| Revision as of 10:06, 5 July 2005 view sourceArbor (talk | contribs)2,326 edits Link to archives← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:23, 5 July 2005 view source Arbor (talk | contribs)2,326 edits Heavy-handed archiving.Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *Please maintain '''professionalism''' in your posts, even on emotional topics like ] and ]. Don't speculate on the motives of the other contributors to this article. If you want to volunteer at Misplaced Pages, follow the civility guidelines: ''See ]'' | *Please maintain '''professionalism''' in your posts, even on emotional topics like ] and ]. Don't speculate on the motives of the other contributors to this article. If you want to volunteer at Misplaced Pages, follow the civility guidelines: ''See ]'' | ||
| == a note for Ultramarine == | |||
| What was wrong with the bold part of this sentence? --] 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Several published consensus statements agree that the large differences between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites cannot be attributed to biases in test construction, '''nor do they "simply reflect differences in socio-economic status" (Neisser et al., 1996).''' | |||
| ::This statement seems exclude any kind of influence of SES which is certainly debated today. ] 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think they merely mean to exclude simple influences of SES. Can we say that instead? By simple, I think they mean in a model w/o a race X SES interaction factor, it doesn't seem like SES; but that's not easy to summarize... which is why I was going for a quotation. --] 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about, nor can they be explained only by differences in SES. ] 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::done... ''just by simple differences'' --] 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| We need to be careful with this sentence: --] 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The Black-White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S. | |||
| I don't doubt that the data exists, merely that we can be certain of the interpretation presented on this blog. I suggest ''is'' --> ''may be'' unless we can find a published secondary source to make that interpretation certain. alternatively, we can do the ''some reports indicate that...'' form. | |||
| :"Some reports indicate" is fine. ] 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hybrid vigor == | |||
| I've started doing a little research on hybrid vigor and my first Google hit produced an interesting illustration of what hybridizing previously isolated lineages can do. People are not maize, but maize may be food for thought. I just thought I'd pass it along: http://maizeandgenetics.tamu.edu/hybridvigor.htm | |||
| ] 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Figures== | |||
| What software was used to draw the figures? ] 11:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Excel. Powerpoint to color the top figure. Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator for touch-up. --] 14:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletions ex machina? == | |||
| I have noticed 4 (?) cases of deletions, all since Misplaced Pages came back with new software or whatever it was they changed. That kind of thing has never happened before in the history of this discussion over the last 2-3 months. It seems always to be the po sting that follows newly inserted material that gets wiped. So I suggest that we just watch it for a while and not assume that anybody is maliciously or carelessly wiping stuff out. | |||
| It is possible that the page has grown to such lengths that some software is choking on the memory burden. ] 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC) | |||
| :No, there is a bug in the new upgrade software. It has been discussed on the wikien-l@wikipedia.org email list. Check after each edit to see if something has been deleted that was unintended.--] June 29, 2005 05:30 (UTC) | |||
| ::SB is right. <s>rant removed as requested</s> ] ] June 29, 2005 15:25 (UTC) | |||
| :::No personal attacks. Yes, developers are people too. ;) -] June 29, 2005 16:39 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Deletions ex machina'' indeed! -] June 29, 2005 21:12 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Uhhh. What I meant was that the deletions may well have been coming "out of the machine" rather than being attributable to any specific person. (I was seeing postings starting with, "XYZ please do not delete my postings." If you see one such deletion it may well be that somebody did it by mistake somehow, but four or five in a row makes that possibility very unlikely, and it appeared very unlikely to me that there was any malicious intent involved. Two possibilities occurred to me, one, that "there is a bug in the new upgrade software," and the other was that since some computers in the past have had trouble with large blocks of text something odd might be happening with what an individual's computer sent back to Misplaced Pages as the result of doing an edit. ] 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC) | |||
| == Unanswered questions on apparent racist method of presentation == | |||
| Why did someone archive discussions that were active as of a few hours ago? The archiving is rather surprising considering some people kept repeating that I never provide citations but when I do they archive, damage the quality of the text or misdirect away in a myriad of different ways. Anyway, here are some unanswered questions and citations that prove there is no consensus to frame this issue exclusively in terms of race. | |||
| * The following article goes into some detail about my similar point that the issue is framed entirely in terms of race so everyone is constantly thinking about it exclusively in terms of race, which is exactly how a racist would want us to think. "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of... 'race'" | |||
| :* The above URL is from a larger series of articles with tons of info "The current attack on black people using phony science" | |||
| * "Intellectual tricks can always fool those receptive to racism" | |||
| * "Bad Science makes for Bad Conclusions" | |||
| * "How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race" ]] 29 June 2005 18:42 (UTC) | |||
| Zenmaster, I did the archiving. It was a pretty large task, but I am sorry if I missed something that was still "live". Thank you for bringing back your considerations; I will try to be more careful in the future.] 29 June 2005 19:45 (UTC) | |||
| To actually answer your questions, thank you so much for providing this material. On the face of it, these things seem to be (as Rik put it) tertiary sources that discuss secondary sources (for example, ''The Bell Curve''). Note that the latter work is ''not'' the cornerstone of our little article here, in fact very few citations use material from Hernstein and Murray. Instead, most of the material in the article is based on ''primary'' sources, i.e., studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals. It would be apt if your counterpoints exhibited a similar degree of reliability. But I will be happy to go through all of them in detail, maybe there is an observation or two that we can put in the introductory section. (You can do that yourself, if you want.) ] 29 June 2005 19:45 (UTC) | |||
| :Your point about "peer reviewed journals" ignores criticisms of the method of presentation and the media's complicity in errantly framing this issue. The first two URLs are from 2004 and cover the entire "race" vs "IQ" scheme so your point about it only being applicable against the bell curve or "secondary sources" is also invalid. The first thing this article needs is a title change, to ] or something better. ]] 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC) | |||
| ::The sources ZM has provided are all media sources. I cannot find a single study among them. Moreover, the sources are rather shrill and suffer from their own factual deficits. As just one example, the page referenced by ZM's first bullet point, in criticizing a genetic argument, says, | |||
| :::"First of all, it is false that 'evolution has turned out Ashkenazi Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay Sachs.'" | |||
| ::The author's argument is that Tay Sachs is deleterious, thus it couldn't have evolved. The author clearly hasn't the first clue about genetics. Heterozygosity for a particular gene confers malaria resistance, but homozygosity causes sickle-cell anemia; the gene persists because of its heterozygous benefit. The analogy to Tay Sachs is essentially perfect, as Tay Sachs also involves a homozygous-lethal allele whose heterozygous form has recently (and quite topically) been implicated in Ashkenazim IQ advantages (Cochran 2005). | |||
| ::The above simply underscores the importance of reliance on ''peer-reviewed science'' rather than credulous online media screeds. Kindly provide some peer-reviewed science comparable to the material already in the article. I'd be impressed even by some factual online media screeds, at this point. --] 29 June 2005 20:34 (UTC) | |||
| ::I created ] a couple of days ago. Please expand it. ] ] June 29, 2005 20:30 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediator's role== | |||
| Hey, is this mediation over? Everyone on speaking terms again? Can I comment on the article as an ordinary mortal? ] ] June 29, 2005 20:33 (UTC) | |||
| :From my vantage point, yeah, please! --] 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, here goes nothing! ] ] June 29, 2005 20:47 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not consider you a mediator or neutral as far as this subject goes, nice try though. Did you just appoint yourself "mediator"? You guys are masters at deception and misdirecting away from the core of the issue. ]] 30 June 2005 02:56 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As explained previously, Uncle Ed is an administrator who's presence was requested by one of the users here because a user was making accusations and name-calling in a way that some users felt to be inappropriate.--] ] 30 June 2005 05:26 (UTC) | |||
| Now that the name-calling has stopped, I have resumed ordinary participation in the crafting of this article - and related articles. In case you haven't noticed, I started: *], and also | |||
| *] | |||
| You should be flattered, Z! Both articles were inspired by something you said. ] ] June 30, 2005 19:58 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problems with this topic== | |||
| #Terms are unclear / in dispute | |||
| #*"race" means skin color but also has cultural & historical connotations | |||
| #*"intelligence" has never been defined well | |||
| #Some racial/ethnic groups score measurably lower '''on average''' than others on ]s and ]s | |||
| #*Some people positively GLOAT over this | |||
| #*Some people want to pretend it's not happening | |||
| #*Some people say the tests are biased | |||
| #*There's a long running social and legal battle over remedies for this "problem", e.g., ] | |||
| All of the above complicate the (purely scientific) task of objectively determining what the relationship has been, is, or could be - between "]" and "]". | |||
| That's my two cents. ] ] June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC) | |||
| :Re: "'race' means skin color..." Race is not as poorly defined as it's often made out to be, and does accurately refer to genetic groups (Tang 2005).--] ] 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC) | |||
| :Ed, I think you are right about the diagnosis. The question now, I think, is whether it is sufficient to simply hyperlink the words "race" and "intelligence" to other articles, expect general readers to inform themselves, expect them to carry a correct understanding back to this article, and so forth. If we were dealing with a less momentous topic we might take the attitude that it is the readers' fault when they fail to figure out what is really going on. But I believe that we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence. The way that people ordinarily see things, unfortunately, makes them replace the word "some" with the word "all" without being consciously aware that they're doing it. "Some men are stronger than any woman" becomes "(All) men are stronger than women." The same kind of reasoning, especially at an emotional level, also applies to questions of and . Do we try to deal with this kind of thing in the way we write the article, or not? ] 29 June 2005 21:58 (UTC) | |||
