i moved stuff around, created, sub-articles, tagged others for merging, etc. please review the structure of what's done and let me know what you think. i think we can all agree that the actual summary sections are in need of change. i'm hoping we can figure out the organization first. --W.R.N. 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems on first glance to be fine. We still have all of JK's sections right? I'll say more later. futurebird 06:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On second glance this is NOT ok. What happened to the "direct/indirect" distinction? Brian Size isn't a "direct measure!" futurebird 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you deleted some of my content again...futurebird 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I see that you just used and old version for this new page called "significance" I don't understand the purpose of this page? When you need content from the research section could you use what I have there? I have made extensive edits to that page and it bothers me that you keep using older versions. futurebird 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Two Curve Bell diagram (Two Curve Bell.jpg): POV and Verifiability

I see this diagram as "proving" to normally educated readers that a big difference exists between Blacks' and Whites' intelligence. And, given the title of the article in which this diagram appears, a normal reader will go away with the impression (whether true or false) that the difference in inteligence is due to Race. But the debate about correlation between R & I is a major area within this article, not a universally accepted fact. I think the prominence in the lead and excellent clarity of the diagram leads to problems in balance for this article.

Also in line with WP:Verifiability I request a cite for the data presented in the graphs. I would like to be able to check how the data was "idealised". The present cite leads to a WP article with no mention of Blacks and Whites, making this diagram open to deletion. SmithBlue 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue, I've checked the data in the graph. They are from the WAIS IQ test from 1981. It is a major problem that the data are some 26 years old.

I request a cite. I wouldnt let a numerical table, or a statement in words, of data go without a cite and I treat a graph the same way. Especially with it being . A reader needs to be able to find out how it has been "normalised" "idealized". SmithBlue 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about "undue weight" I think this graph should be in the section on reserch. The best, bet would be to add other kinds of graphs from other studies, since IQ is not the only way to look at intellegence. futurebird 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The gap - the 2001 standardization of the WJ III gives a gap of 1.05 sd and the 1997 AFQT gives a gap of 0.97. The gap shown in the top graph is 0.97 sd. Flynn and Dickens (2006) estimate the gap among adults (24 yrs old) at 1.1 sd. The 1996 APA report: "The relatively low mean of the distribution of African-American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites"

Am I missing something? My understanding of WP:Verifiabilty is that a reader can go to the source of claims/statements/data presented in articles. To this end a cite is provided. I am sure both futurebird and W.R.N. are aware of this. But so far we seem to be at cross purposes. If either of you could point out why a cite for this data should not be provided I would apppreciate it. Or if I appear to be making an erroneous assumptions please point them out. If a fellow editor wants time (days) to find a cite then please say so. SmithBlue 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no other widely used and highly reliable measures of intelligence than IQ and similar tests. The 1996 APA report: "The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered." --W.R.N. 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"There are no other widely used and highly reliable measures of intelligence than IQ and similar tests."

Are you certain of this?

The 1996 APA report: "The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered."

Not exactly and enthusiastic endorsement, they are basically saying... most people have done it this way so far, and it's produced a lot of numbers.

Please don't try to discourage our research, WRN. It isn't helpful.futurebird 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain of this? - In short, yes. Please don't try to discourage our research -- I certainly don't mean to discourage research, but the original commenter raised a number of issues that needed to be addressed which I could answer. --W.R.N. 06:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Move bell curves

Back to the main point here! The graphic at the top gives undue weight to the idea that blacks are inferior to whites. It's easy to mis read it that way. Let's move it to the "research" section of the main article and the top of the page on "research". Discuss.futurebird 06:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving the graph from the lead would be progress towards balance. Presenting that data (Two Curve Bell) in such an effective form seems to require that other POVs in that area are presented equally effectively. If similar graphs can be found for other POVs then graph could be placed with them wherever suitable, wrt content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs)

(1) I don't understand SmithBlue's comment. (2) I think either of these figures would be an improvement in the lead: four curves the four curves demonstrates that the issue isn't B/W. the schematic is more demanding to understand, which may be a problem, but it does slow down the reader to make them think. the current graphic is better than these two in being simple and easy to understand - but the caption should be supplemented with comments about heterogeneity, overlap, range, etc. (3) not having a figure in the lead to graphically explain that the distributions are overlapping and that there is great heterogeneity in each group would be a great loss. the #1 misconception is that different averages mean that all members of one group are "inferior" to all members of another group. --W.R.N. 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need this image in the first place? Could it more appropriately be moved to the Race and intelligence (Research) article? --JereKrischel 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the present figure challenges the #1 misconception about statistical comparisons between groups. Unfortunately without an adequate citation and access to the source I can't tell whether it challenges or promotes misconception #2 - that only the single named factor (Race) accounts for the differences between the 2 groups. (The graph shows that "idealized" data for 1981 has Blacks mean at ~ 86 and Whites mean at ~ 105. And the data has been idealised. How? A citation is necessary.) SmithBlue 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for curves that are presented in this format, WRN will give you Gottfredson as a source. Gottfredson is hardly mainstream. You should look at the way this she has the curves labeled in this publication. Social Consequences--It's pretty silly. I think that we should use Gottfredsons labels on this graph. It would do a lot to highlight the kind of theories this sort of things is used to support. It would add context.