| ::You claim that we have a "social responsibility", but is the point of an encyclopedia to provide information, or is it to shape a reader's mind and lead him or her to socially desirable thoughts and actions? I believe it is the former. ] 29 June 2005 22:16 (UTC) | |||
| :::So do I. The meaning of information is dependent on context. (And I don't "claim," I just "believe.") ] 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the general claim (belief) that readers should not be misled. However, the "reader error" here has been taken to what I feel are unreasonable extremes. "Race and intelligence" does not mention any races, specify the nature or direction of the relationship, or make value judgments. The only statements that the title makes are that there is something called Race worthy of discussion, something called Intelligence, and some relationship between them. The day that ] or ] adopts scare-quotes/qualifications, so should we. Until such a day, the title says no more or less than those two titles plus a conjunction. That conjunction is justified by the article's content on all sides of the issue. (That is, the views of pure debunkers like Gould fall neatly under "race and intelligence".) | |||
| ::There exists an enormous literature on race and intelligence, from scientific studies to popular treatments like Gould's work. Across almost all of those works, intelligence appears to be the most widely used term for measures of cognitive ability, and race appears to fill the same role for group ancestry. Given the area of inquiry's existence and importance, we should have an encyclopedia article on it, and we should not get hung up on what people might improperly infer from the use of the most common words in the title. We should start the article with some disclaimers, and to my mind, the whole front-end is practically dripping with everyone's cumulative caveats. Enough, already. --] 29 June 2005 23:18 (UTC) | |||
| Patrick wrote: | |||
| :''we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence'' | |||
| Well, why don't we say in the introductory paragraphs that the article '''examines the question''' of how race and intelligence may or may not be related? I would suggest: | |||
| *Researchers have long sought to define the relationship between "race" (i.e. skin color) and intelligence. Some, such as Prof. Q of University #1, assert that race correlates strongly with IQ test scores. Others, such as Prof. R and Politician S, dispute the accuracy of Q's assertion. | |||
| We might even go so far as to say: | |||
| *Q argues from this correlation that there exists a "racial disparity" which he explains with the hypothesis that: | |||
| *:the darker you are, the dumber you are (Journal of Irreproducible Results, Volume -6, page 4F) | |||
| *R and S loudly contend than Q is just a racist who: | |||
| *:deliberately ignores other factors such as wealth and educational attainments of the test taker's parents; cultural bias in the tests themselves; the lingering effects of centuries of slavery and segregation; and the parodoxical attraction of under-educated sports heroes. | |||
| Okay, we can leave out the sports heroes, but that's how i would like to start things off. Nobody could possibly misconstrue it, anyway. ] ] June 30, 2005 01:13 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition to its flippancy, this proposal has numerous problems which suggest only passing familiarity with the subject. | |||
| :Most importantly, your statements misrepresent the debate as it exists in the literature and even on this site. That some racial groups in the U.S. have different average scores on cognitive tests is beyond dispute. What people are disputing, here, is whether there is anything meaningfully called a "racial group", whether cognitive tests have anything to do with the common-sense concept of intelligence, and whether any meaningful relationship exists (or, in extreme cases, whether the two subjects can even be placed in conjunction). | |||
| :No scientist I'm aware of has "asserted" a correlation between race and IQ test scores ("assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof"). Correlations have been ''reported'', and explanatory relationships have been both ''reported'' and ''hypothesized''. Moreover, I don't know of anyone in this discussion who would equate race with skin color as you have ("i.e." means "that is"). I'm strenuously opposed to the use of labels like "racist" in the article, and hopefully do not need to belabor the reasons. | |||
| :All these distinctions matter, and it is precisely this kind of fine-toothed comb that the present article has been subjected to over many months. I would urge great care in suggesting changes. All that said, I welcome your input. --] 30 June 2005 01:58 (UTC) | |||
| :IMHO, the current article covers the appropriate distinctions sufficiently; or rather as best as we can w/o violating policy. Re-read the article and I think you'll see it's very carefully written. If this were a personal essay, I would emphasize the distinction between thinking about races/intellligence in terms of Platonic typologies/categories versus statistical populations/distributions. But I don't know of any good references to support making that kind of distinction matter-of-factly in the intro of this article, so we are left with more basic (citation supportable) claims like ''the distributions of IQ scores overlap''. --] June 30, 2005 02:58 (UTC) | |||
| == Rationale for recent changes == | |||
| * There is no nothing approaching consensus on whether IQ is an objective measure of intelligence, so that is why I changed the title to ]. Though my other title criticisms as far as the issue errantly being framed only one way still apply (see above and in the archive). | |||
| * I cleaned up suspicious, repeated out of place emphasis in the "Background information" section. Can someone explain that, what use did it serve? | |||
| * I cleaned up the wording of the intro for the sake of clarity. The pro "correlation equals a conclusion" people can add to it or dispute my changes if they want. I am still trying to figure out what the correlation study authors have come up with, seems to me they have only, repeatedly, described a correlation, and have not, and don't seem to be working toward, trying to find an actual cause for the correlation (description of a correlation does not equal causation for that correlation). | |||
| Comments? ]] 30 June 2005 06:06 (UTC) | |||
| Zen, you cannot do this. We have debated the title at length over the last few weeks. The article has been through a VfD. There was nothing even approaching consensus for renaming, changing, or moving this article to '''Race and IQ'''. You are POV-pushing ''and'' violating WP etiquette. It is difficult to view this as an act of good faith, and I will revert you. | |||
| To reiterate the main reason to oppose the name change: the article is not only about IQ. It is also about SAT, g, brain size, and reaction time. Race and IQ is a misleading title. ] 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC) | |||
| :Huh? All the other correlations are even more dubious. "IQ" is less misleading as a title than an unscientifically conclusive correlation with "intelligence". How can certain "races" have good "reaction time" in sports yet not when it comes to intelligence? That does not make sense, this article is one giant racist propaganda machine. There is no consensus for what you are saying, the title and article should reflect where the lack of consensus begins which is exactly the changes I made. How do you explain the emphasis all over the history section? Can you please restore exactly the changes that you do consider "good"? If you don't explain the full revert then I will revert. ]] 30 June 2005 06:47 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry, Zen, but you are breaking Wikiquette, not me. We have discussed this article at length here, and in the VfD. To make a substantial change (like moving the article's title and making it be only about IQ, not about other measures of intelligence) you need ''consensus'' among Misplaced Pages editors. You don't have that. Quite the contrary, actually. So you are out of line, from an administrative point of view. Lacking consensus for a major change, the ''status quo'' is to be maintained. That's how we do it here. | |||
| You are also wrong about your repeated allegations of us being unscientific. There is a ''scientific journal'' (peer-reviewed) called '''Intelligence'''. It is not called '''“Intelligence”''' (in quotes) not '''IQ''' nor '''Intelligence measures''' nor anything like that. It's called '''Intelligence'''. That is the term used by the ''scientific community'' to discuss the topics pertaining to this article. (Studies of '''Race and IQ''' are a subfield of this line of inquiry.) You may not like that. You may think it's misguided, racist, stupid, inflammatory, and whatnot. But it is strictly ''scientific''. (Again, I urge you to have a look at ''Mainstream science on intelligence'' or the APA report.) So please stop labelling our endeavors as unscientific. Indeed, it would be welcome if you yourself increased the level of scientific reliability in your contributions. So far, you have posted ''web pages''. Stop doing that, and refer us to ''peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict what is said in this article'', preferably some that ''are not already mentioned here''. Your scientific method so far has been ''google''. The rest of the editors use ''peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals''. | |||
| As to your changes, some of them I quite liked and I will be happy to put them back (you write good prose, and some of the bumpier passages improved from your attention). But the majority were either heavily POV, or simply bad Misplaced Pages style. For example, you removed a lot of wikilinks and boldface on title terms. You also boldly removed a few paragraphs whose removal you must have assumed were controversial. You need to take these things up in talk first. ] 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC) | |||
| :Amen. ZM, build consensus. We're literally in the middle of discussing possible changes to the intro here; your etiquette violation is quite astonishing. Propose the changes here, and let's discuss. You will not be able to remake a relatively stable community-edited article in your own image overnight. Arbor's reaction is perfectly justified. --] 30 June 2005 14:43 (UTC) | |||
| :If it is your own, personal POV that race and intelligence are unrelated then: | |||
| :#You are welcome to say so, here, on the talk page. We will all take note of your opinion. | |||
| :#You may not mention your opinion in the article, either as ''I Zen-master believe this'' or ''Misplaced Pages says so'' | |||
| :#You might be able to find a published source which sees the matter from the same POV. In which case, '''please make sure that this POV is in the article, properly sourced.''' ] ] June 30, 2005 15:08 (UTC) | |||
| :But you may '''not''' change an article title to make it seem as if Misplaced Pages endorses or condemns a particular point of view. You said something like ''race and intelligince are unrelated'' and so you changed the title of the article to ]. Is that correct? ] ] June 30, 2005 15:11 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not saying what you claim. The issue isn't about my "POV" of thinking that "race" and "IQ" are "unrelated" as you misdirect, the issue is the non neutral and unscientific presentation of this subject. The problems with this article are beyond POV, only one way of '''describing''' the issue is being allowed, why? That does not follow the scientific method. If your or the article's goal is to prove some "races" are inherently less "intelligent" you have failed miserably given the fact that the language trickery and lack of scientific method employed by you and the article taints any conclusions or assumed conclusions. "Peer reviewed journals" doesn't mean much if "researchers" and people such as yourself ignore valid criticisms, especially when the criticisms are pointing out how the issue is unscientifically framed. ]] 30 June 2005 17:08 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not my goal at all. If you'll check out my contribs you'll see what I've been doing. The three main POVs are (1) race determines intelligence, (2) environment determines intelligence, (3) no one knows what determines intelligence. If you think I'm pushing one of these, I couldn't begin to think why. ] ] June 30, 2005 20:03 (UTC) | |||
| Ed, I need to cut in here. That's simply not what the main POVs are. No paper I have ever seen on this topic even comes close to claiming (1). I understand that your description above is well-intentioned, but you are simply wrong. If you ''want'' to give a simplified explanation at all, there are 2 POVs: (1) this topic is a non-topic (e.g., because it's taboo, or a linguistic trick, or dangerous, or neither of the terms '''race''' or '''intelligence''' is meaningful) (2) the question ''is'' meaningful, and there ''is'' a corellation between race and intelligence. The first POV is seen in the public debate (for example, ''The Mismeasure of Man'' is the best-known exposition). The second POV is ''consensus'' in the scientific community (for example, see the APA report or ''Mainstream science on intelligence'', both of which attempt to give laymen an overview of what "science thinks"). The 2nd POV can be subdivided into two: (2a) the correlation is caused ''entirely'' by environmental factors, and (2b) the correlation is ''not entirely'' caused by environmental factors. I hope this helps. To repeat: absolutely nobody in the scholarly debate would ever postulate the completely ridiculous idea that race ''determines'' intelligence. (But there may be a correlation.) ] 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC) | |||
| :On the IQ vs. other measures point, what's your (ZM) citation for "dubious" correlations between other measures? In particular, I'm thinking of ], where work on Spearman's hypothesis has quite reliably shown a positive correlation between ] loading of a test and the degree of black-white score disparity. This work is treated (and cited) on ]. This work is crucial as ] is the most widely accepted measure of cognitive ability (see the APA report) and would be discounted by the title "Race and IQ". Moreover, "... coincides well with lay perceptions of intelligence. The ''g'' factor is especially important in just the kind of behaviors that people usually associate with 'smarts'..." "The ''g'' factor is also the one attribute that best distinguishes among persons considered gifted, average or retarded." (Gottfredson 1998). To summarize the dominant scholarly view, ''g'' measures what people seem to mean by intelligence, and measures it well. | |||
| :Finally, given your preoccupation with language abuses, please don't use "dubious" to describe correlations. Do you mean "statistically insignificant"? If so, please re-read the literature. Do you mean "small"? If so, please provide examples (preferably from the literature) to help the reader calibrate. Do you mean "unreliable"? Then report the conflicting results. --] 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC) | |||
| ::The fact that correlation "researchers" have repeatedly focused on just one way of looking at the issue taints the analysis and all inferred conclusions and is therefore dubious. G theory seems like a way of further misdirecting the issue. The controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why only focus on one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why isn't nutrition/environment given a scientific chance at being presented neutrally? ]] 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC) | |||
| ==Correlation between race and "IQ"== | |||
| I found this after only a few seconds of googling: | |||
| :The research on IQ and race by ], ], Herrnstein and Murray ('']'') and others have not found any significant correlations between ]. They have found correlations between ], which has been used to support the notion that some races are inferior to others. | |||
| Is this what you're referring to, Zen-master? ] ] June 30, 2005 15:21 (UTC) | |||
| : I think most of the editors here know the skepdic passage by heart. I am personally a member of the Skeptic society, and find the entry completely unacceptable. It was, however, among the first things I learned about the subject, so it has been very influential. Afterwards, I started to read less biased accounts, actually examining the data, and had to change my mind. So please read at least the "reader comments" section after the skepdic entry; to see that this is a hotly debated issue even among skeptics, and this entry is subject to a lot of scorn. Also, one of the editors of the Skeptic society's magazine (Frank Miele) has written at length about this subject, including a very good and lengthy interview with Jensen in book form. I repeat that ''google'' really isn't the most powerful form of scientific inquiry known to mankind, and if you want to read up about the subject (which I would heartily invite you to), start with Rushton and Jensen (2005), which you can download. There you can find a very comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed, scholarly works that establish a correlation between '''Race and XYZ''' for lots of '''XYZ''' other than '''IQ''', all related to whatever fuzzy concept of '''intelligence''' one might subscribe to. (Of course, instead of going to Rushton and Jensen, you could also just trust your own Misplaced Pages editors and read the current article instead. It's less convincing, because we aim for NPOV, but it's very well referenced.) ] 30 June 2005 15:36 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll go a bit further. The statement you have found by Googling is false; see above and, in particular, the Spearman's hypothesis work on race and ''g'' referenced in ]. Another poster child for why we need primary sources, not Web opinions. --] 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't say the statement was true. But I mention it because it seems to resonate with a repeated comment by ZM. | |||
| :Nor did I imply that you believed the statement. Only saying that it's demonstrably false. As such, given that several of us continue to agitate for primary sources, it adds little. We have N references from websites supporting ZM, but precious few primary research articles. --] 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC) | |||
| Also, there seems to be a considerable controversy over the correlation between skin color or race, and scores on IQ tests. So I have started a new article on ]. | |||
| I hope Misplaced Pages's series of articles on human intelligence will cover the broad scope of academic and social views. | |||
| :No argument here. I hope that the reader will not be confused as to which is which. As a population geneticist, I'm (obviously) appalled at the degree to which unsubstantiated claims and ludicrous mudslinging (e.g. the quote comparing Jensen's goals to those of Hitler), counterfactual statements (e.g. "The research...has found no significant correlation between race and intelligence"), and outright falsehoods (e.g., that the APA denounced ] as fraudulent) are mixed together with data from top journals. My view is that there should be a clear distinction between the science, the academic criticism, and the lay debate, which bears almost no relation to the expert debate. --] 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC) | |||
| And I'd still like to hear from Z. ] ] June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC) | |||
| ==Brain size info moved to craniometry page== | ==Brain size info moved to craniometry page== | ||
| Line 202: | Line 12: | ||
| ==Three POVs== | |||
| :On standardized intelligence tests, black Americans score an average of 10-15 IQ points lower than white Americans. There is no debate on this point. The controversy revolves around the interpretation of this difference. Some experts believe that the two groups differ in inherited abilities. '''Others argue that the difference in average IQ can be caused entirely by environmental differences between the two groups.''' A third view holds that genetic and environmental differences are so entwined that we cannot adequately resolve the controversy now. | |||
| Why can't we put it this way? ] ] June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC) | |||
| :The presentation's fine. Given the centrality of these data to the entire page, I urge citations. I prefer the APA's language: "the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites (Loehlin et al, 1975; Jensen, 1980; Reynolds et al, 1987)" as it a) is the standard way of reporting the data, b) gives both magnitude and basis for comparison, and c) is followed by several citations. --] 30 June 2005 17:59 (UTC) | |||
| ::You both have jumped to conclusions again, the controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why repeatedly correlate with just one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why repeatedly frame an abstract issue just one way? You don't seem to allow for the possibility that nutrition/environment is 100% the cause? Your propaganda is slipping, it's only a matter of time now. Instead of "POVs" why don't we use the scientific method to frame this issue? ]] 30 June 2005 18:06 (UTC) | |||
| :::The debate over whether ] measures intelligence is treated on that page. The debate over what creates intelligence differences has never been framed solely or even largely in terms of race. However, the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations. | |||
| :::Editorial comment: ZM, you're teetering precipitously on the edge of being ignored (by at least me) for lack of productive/coherent contributions now, and not for lack of rather heroic attempts to accomodate your views. --] 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here is how your language propaganda works, since you fortunately encapsulated it into just one sentence, you say "the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations" -- the fact is non "race" related explanations don't get a fair or scientific presentation if they are forced within your exclusive "race" descriptive framework. Why can't the nutrition cause possibility be described within the framework of a "nutrition disparity"? Please explain the scientific necessity that requires framing the abstract issue excluisvely in terms of race? Even a random racist would want to present this issue scientifically to achieve objective conclusions rather than use psychologically tricky language games, which is orders of magnitude more evil, I hope you enjoy your jail cell soon enough. ]] 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ZM, I'm afraid your conduct has just crossed the line. We're done. For the more level-headed contributors who share ZM's concern, the question, "Why do races differ in measured intelligence?" is necessarily framed (i.e., '''stated''') in terms of race because otherwise that question ''would not have a first noun''. That's all. At no point in the article is race claimed to be the sole or even the dominant cause of intelligence differences. --] 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC) | |||
| If you only state or describe an issue one way it makes it too easy for a propagandist to come along latter and confuse description with cause (repetition is used to do this), alternative causes can't get a fair or neutral presentation of the issue if it is only ever stated in terms of "race". From the way you and the article carefully construct sentences it seems you never want to allow for the thought or the possibility that race is not a cause at all? ]] 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC) | |||
| == Suspicious bolding == | |||
| I have re-reverted Zen's changes again. Zen, I said it further up already: the "suspicious emphasis" you are claiming to remove is the common '''boldfacing''' of terms that appear in the title. That is standard Misplaced Pages style, see our Style Guide. The article on '''Race and intelligence''' is forced to boldface the first appearance of the terms (as it does). Since both terms are known to be controversial, the present article takes them up again in the Background section and gives a somewhat more elaborate definition of both nouns. That has nothing to do with emphasis. You also continue to remove a lot of italic Wikilinks. For example, you haved changed "people labeled '']''" into "people labeled blacks". First, please don't destroy Wiki infrastructure by removing hyperlinks. Second, the ''italics'' in ''Blacks'' here is because the word appears "as a word". Again, the style guide forces us to set it in italic type. (Read section 4.2 of ], the section called '''Words as words'''.) Your energy might be spent on better things than removing markup that follows typographical conventions in this encyclopedia, instead of assuming what you call "suspicious emphasis". ] 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC) | |||