For awhile, I thought it made more sense to tie this directly to the WAIS from 1981. But I see, now, and perhaps this is your point, Blue, the 1981, WAIS never had curves like these, it's just raw data-- so, perhaps, we 'must use Gottfredson as the source for these curves. IF we do that then I think we need to add all of silly labels Gottfredson, and we can't possibly use this as the lead graphic. It would need to go in the research section... at best. futurebird 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. My present understanding is that the 2 bell curves in the R&I article are unadjusted for other factors? If so: These raw data curves appear irrelevant to this article. The presentation of raw data that takes no account of the effects of any other of the factors proved by psychology to effect IQ scores would likely mislead the non-statistically trained section of the readers. They promote misconception #2 - that the single named factor (Race) accounts for all of the differences between the 2 groups.

If IQ data is valid then the curves that remain after adjustment for all other known variables do appear relevant to this article. If we dont use adjusted data we indicate a lack of faith in psychological science which we relied on for the validity of the IQ data in the first place. SmithBlue 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SmithBlue, I agree that it would be helpful to present adjusted curves, but I do not have a source that would let me create such a graph without doing "original research." Can you suggest a source?

I know that the gap can be reduced to 3 IQ points or 0.2 SD if adjusted for a series of social and economic factors. What I do not know are the SDs for the black and white curves once adjusted. I imagine, due to the smaller sample size the SD for the black curve will be a bit smaller, making the curves very very close in appearance. (In the current graph the bright yellow and bring red section would be thin slivers. The bright red section would be slightly wider that the bright yellow section)

I would like to see curves like these presented, but I just don't have enough data to make them without trying to do my own regression. futurebird 17:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a confounding of the question of phenotypic differences with their causes. There's a reason that all major sources on this topic avoid that confounding (e.g. the APA report, WSJ report, many boooks). If two groups are of different average height, they're not less phenotypically "different" if the cause of the gap is nutrition, genetics, or divine intervention. --W.R.N. 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Than can be less phenotypically different if there are different definitions of the groupings. Note that the APA report avoids this confounding of "race" with "group" explicitly. --JereKrischel 06:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Source? --W.R.N. 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This article title includes "race". The APA article W.R.N. cited to me] includes the following: (the) "correlation between "socio-economic status" (SES) and scores on intelligence tests is well known (White, 1982)." Which means that, by presenting the raw data without adjusting for SES, this graph presents data comparing USA Blacks and Whites IQ scores - not, as would be appropriate, data showing differences between races. (Cause if it was differences between races we want to show we would remove other factors from the data. To take W.R.N. average height example - if we want to write about height and race we would not look at raw data comparing half starved Eritreans with fully nourished Dutch people. Instead we might compare fully nourished Eritreans and fully nourished Dutch and half starve Eritreans with half-starved Dutch. This might remove the nutrition factor from the data leaving us with a view of height and race.) The present graphic is irrelevant to this article and its inclusion here is highly misleading. Substituting Godfredson(Sp?) graph does not improve this in way. SmithBlue 09:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole APA report. No causal factor has been demonstrated to account for any of the gap in a fashion that it could be said to be known to be a cause. All causal hypotheses listed are speculative. --W.R.N. 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I read nothing justifying the presention of the whole gap as the product of race. Which is what the 2 bell curve graphic does. What I do read is couched in terms of "ethnic groups". I have not got a source for material that states that differences between ethnic groups IQ is solely due to race. If we had that material then presenting the current 2 bell curves as showing differences due to race would be justified. Without it we would be doing WP:OR. SmithBlue 10:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Still more problems with these curves

I was going to add in the labels, but in doing so I discovered that these curves are not the same as those in the source. Why is that? futurebird 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't really understand why the curves are the same size when the population sizes are different. I know we been through this before, but help me out here. What is the rationale for making the curves the same size in the first place? I think this is one of the reason we have so much trouble finding a source with curves like these other than Gottfredson... there is something odd and novel about the presentation of her curves... correct me if I'm wrong here. futurebird 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the curves are the same size because they show the distributution in percent of each group. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like these curves have been manipulated to make it seem as if a substantial portion of black people are, well, retarded. I mean, the paper where these curves came from is just plain filled with right-wig assumptions and then, on top of that the version that WRN NEW posted is off even more in the direction of making black people seem dumb. I'm shocked. How do people think they can get away with this kind of nonsense? Thanks futurebird for getting all nit-picky and comparing the curves, you've uncovered something very disturbing! JJJamal 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just rehashing the same argument. There is nothing new here that hasn't been discussed before. I've proposed taking this out or moving it down from the top. Either get rid of it (with my support) or stop complaining about it. It demonstates the concept of the bell distribution. If the variances between the distributions is accurate then the graphic is appropriate. If the variance is wrong or the centers of the bell(s) are in the wrong place, that can be fixed by moving the bells or shifting the labels. --Kevin Murray 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray is correct. The charts plot the means from the '81 WISC normalization, but use 15 as the SD to simplify things. The net effect of ignoring SD or using some other adult normalization sample is negligible because the point of the curves are to demonstrate the distributional nature of the differences. --W.R.N. 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of current articles and sub-articles