| :The style guide suggestions are only applicable to the intro section. The emphases is obviously playing games. ]] 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some key terms or concepts are bolded when they first appear in order to assist in readability, as the topic is unusually complex and the page unusually long. Best, ] ] 30 June 2005 21:49 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think it's a game, but I don't see any point in bolding the title terms later in the article. "Intelligence" is used dozens of times thorughout the article. Why is that particular use of the term bolded, for example? How does it help the reader? -] June 30, 2005 22:57 (UTC) | |||
| ==ZM's concerns== | |||
| #ZM believes the comparison race and intelligence presupposes a biologically <u>causal relationship</u>. | |||
| #:Not exactly, the presentation of the issue must accept the possibility that "race" is not a factor. The first issue is the way language is used to present this subject (propaganda-esque). The second issue is facts are in disagreement on this issue yet the issue is only presented one way, why? | |||
| #It hasn't been made clear to the editors of this article why it would imply more than correlation when <u>other normal comparisons don't,</u> such as 'race and senate representation' or 'South East Asian countries and monsoons.' | |||
| #:The other possible correlations should not include "race" at all. | |||
| #] and ] have responded on ZM's talk page that it implies causation because of <u>the unjust history</u> of race and intelligence research, and <u>implies superiority</u> between groups. | |||
| #Is there a solution? "Intelligence" is culturally deeply valued, so intelligence research may give the appearance of ranking the ''value'' of people, based on their performance on cognitive tests. This is a problem whenever intelligence research is brought up. Consensus among editors of this article is that some disclaimers are needed in the intro in order to limit readers' interpretations.--] ] | |||
| As I've said repeatedly, the article and title should reflect where the lack of consensus begins, which in this case is the "IQ" and other tests. Repeated emphasis on a dubious correlation to only one bit of information about the test taker ("race") is the next level of error as far as this alleged scientific research goes. ]] 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC) | |||
| == A possible fix == | |||
| I propose the following language to properly contextualize the information about test scores and so-called races. | |||
| <blockquote>Even though there is a correspondence between racial groups as commonly defined in American society and intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests and similar instruments, that correspondence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that race determines intelligence. Presumably there are genetic factors that are responsible for some of the characteristics categorized as racial traits. Presumably there are other genetic factors that are responsible for native intelligence and that serve as a foundation for achieved scores on intelligence test instruments. There is, however, no necessary connection between groups of genetic traits, and in fact the exact recipes of genetic characteristics that determine all individuals are different (except in the case of identical twins). Furthermore, successful expression of genetic potentials for traits such as intelligence may depend on contingent factors pertinent to individuals or related groups of individuals. just as some kinds of vegetation thrive in one environment that another kind of vegetation may find unsuitable. </blockquote> | |||
| Please help me polish the language. ] 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with the this edit: . ] ] July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't blame me! I stole most of it from one of the other guys. Shhh. ;-) ] 1 July 2005 02:21 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue? Instead of "presumably" how about something like "no scientific basis/consensus"? The "thrive/environment" point probably should mention nutrition and other possible environmental causes? The paragraph still suffers from the same problem of framing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics" which is not right, all possible causes should describe the issue using their own descriptive terms. Why does the proposed paragraph also try to sneakily describe "intelligence" only in terms of "genetic potential"? Is the author of the paragraph arguing that "genetic potential" is the only valid way of describing "intelligence" now too? What is the scientific basis for such an argument? The above paragraph is much more subtle (nice try) but is still riddled with the same errant exclusive framing of the issue around "race" or "genetics". ]] 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC) | |||
| :::The (continued, belabored) claim that there is no scientific basis for relating race and intelligence is '''false'''. Take the Ashkenazi example: in Cochran 2005, we have a hypothesis (Ashkenazim were selected for high intelligence) which generates several testable predictions: inheritance patterns for genes in particular clusters should happen with far higher frequency than chance; some of these alleles should confer higher cognitive function; the biological function of these genes should relate to known correlates of intelligence such as neuron density and arborization. Evidence, statistical and otherwise, supporting these predictions are reported, and additional predictions are outlined. Not only is there a scientific ''basis'', there are scientific ''results'', presented in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. --] 1 July 2005 06:15 (UTC) | |||
| Zen-master: As long as you repeat what you have said before and do not respond to attempts to get a point by point clarification going, we will get nowhere. Look at what you just said: | |||
| :What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue? | |||
| Every time you state your objections you should avoid "virtual blank" expressions like "the issue", "the discrepancy", etc. In a series of articles that would take the possible influences on intelligence one by one for examination there would be a place for examining whether there is any correlation between genetic heritage and intelligence. I think that must be what you mean by "the issue" -- either that or you have ignored my attempts to fill in some of these virtual blanks above. Assuming that I've got that part right, then your question becomes: | |||
| :What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the question whether there is a link between race and intelligence? | |||
| So you want a "non-race" way of examining whether there is a correlation between race and intelligence? | |||
| Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe you're assuming that it does? You maybe want to deny that determines by refusing to look at the fact that correlates with . But even if you can prove that malnutrition limits intelligence, that brain trauma limits intelligence, etc., etc. (which shouldn't be any problem to do at all), that will not change the fact that is correlated to if (after you've qualified things as carefully as I did above -- and I checked with a university biology professor to make sure I was making no beginner's mistakes) you get that kind of test results. Sure, your opponent says, '''all''' these things limit intelligence. | |||
| But here is what you should be looking at (and it's been pointed out by somebody before): It may be that the genetics of intelligence are fine and some intervening factor pertinent to one mucks things up. It could be that Anglo type people reduce the intelligence of their children because they deprive them of some element of nurture. Perhaps Anglo types are so moralistic and legalistic about alchohol consumption that they absolutely never give kids any alcohol before their teens. Jewish people and Chinese people are more intelligent, not because of any genetic superiority but because both cultures are cool about letting even the little kids have a thimblefull of wine every once in a while. (Crazy example, but who knows, at least the part about wine consumption is true.) Or maybe some need ten times as much of some trace mineral as other in order to let the brain develope fully. The genetic potential is there, but they need the extra chromium and it's not in their diets. Once you notice that that group is not doing well on IQ tests you poke around, make your discovery, and start advising them to take chelated chromium pills. Suddenly IQ tests go up -- but only if you face facts. | |||
| Unless you actually look at the question of whether correlates with , and then look at the question of whether different genetic characteristics cause different levels of intelligence, you cannot fight those conclusions (which, I am sure you will agree, are already out there). It's like monster man comes on the scene and Batman says, "I won't fight you. I will go off and fight the numbers runner over there." ] 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC) | |||
| ::You say face facts yet you perpetuate and repeat presumption inducing language, why? The fact is you and others choose to present this issue only in terms of "race" or "genetics" out of some political motivation when there are many other ways of presenting it. Even a random racist would seek a true scientific basis for their beliefs but you've gone way beyond that, you and others have perverted science and language into a racist economic caste system mass propaganda tool. You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world. You must literally want people to assume "race" is the cause for the "IQ" disparity without them ever truly thinking about it -- what else explains the endless repetition and errant framing of the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics"? This repetition combined with the improper framing is trying to appeal soley to third parties' "gut reaction" thoughts about this issue so they will assume "race" is the cause without them ever truly thinking about it. It is as if you and others want the world to be controlled by an artificial racist "IQ" based economic caste system, but Truth and justice will come soon. | |||
| ::To be clear, since you keep misinterpreting, I have never said we should eliminate the claims by "researchers" regarding "race" and "IQ", I have merely stated it is unscientific and woefully suspicious of you and others to deny all alternative causes or ways of describing the exact same issue a fair presentation. One of my biggest points all along has been that this issue is not being presented using facts, just presumption inducing language and framing -- how is that scientific? The supposed "race" vs "IQ" correlation is just one among many ways of arranging the exact same data, it is not a fact, certainly not a fact in the scientific conclusion sense. ]] 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am still waiting for a response to the above? ]] 1 July 2005 19:58 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ZM, please rephrase or edit to remove the personal attacks and hypotheses about motivation. It's not right for you to phrase things in this way. For my part, I have apologized to you without reservation for losing sight of the ] policy. I will be happy to respond to a rancor-free version. --] 1 July 2005 21:21 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article is written with a presumption that race is involved with intelligence, and it then seeks to determine the truth of that proposition. That has led to an article which is fundamentally skewed and which goes beyond simply reporting about the controversy in an NPOV manner. -] July 1, 2005 21:05 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The article is written based on the repeated findings that races differ in cognitive ability. In fact, its first sentence indicates that the article is not even aimed at the findings, but at the ''controversy itself'': | |||
| :::::<blockquote>Race and intelligence refers to the controversy surrounding the findings of many studies that racial groups show differences in average cognitive ability test scores...</blockquote> | |||
| :::::No "presumption that race is involved in intelligence" is made. Instead, the article begins from repeatedly published ''observations'' from multiple studies involving tens of thousands of individuals which show an IQ gap (see also the ''''IQ gap in the US'''' section). In the second sentence, the article acknowledges questions of fairness and even the motives of the scientists who have generated the research. The article then surveys arguments from a wide array of fields (psychometrics, moral philosophy, politics, organizational behavior, cultural studies) which seek explanations for the observed IQ gap, many of which (e.g. nutrition, culture) do not involve biological race. Substantial material also describes why the findings should be disregarded or denounced (e.g., the comparison of Arthur Jensen's goals to Hitler's, and the repeated questioning of what good can come of such research). These observations directly contradict your assertions. | |||
| :::::I sense repeated confusion between the statement "races differ in average measured cognitive ability" and "race causes differences in average measured cognitive ability". This inference '''simply does not follow''' and the article '''never says any such thing.''' --] 1 July 2005 23:03 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have trouble with assertions like "the article is written with a presumption that..." because a) I know my own contributions were not written with that presumption, b) I'm certain that no one knows what all the contributors variously were presuming, and c) the assertion is not supported with any evidence (quotations from the article, citations) which might enable productive discussion. Again: ]. Assertions do not help. The opinion (Willmcw's) that the article is skewed is perfectly reasonable, but to repair the supposed skew, we must have specific things to fix. ZM, I understand that your concern is different, and I support the point of view that P0M articulated above. --] 1 July 2005 23:36 (UTC) | |||
| :Very well said, P0M. Continuing your productive example, here's my revision of your paragraph: | |||
| :<blockquote>Even though some U.S. racial groups show differences in average measured cognitive ability, racial ancestry itself may not influence cognitive ability. Genetic factors produce some racial traits; genetic factors are believed to influence measured cognitive ability. However, these two types of factors may be entirely distinct. Furthermore, genetic factors may guide but never fully determine any individual's realized ability, because other factors (such as culture, status and upbringing) pertaining to individuals or groups also influence cognitive development.</blockquote> | |||
| :I have strengthened some of your language to reflect what is known, and aimed for simplicity and directness. --] 1 July 2005 07:13 (UTC) | |||
| == Justifying use of "IQ test" == | |||
| I've attempted to address the central problem with the use of the term "IQ" in this article, which is that IQ is too specialized. The AFQT, for example, which has been endlessly mined for cognitive ability data, is not recognized as an IQ test, yet it's ''g''-loaded and is a valid measure of cognitive ability. Generally, no cognitive ability score can be turned into an IQ score without loss. In my experience, "cognitive ability" or "general mental ability" is preferentially used in the literature. To compromise, since some people have expressed an affinity for IQ despite its shortcomings, I've indicated that IQ will be used in a general way to encompass all cognitive ability measures. --] 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC) | |||
| :Right. --] July 4, 2005 21:04 (UTC) | |||
| ==STOP IT== | |||
| Look, you guys (especially Patrick this time), I've told you to ] before. And just as Zen-master had made a really good statement summing up his criticisms of the '''article''', you went right back to talking about '''him'''. That is NOT ALLOWED. | |||
| Stop playing innocent, stop pretending it's all the other guy's fault. Get back to discussing the ARTICLE and how to improve it. | |||
| Start by apologizing (unconditionally!) to each other for your personal remarks. Not here, I've locked the page; I'll look for the diffs on the D/P/Z talk pages. | |||
| There's enough bickering and squabbling in the academic and political realms about this matter. I won't allow that to spill over into this discussion. Not as long as I have the power to squelch it. | |||
| Think about the '''article'''. ] ] July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC) | |||
| ===Thank you!=== | |||
| Thanks, Drummond and Patrick. Page unlocked. ] ] July 1, 2005 19:13 (UTC) | |||
| ==Relativism instead of science== | |||
| The new compromised intro succeeds in: | |||
| # defining this area of intelligence research as having produced no actual findings, only debates "in and out of academic circles," | |||
| # tying the area of research to conceptions of Nazi crimes, eugenics, and slavery, | |||
| # giving the solutions to racial profiling: equal opportunity and affirmative action programs. | |||
| I don't think this is what was meant to be the end result, and this article should probably focus on being a science article, subject to the same standards as other science articles. This probably means focusing primarily on describing the area of scientific research, and doing so without advocating views, such as defining the findings of the area as being tied to Nazi eugenics practices. If you want to differentiate this article from being a science article, it could be moved to "Race and intelligence controversy" instead. Best, ] ] 2 July 2005 06:52 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed (by the way, your current intro is great, Nectar.) I would also very much like to remove the politics and mudslinging from this article. (Especially, the accusations of Nazism are completely backwards. Nazism included the belief that white gentiles were superior to Jews. That is the complete opposite of what '''Race and intelligence''' research has found. So identifying the scientific findings with Nazism is extremely misleading and helps nobody.) This article should make people ''more'' informed about what is known, instead of fanning the flames by perpetuating the debate's most uninformed myths. That being said, I would not be adverse to starting '''Controversy about race and intelligence''': an article ''different'' from the current one (which is about science), that instead tries to give an overview of whatever emotional positions are rampant in the debate, with no lower threshold of stupidity. That is similar to us already having ] (which is about science), but also ] (which is about opinions). | |||
| : On a more general note, I am not too happy about the drastic changes in the introduction that some of us are making. Note that this article has passed a VfD with flying colours, and Peer Review was happy as well. That is as strong consensus that '''this article was very, very good''' as one can ever hope to get, and from a large sample of WP editors. If such feedback isn't enough to keep this article stable, then I can think to no other procedure in WP that should ever stabilise any article. We were working very hard to get this article into featured shape after the VfD and Peer Review comments, and starting "from scratch" about very fundamental decisions about what this article should be about seems to go against consensus. One cannot just ignore the feedback of a large '''and unbiased''' sample of WP editors, in order to cater to the opinions of a '''small and biased''' sample that have gravitated to this page. Otherwise, I (and everybody else) could throw each and every WP article into utter chaos. Wiki won't work that way. ] 2 July 2005 09:10 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. I also like the present intro (and liked the one which passed VfD as well). Let me add a hearty exhortation for a focus on the science/results (I'm not proud of my recent edit to the intro, as I was unduly restrained in reversing the tide of "controversy first, science second" and too willing to include inflammatory political associations). I find the current article structure confusing given this goal; the central scientific question, as posed in the Intro, is culture-vs-genetics, yet the vast majority of the actual content related to this question is on ], while the present page has more content on public policy than on the culture/genes data. The central scientific results (beginning in ''Average intelligence gaps among races'') aren't addressed until after a discussion of racial legal equality (in ''Race in the United States'') and noting that "many have been described as racists" (in ''Moral criticism''). Something is out of joint. I understand that length considerations led to the relocation, and I have voiced support for the ] proposal; would anyone care to explain why we should continue to relegate the key science to a separate page? --] 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC) | |||
| :::As you observe, the current article has become strangely skewed by the refactoring into subpage of material that was central to it (and hence lengthy). Would it help to introduce '''Controversy about race and intelligence research''' or '''Race and intelligence (controversy)''' or something like that? This would enable us to forshorten (and hence defocus) some of these issues, and may also provide a useful outlet for less sober points of view than those presented on the present page? ] 2 July 2005 19:29 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see the problem. Let's continue this discussion below with respect to using ] as a fix. --] July 4, 2005 21:05 (UTC) | |||
| ==More tweaks to new intro, and bit about a neglected political POV== | |||
| Man, I like the current into (as of 09:46, 2 July 2005)! I have tried to click through its evolution over the past many edits -- thanks to everybody who contributed. Stellar work. The only thing I would want to tweak is the following passage: | |||
| : Because intelligence appears to be of great practical significance in modern society, some scholars claim that elucidating the source and meaning of the IQ gap is a pressing social concern. Others fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or shun the research as unethical. | |||
| Could we reword "fear" or "shun the research" to something more neutral? It paints the owners of this POV as hypocritical. Also, maybe one could ''motivate'' the POV of that group, just as the first sentence motivates the opposing POV. I have tried to write that second sentence myself, but my prose isn't good enough for that. Here are some attempts: | |||
| #Others are concerned that these results can be misused, or raise epistemological questions about its validity. (Not good because of ''epistemological'', but it's exactly what I want to say.) | |||
| #Because of the history of this line of research, many are concerned that these results can be used to further a racist agenda. | |||
| One reason to be opposed to the second explanation is that it is not balanced. For examle, ''I'' happen to think that cognitive differences between groups is a very strong argument for social democracy, so the research presented here is my own basis for a ''left-wing/high taxes/high social security'' argument. (And a pretty strong one, I believe.) We are ignoring that POV by only mentioning the utility of these results to further a ''racist'' political agenda. To make this clear, I could agitate for including the following paragraph: | |||
| : Because the findings in race and intelligence research undermine the fundamental tenets and moral underpinnings of communism (i.e., that all men are created equal), of free market capitalism (i.e., that every man is responsible for his own happiness, and that ''laziness'' is the only reason for poverty), and of nazism (i.e., that jews are inferior to white gentiles), voices on all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to this line of inquiry. Only social democrats have developed a moral underpinning (see ]) that is compatible with the fact that humans differ in cognitive abilities. | |||
| See? Apart from being deliberately facetious, this is actually my political POV; the reason I am not pushing for something like this is that I don't ''want'' the current article to become more political. I am a scientist, this is a scientific subject, and needs a scientific article. Not politics. (Maybe we want an article about '''Politics of race and intelligence'''; I'll be happy to contribute.) | |||
| The gist of this is that I am a bit concerned about stating only ''one'' valid political POV on this article. (Namely, that people who are against racism sometimes also are against research into cognitive differences between races.) I would prefer to remove the political motivations completely, and focus on epistemological questions. ] 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC) | |||
| ==References for IQ gaps in other nations== | ==References for IQ gaps in other nations== | ||
| Line 378: | Line 49: | ||