• Race and intelligence (history) - For the history of this topic.
• Race and intelligence (Research) - Meta-topic on research

• Race and intelligence (Average gaps among races)

• Race and intelligence (test data)

• Race and intelligence (Explanations)
• Race and intelligence (Utility of research)
• Race and intelligence (Potential for bias)

• Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) - How Race and intelligence have been seen in media.
• Race and intelligence (Controversies) - is this the same as "Potential for bias" ...

What is the point of this new sub-article article Race and intelligence (significance)? futurebird 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JK thinks "significance" is a "controversy" topic. I think it's a "research" topic. Either way, it's a big chunk of text that needs its own sub-article. I'll move it to a top level entry to circumvent the categorization debate.

Having "research" and "controversy" articles seems redundant with the sub-articles they contain. It seems to be an unnecessary complication. --W.R.N. 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JK, if you look on the comments page of the new article you'll see that userPOM is also wondering what the point of Race and intelligence (significance) could possibly be. Please try to work with all of us, WRN. This new sub-section is confusing. I don't think it works.futurebird 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's my frame of reference. Before any reorganization started, that was a top level section in the main article with all of the content currently found in the main article. Assuming that all of the text and material go somewhere, the obvious place is its own sub-article. --W.R.N. 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

fyi, i think they've been missed, but i put merge tags all over the place. "research" and "controveries" should be dissolved into their constituent subarticles. --W.R.N. 20:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

everyone seems really confused, so i'm just going to try to execute my proposed merges so you can see what i mean. --W.R.N. 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do this. There is no consensus for this. futurebird

iq and the wealth of nations criticism don't apply to Lynn (2006)

my edits were reverted by FB. from my edit summary, here is the reason for the edits: those criticisms are about the single-study scores used to esimate national IQ in IQatWoN; don't apply. the criticism is about a detail of IQatWoN that doesn't map to RDI. --W.R.N. 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's no reason to delete sourced information. futurebird 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's OR to say that criticism of book X applies to book Y just because the author is the same and the topic is similar. The criticisms may or may not apply, in fact they do not. --W.R.N. 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on restating this. futurebird 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the article says "Lynn's datasets are criticized as being unrepresentative". But the cited article is talking about *single studies* in Africa, Central America, etc., not the *dozens of studies* of many samples from developed countries -- the only ones shown in figures in our article. i don't know of any criticism that *those* samples are overall unrepresentative of the populations they are taken from. most of those populations are discussed in the APA report, although its now a bit dated - a lot of the studies are post 1990. --W.R.N. 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cooporation and respect for others

1. WRN reverted page over multiple I made changes causing a few paragarphs I'd added to be lost in the process. Had to restore the new things I added by hand.
2. Told WRN about restoring to older version without African information:
3. WRN made a new page Race and intelligence (significance) and used and older version of the section on high-achieving minorities even after we talked about "being careful" on the talk main talk page.
4. deleting referenced criticisms.

Currently, WD is ignoring the concerns of JK myself and others and destroying the Race and intelligence (Controversies) and Race and intelligence research articles to create his own organizational scheme. Given his pattern of ignoring things that I've added to articles... (see above) This makes me very unhappy. I don't think WD is listening to others or trying to cooperate. He's just restructuring an article ONE DAY after JK and I tried a new structure. This gave us no chance to even try our plan out. There was no consensus for these changes. I feel like I'm being steam rolled by an individual with POV point to make.futurebird 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the other version either. Look at the net effect of this one and report what you like or don't like as I did. If you feel compelled to make further changes, do so. If it weren't so difficult, I would add a request for mediation. --W.R.N. 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(comment deleted)

In what ways have I "run amok",Kevin ? Please tell me. And where did your comment go? futurebird 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• FB I said something in frustration which I quickly reverted as I thought it was an overstatement and not pertinent to you alone. However, I feel that this whole process has devolved away from order and the article is now a bloated debate. I don't think that any consensus is being reached before major changes are being made. I think that this page should be protected again and edits made by a neutral editor based on recognized consensus. --Kevin Murray 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone less intimidated by the nasty sounding form should submit a request for formal mediation for the organization question. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation If no one does it, I'll eventually do it, but it looks like it would take a lot of time to do correctly. --W.R.N. 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)