| :If you wish to contribute to the article you are more than welcome to do so. ] 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC) | :If you wish to contribute to the article you are more than welcome to do so. ] 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC) | ||
| == What is wrong with NPOV intro? == | |||
| The citations on this talk page prove the methods and results of intelligence research studies are very much in dispute, why won't some users allow acknowledgement of this in the intro? Also, why does the second paragraph repeatedly mention "racial categorization" or "genetics" while describing the environmental possibility? What specifically is wrong with this suggested intro: ]] 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC) | |||
| :Zen master, please read the statement to verify the statements made in the article. Most of this article was written by professional scientists working in related fields. | |||
| :The second paragraph explains it is about "the question of whether group differences in average intelligence are caused only by environmental factors or whether there is also a genetic component." | |||
| :An example of what is undesireable in the suggested intro is that it attempts to replace the definition of "school achievement, reaction time, and brain size" from the definition "related variables," to the definition "data," which obfuscates that there is a relationship between school achievement etc. and intelligence.--] ] 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC) | |||
| ::The second paragraph mentioned racial categorization because the area of research compares racial groups, in order to attempt to identify the many causes that act differently on racial groups. --] ] 2 July 2005 20:05 (UTC) | |||
| The second paragraph (and the entire article) was not constructed with NPOV in mind and is very unclear on its own. Why don't you want to state it simply as "environment and/or genetics is the cause"? If environmental factors are the cause then it would be wrong to classify the issue as a "racial disparity"? ]] 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC) | |||
| :If environmental factors are the cause, there is still a racial IQ disparity, just as there is a socioeconomic IQ disparity. The disparity, even if not deriving from genetic racial factors, refers to a difference in average IQ. Best, ] ] 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there is a socioeconomic disparity, as you say here on the talk page, why can't the issue ever be described that way inside the article? "Race" and "IQ" are just two among numerous pairs of descriptive terms that can describe the exact same data correlation, "wealth" and "nutrition" are another. ]] 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because this topic compares the intelligence of races. Saying the disparity is racial doesn't mean the cause is intrinsic to the races, as opposed to extrinsic (environmental), it only means the end result is a disparity between races. Why compare races in the first place is another question. --] ] 3 July 2005 06:14 (UTC) | |||
| :"...it would be wrong to classify the issue as...": "The issue" has no clear antecedent (cf. P0M's comment on "virtual blanks"), so it's not clear what issue is meant. Kindly state what "the issue" refers to. It would be very helpful to have a single sentence starting with "The issue is..." I think much tooth-gnashing above can be attributed to not knowing exactly what each contributor believes the issue is. For my own part, the issue is understanding the degree and source of racial IQ disparities. --] 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue is abstract, until a scientific cause or group of causes is determined with consensus only describing it one way or using one set of terms is misleading. Becase there is disagreement and because there is no scientific consensus the issue is best described as a "data correlation" with multiple sets of descriptive terms. Why does someone keep creating a new talk page section below and immediately after ones that I create, seems like another method of misdirecting away from a real discussion of the core issues? ]] 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let me see if I understand. You feel that to pose the question, "Why is there racial disparity in mean IQ?" is misleading? And that no question can be posed until a consensus cause is determined? --] ] 2 July 2005 22:52 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That question can be posed as long as it is one of many/all questions/scientific hypotheses since there are many ways of thinking about this issue or pairs of descriptive terms that describe the exact same data correlation. If a graph of "race" vs "IQ" data shows the same curve as a graph of "wealth" vs "nutrition" data then isn't the correlation abstract and doesn't that prove there is more than one way of looking at the issue? Just because an entire industry exists around looking at data only one way doesn't mean it is scientific or neutral to do so, nor does it mean you can ignore a lack of consensus in the wider community. ]] 2 July 2005 23:09 (UTC) | |||
| Okay. Your first sentence equates two concepts (through '/'): a question, and a scientific hypothesis. In science, these are distinct: a question poses the problem to be solved, and a hypothesis proposes a solution. The question does not presuppose any hypothesis. Does that make sense? --] ] 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC) | |||
| :When the issue is exclusively framed in terms of "race" it does hint that as the cause. "Wealth" vs "nutrition" is a just as valid way of looking at and describing the exact same issue. ]] 3 July 2005 00:25 (UTC) | |||
| ::So in your view, asking what causes racial IQ disparities implies that race does, thus disqualifying the question from consideration on its own, independent of the hypotheses under consideration. Do I have that right? --] ] 3 July 2005 02:09 (UTC) | |||
| :::More or less yes. Describing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" is, best case, needlessly ambiguous given the fact that intelligence "researchers" argue that race is the cause. Worst case, repetition is intentionally used to exploit the language confusion to trick the mind into assuming "race" is the cause unscientifically. For the sake of both clarity and the scientific method, description of an issue must be disassociated from possible explanations at a language usage level. Conclusions should be based on facts, not on presumption inducing language or method of presentation. ]] | |||
| ::::Okay. I understand your point of view. Thanks for your patience. --] ] 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Following our conversation, ZM, I have tried to find journal-published citations for your point of view in peer-reviewed literature. I have failed. As you know, it is crucial that the view you are expressing not simply be your own POV: to the extent that your own POV reflects a seemingly logical but novel argument, it is ], and to the extent that your POV is only yours or is shared by only a few people, it does not belong on WP (see ], the third point from Jimbo in the ''What is the neutral point of view?'' section). | |||
| :::::Kindly provide citation support for the view that "asking what causes racial IQ disparities implies that race does, thus disqualifying the question from consideration on its own, independent of the hypotheses under consideration" (since you have agreed that the quoted sentence more or less reflects your view). I humbly request that you differentiate between Web sources and primary literature, though both are welcome. Given the sensitivity of the discussion, it would be particularly helpful if you would provide direct quotes of relevant source material. Best regards, --] ] 3 July 2005 07:45 (UTC) | |||
| Most criticisms of the movement are fundamental to the way "intelligence researchers" may be abusing science by using presumption inducing language, see the citations listed above or see ] or see . Though I have never advocated the exclusion of considering "race" vs "IQ", but that does not mean it gets to have its very own article (would be non neutral to ignore the other ways of looking at the issue). ]] 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC) | |||
| Bear with me; I've now re-scrutinized your primary references. Summary: I disagree that they substantiate your positions that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research, that racial disparity in IQ cannot be treated as a standalone subject no matter what hypotheses are advanced, and that these positions reflect anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs. Moreover, most of these references do not meet WP standards. Here are the references: | |||
| * "The New Racist Onslaught: Intellectual tricks can always fool those receptive to racism" . This is a review or commentary. | |||
| I can find no statement in this source to substantiate the position that inquiring about racial IQ disparity a) presupposes a cause, or b) is untenable no matter what hypotheses are advanced. It uses ] almost exclusively as the basis for its argument. This reference is an article in , a non-peer-reviewed magazine which is openly radical : | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| While we do our best to reach as wide an audience as possible, we think we a lot more people could use our ''radical message'' of activism and alternatives. </blockquote> | |||
| I conclude that this reference does not support your specific position, and that the reference itself does not reflect either a scientific or a mainstream viewpoint. Speaking candidly, the reference appears to be a pure screed, with accusations of racism appearing every few sentences for its entire length. It is intensely inflammatory and in no way meets WP standards for NPOV. | |||
| * "Resurrecting Racism: The current attack on black people using phony science" . This article claims, "The antidote to racist pseudoscience is...science". | |||
| The article explicitly recognizes the priority of scientific findings. The general thrust of the article is that 1) races do not exist, and 2) IQ is a fraud. Despite its claim to address pseudoscience with science, the article does not expose controversy in the scientific community; instead, it is almost entirely Gil-White's arguments. The only quoted passage is that "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of...'race'"; this is an unsubstantiated claim about the motivations of researchers which, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of scientific findings. | |||
| The source of the article is, like the previous reference, a non-peer-reviewed online magazine with an activist bent: | |||
| <blockquote>Emperor's Clothes is unusual. Our "mission purpose" is the exposure of lies, especially media lies, but also the lies of would-be leaders, including those who claim to be opposing Establishment policies. We tell the truth as we see it even when telling the truth contradicts preconceptions, even the preconceptions of our readers or ourselves. In this age of super-conformity we refuse to subject our views to political correctness as defined by *any* camp.</blockquote> | |||
| I conclude that the reference provides rhetorical support for the claim that IQ is a fraud and that race is, too. However, the reference does not even approximate scientific criticism (peer review, exposed analytical techniques). It is far beneath WP standards for a reference. | |||
| * "A Review of the Bell Curve: Bad Science Makes for Bad Conclusions" . This is a book review of a non-scientific work. | |||
| The review raises questions about ] either through argument or by referencing other works. Again, it clearly does not reflect mainstream science (and shows dubious editorial control): | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| For over 15 fourchy years, Go Inside Magazine has served as your premier, unbiased, independent, international, resource for information: We Are Everywhere, We Are Jederman. We refuse all advertising. None of us are paid. We are owned by no one. We are purposefully as plain text as possible to support the widest range of readers. If you need blunt, insightful and ringing commentary on the world at large, then you need to Go Inside or get left behind!</blockquote> | |||
| * "Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race" . This is a critique of media coverage of ]. | |||
| The review has almost nothing to add to the scholarly debate; significant space, for example, explores the ] and its funding of various researchers. In particular, I can find no support for the claim that racial disparity in IQ can only be treated in the context of all other IQ disparities. | |||
| '''Overall''', despite the context in which they were provided, these references provide little or no support for the POVs being advanced (that racial disparity in IQ cannot be addressed as a standalone question, ''no matter what hypotheses are considered''; that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research; and that these positions are anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs -- or simply ''your views alone''). | |||
| Moreover, these references offer no new material to the scientific debate. They are never peer-reviewed and make no claim to be works of science, even as they recruit various scientific findings to their cause. Most often, these references act as tertiary sources which quote secondary sources (], ]). They show no evidence of awareness of the scientific debate's current state as reflected in scientific journals. | |||
| Finally, these references are virulently POV and openly embrace their non-mainstream status as their self-descriptions show. Misplaced Pages can do much better. Look to the reference list in the actual article for an alternative. | |||
| Editorially speaking, the posts containing and referring to these online-magazine sources reflect a deep confusion between 1) controversy within mainstream science and 2) controversy surrounding mainstream science. The controversy within science is notably mild, such as Dolan's critique of Jensen's use of correlated vectors. The controversy surrounding the science is notably shrill and has little to say about the state of the art (see all your above references). | |||
| ZM, kindly provide some better references than book reviews, screeds and opinion pieces. Best, --] ] 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue isn't whether "race" vs "IQ" can be a standalone question, the issue is whether to do so would be neutral and scientific. Being unscientifically selective in how an issue is framed taints any implied conclusions ]] 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand your point of view. I'm simply saying that your posts fail to provide any support for that view. Let's be really clear -- this is your POV: | |||
| :::Being unscientifically selective in how an issue is framed taints any implied conclusions and the method of presentation can not then be considered neutral. | |||
| ::Seems logical. What a great new idea! But you have not provided any support for this original notion. Meanwhile, scientific papers continue to ''specifically'' address race/IQ disparity in just the way you claim is unscientific. For example, here is the first sentence of the abstract of Cochran et al. 2005: | |||
| :::''We develop the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence.'' | |||
| ::Apparently, the reviewers and editors of the ''Journal of Biosocial Science'' do not subscribe to your highly original idea of what is "scientific". Rushton and Skuy (2004) begin their abstract: | |||
| :::''We test the hypothesis that the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices has the same construct validity in African university students as it does in non-African students...'' | |||
| ::The ''International Journal of Selection and Assessment'' also clearly does not subscribe to your unique and special idea of what is "scientific". Hausdorf et al. (2003) study "adverse impact", the finding that minorities score lower on valid cognitive tests used for job selection. They write, | |||
| :::''This study assessed two cognitive ability tests (one with verbal, numeric and spatial subtests - the General Aptitude Test Battery and the other predominantly spatial - the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices) as selection tools for police constable applicants with a '''specific focus''' on adverse impact.'' | |||
| ::It appears that ''Applied Human Resources Management Research'' does not agree with your novel conception of what is "scientific". In fact, I can't find ''any actual scientist'' who shares your fascinating new belief. The burden is upon you to produce them: ] --] ] 4 July 2005 01:26 (UTC) | |||
| The citations are reputable and numerous, there is even an entire ] article which is very relevant here. It doesn't take a scientist to see that politically motivated "researchers" are using unsound methods. Scientists still have to present the issue using the scientific method. How do you justify the presumption inducing language and method of presentation for the subject? ]] 4 July 2005 01:44 (UTC) | |||
| :Saying your sources are reputable don't make it so, ZM. Peer-review would help! Accusing the researchers of political motivations is a serious charge; I'm sure you can back it up for ''each one'', since of course a blanket statement is beneath you. Please read up on ] and indicate what tenet is being violated. Also, kindly provide some evidence, other than your own perspicuity (of course), that the language used in the quotes I just gave is 'presumption-inducing'. Seems like another great new idea! --] ] 4 July 2005 01:55 (UTC) | |||
| ==Controversial science topics== | |||
| As Rikurzhen and Arbor and maybe others have pointed out, there are precedents on Misplaced Pages for dealing with controversial science topics. | |||
| Note that the intro of ] doesn't refer to it as a "controversial theory," even though only 12% of the US population actually believes in it . ] doesn't link to ], even though eugenicists drew heavily from it. | |||
| Note that at ], embryonic stem cell research is always spoken of first as an area of science. --] ] 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC) | |||
| ==Do we need arbitration?== | |||
| Zen-master, let your questions be answered on the talk page. An edit-war is a counter-productive way to further your argument and may make people less interested in what you have to say. It may also lead to you being the subject of an ]. Just talk about your concerns here. --] ] 3 July 2005 00:19 (UTC) | |||
| :Oops, Zen-master and I each reverted 4 times today. My apologies. --] ] 3 July 2005 00:22 (UTC) | |||
| ::I accept arbitration or mediation though I wonder just how many sock puppets and like minded errant language/presentation POV pushers exist on Misplaced Pages. Conclusions should be based on facts, not on presumption inducing language. ]] 3 July 2005 00:41 (UTC) | |||
| :::Was that a fifth reversion after you were already warned?--] ] 3 July 2005 01:03 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anybody else is free to revert, though I won't, as I already have multiple times today. | |||
| ::::The request for arbitration is viewable ]. I've never had to do an RFA before, but I think I've done everything right. --] ] 3 July 2005 03:30 (UTC) | |||
| == A concrete case as model (1) == | == A concrete case as model (1) == | ||
| Line 528: | Line 91: | ||
| :Seems fair to me. I can't speak to the ordering or relative weight of the hypotheses, if that's what you're asking; we should consider this little history a "just-so story". --] ] 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC) | :Seems fair to me. I can't speak to the ordering or relative weight of the hypotheses, if that's what you're asking; we should consider this little history a "just-so story". --] ] 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC) | ||
| ==A new view?== | |||
| Hi, a new observer here. It's possible that I'm going to rehash some previous discussion, but I'm going to take that risk, because this article remains fundamentally, deeply flawed. | |||
| The ''vast'' majority of content and citations in this article discuss the subject from a psychological viewpoint. Here, "intelligence" is described in the terminology preferred by that field; IQ, ''g'', and the like. The problem is, psychology does not have a monopoly on these issues. Even staying within the academy, other fields and literatures including - but not limited to - anthropology, sociology, philosophy, education and history have had much to say about ideas of intelligence and race. These concerns are briefly mentioned in the "background information" section, but only in passing, but then are followed by the critical paragraph: | |||
| :''The debates described in the following article assume that cognitive ability tests measure some interesting aspect of intelligence, and that some interesting information may be gained by studying racial group differences. For a critique of these assumptions, please see the previously mentioned articles.'' | |||
| Here, we're barely one screenfull into a long article about a complex, contentious issue, and we've already cast away fundamental questions about its entire framework by briefly mentioning them and then relegating them to linked articles. Potential questions about the entire epistemology used by the studies described later in the article are separated out, and shortchanged in terms of the overall volume of content as well. | |||
| In fact, though, the game really was up even sooner. As others have noted, that graph at the top of the article makes the argument before we even start reading. Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity, couched in the quantitative language of science. | |||
| All this is related to a broader issue; Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal. While I have respect for both the ] and for ], and have experience with both, they are not guarantees of truth, only two useful indicators of credibility. Almost any contemporary historian or philosopher of science will tell you the myriad ways that science has established itself as an arbiter of the one true answer, from framing the debate, to shutting out voices from outside of science. I'm afraid I've seen examples of both on this talk page. | |||
| Finally, a concrete suggestion. I'd suggest that those who are most closely involved here ''aggressively'' seek out input from far more people. I see that there was an ] a while back - that's good, but it was a while ago and things are still contentious. Do we think it's okay to rewrite the synopsis on that page, make it snappy and fun, and move it to the top of the list? It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, ] and similar requesting comments from interested people as well. I'm not going to do either of these things right now, as I haven't been here long, but maybe someone else will? Further, if some new folks turn up, maybe those who have been butting heads would like to take a break for a bit? ] ] 4 July 2005 04:23 (UTC) | |||
| :Re:"Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity..." | |||
| ::Thanks for the interesting feedback, Cdc. The correlation itself between racial groups and performance on cognitive tests isn't controversial in the field. The language used in the article is specific and doesn't denote presumption of genetic contribution to the correlation. | |||
| :Re:"It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, ] and similar requesting comments from interested people as well." | |||
| ::I think the last thing we need in order to continue work on this article is the involvement of people who don't have expertise or substantial experience in intelligence research. Best, ] ] 4 July 2005 05:02 (UTC) | |||
| :This article covers an existing massive body of knowledge centered on results in psychometrics. Without those results, there is no article, and thus it is proper that the center of gravity is the science. It is quite clear from the literature, both inside and outside psychometrics, that the main players, the main results, and the main criticisms are well-known; hence an encyclopedia entry is warranted. I'm highly skeptical that some major contribution has been missed, though certainly I welcome important additions. I agree with Nectar that contributions from those with little experience in the field (who, in my experience, tend to discount firmly supported science and embrace vituperative controversy) are not what is needed. | |||
| :The epistemological problems you mention seem to refer to ] and ], not their specific conjunction. While I respect the claim that science has established itself as an arbiter of truth (though I would say, instead, that people searching for a useful, successful method to explain the world have tried virtually everything and science has left the alternatives in the dust), the implication that non-scientific criticisms of science should be allowed to selectively target subjects which are found to be distasteful does not follow. In other words, a justification for "Why this subject?" seems in order. I'd feel better if some other, less-contentious subject had received the non-science treatment first, so that we could all evaluate what value, if any, such a treatment would add here. | |||
| :Finally, you haven't actually suggested anything concrete. It would help, rather than making normative statements, to simply say what you'd like to add, and we can discuss it. --] ] 4 July 2005 08:36 (UTC) | |||
| ::CDC, thanks for your input. As you anticipated, we have been through similar debates many times, so forgive us if your response may a bit more curt than you well-intentioned suggestions deserve. We all appreciate the attention of rational and skeptical editors, so please do stick around and help. Please note that we have been through a very long debate with user Zenmaster during the last few weeks, see archives 8 and 9 without much result. This was right after we had received valuable input from VfD and Peer Review, when many of us were busy applying some final spit and polish to this article. We are very much following the good suggestions from the normal WP processes about how this article could be further improved. As an example, the picture you see illustrating the article (with the overlapping bell curves) was a result of those suggestions. It is slightly frustrating to, after following WP suggestions and improve the article according to Peer Review suggestions, to have the result questioned anew by new editors. I am saying this not so much to denigrate your suggestion, as to explain our somewhat exhausted response. Please take this the right way. We ''are'' trying to turn this into an exemplary WP article. (I came here because verifiability is an important topic for me, and this article was the best WP article I have ever seen in that respect. It's a model of accountability, which is why I obsess over footnotes and references so much. I hope other articles can become as useful. As you can see from the VfD comments, a lot of other WP editors agree, and we ought to take that as very strong evidence for keeping this article stable. Otherwise I cannot see how WP should ever work.) | |||
| ::As to your suggestion of aggressively hunting opposing views, you are right, and I have tried. Especially, I have tried to contact each and every editor who expressed criticisms about this page on VfD, typically by leaving messages on their talk pages. Some of them were good enough to help us. If you read Archive 9, you will find heroic attempt by half a dozen editors to understand the concerns of Zenmaster and turn them into contributions. But it's hard. Rest assured that the dozen or so editors on this page have more than enough things they disagree about. But since the debate here has reached an extremely high level of accountability (by requiring primary sources, not opinionated web pages), this may all seem like science-cruft to the outsider. If you want to help, why not dig out the reference for the Catholic/Protestant IQ gap of 15 that it perpetuating the Internet? (Read the section of missing references above)? That would improve the article a lot, by giving strong credence to the "environment only" POV. | |||
| ::One more comment: this is not a "psychology only" article. We cover issues from social sciences, genetics, biology, nutrition, medicine, neuroscience, environmental studies, education, etc. ''And'' there are bits about history of science, theory of science, politics, moral philosophy. That being said, I am becoming increasingly convinced that we need '''Controversy about race and intelligence research''', to give more focus to the latter topics instead of the hard sciences. (This is similar to what WP does on evolution: one article for the science, another for the controversy about studying this question in the first place.) If you are up to it, you can start it right now. Otherwise I promise to do that myself as soon as this article is fit to be submitted to ''featured article''. | |||
| ::I hope you can help, either there or here. And I hope you stick around and keep a keen eye on this page. ] 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re Arbor: ''"I am becoming increasingly convinced that we need Controversy about race and intelligence research."'' | |||
| :::Debates by non-scientists in this area are a nightmare of myths and misconceptions. I think starting a non-science article on this topic is an invitation for the airing of such misconceptions. Why would we need it when this article already deals with the established facts? The two articles that were recently spun off of the debates here, ] and ], were just opportunities for editors to, as well-intentioned as they were, bypass the rigor enforced on this page.--] ] 4 July 2005 11:37 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree, Nectar. There is notably a vast controversy that merits an encyclopedia article. My only concern is that, similar to ], that the science can be described accurately in its own space and under the main heading, and that scientific and non-scientific controversies not be allowed to cross-contaminate. Right now everything is blended together, making it impossible to tell which is which, and it serves the reader poorly. --] ] 4 July 2005 20:07 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would suggest that ] might be a good frame in which to discuss the controversy... because (1) we currently have a history section in this article, which could be main-article/branced for futher detail; (2) SJ Gould's descriptions of the controversy from the 1981 book MMoM is largely historical; (3) The public opinion is directly linked with the history of these ideas; and (4) I don't know enough about the history of this topic and I think it would be really cool to have more info on it ;). --] July 4, 2005 20:16 (UTC) | |||
| == General and "new intro" specific questions == | == General and "new intro" specific questions == | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 5 July 2005
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
|
|
- Talk:Race and intelligence/Archives
- Please maintain professionalism in your posts, even on emotional topics like race and intelligence. Don't speculate on the motives of the other contributors to this article. If you want to volunteer at Misplaced Pages, follow the civility guidelines: See Misplaced Pages:avoid personal remarks
Brain size info moved to craniometry page
Much of the info on brain size and structure was moved to the craniometry page. But much of that info, such as info on studies using MRI or autopsy, or the info on cephalic indices, is not directly related to craniometry. Perhaps it deserves its own page, maybe "Race and brain structure" or "Race and brain size"? Dd2 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)
References for IQ gaps in other nations
I continue my Herculean task to check all our references. Two questions for the cognoscenti below. Please help. Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
European IQ
The third paragraph of 2.3 refers to a web page (it's also a boo-boo external link and needs to die). The web page itself lists
- Buj, V., 1981, Average IQ values in various European countries, Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169
- Alexopoulos, D.S., 1997, Urban vs rural residence and IQ. Psychological Reports, 80, 851-860
- Lynn R. and Vanhanen T., 2002, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Westport, CT: Praeger.
- Demetriou, A., 2005, The architecture, dynamics, and development of mental processing: Greek, Chinese, or Universal?, Intelligence, 33, 109-141
I would be happy to link to any of these primary sources instead, and I think Buj is the correct one, right? So I would like the footnote to read:
- Buj (1981), some of the data can be found at Greek IQ
Any objections?Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
- None here. --DAD 3 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
15 point catholic/protestant gap
In the same section
- The difference between the neighboring white Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is as large as the differences between whites and blacks in the U.S.
Now, footnote is again an external link (to Myth: some ethnic groups have genetically inferior IQ's (sic)), but that web page is much harder to navigate. What I am looking for is a reference for the catholic/protestant gap. A POV web page isn't good enough for that.Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
If I read the web-page above correctly, the data might be in
- Richard Lynn discussed in Ciaran Benson, "Ireland's 'Low' IQ," pp. 222-23 in Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman (eds.), The Bell Curve Debate (New York: Times Books, 1995).
I don't have that book. Could somebody please, please check it? Currently we seem to rely on a web page, which relies on a survey by Benson of reseach by Jensen. That's simply too long a chain of dependencies. Arbor 5 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
Moved from Village Pump (misc.)
This was originally posted at the Village Pump: (unsigned, by anon User:12.21.214.77)
"This article was such an eye opener that I hardly know where to begin. Let me begin by appoligizing for my self and my poor writing skills. As a minority type person I am undoutably working with faulty equipment so please make allowences for that. I am certain that the test results for every I.Q. test I have been given and that have showed an I.Q. score around 120 must of been an error, or perhaps I cheated- you know how we are. still my puctuation is really bad I know. Well my grandmother was from Florida, that must explin it. It certainly couldn't be because of the schools I went to. After all the grade school I attended was full of sucessful white students. They did very well. There were only three disruptive minority students in the entire place. And we were not allowed to disrupt the other students. In fact if we asked any questions we were sent into the hall for the rest of the day. Some times in order to insure that we didn't cause any trouble we would be sent to the princibles office before class where we would be carefully monitored, sometimes for days on end. No that school cannot be blamed for my underachievement. Besides I was not reaaly there all that much. I had a very poor attendace record. Now I have learned that is due to my southern heritage. I allways thought it was because when I was 2-3 years old I was subjected to dental experiments which I have always blamed for causing my bones to ache so badly that somedays I can barely walk even to this day. i allways kinda suspected that might of also been the reason I did not begin to get my permanent teeth till I was 13 years old. But I'll bet those things are just a racial quip. I thought having pnumonia 3 times in forth grade becuse we had no heat might of influenced my educational opportunities. Also having malenutrition did not really give me the energy to do a lot. I always felt that our poverty leval income was because my father was never hired, the jobs all went to the white people. Now I know it was just a factor due to his race, he was probably mentally incapable of aquiring and holding down a job. What about when I got older and went to a bigger and better school? Did I do better there? Well I allways got F's in math but I know that was not because of my race. That was because i was a girl according to the head of the math department that everyone knows girls can not learn math. I was however able to raise my grades to a c average by following his adivce which was to stop wasting the teachers time by asking questions and turning in papers. Just be a good girl and go sit by the window with the other 2 girls and smile and wave at the high school boys when they drive by. I guess he was doing me a favor by preparing me for a future under a street lamp. i'm so ungratefull. Besides as the school princple so tactfully put it any attempt at "training" me was a waist of time because anyone could tell just by looking at me I was untrainable. so when I quit school in the 8th grade I was at least right about one thing- people like me are untrainable. We are a drain on society. It is depressing to be genetically inferior but I was greatly uplifted by the final sentence that we have the glorius future hope that some day You might be kind enough to alter us genetically so we will be more like You. You know what I want? I really want straight blond hair, blue eyes, and different facial features. I have noticed that people with these things also seem to do much better in life. After all hair, eyes, and faces are very close to the brain. I bet that some how they affect ones funtioning abilities. I bet you can find statistics to prove this. and if you dress up the charts to make them look impressive enough the klan and other similar groups will be even more likely to use them to prove their point. I'm sure this can only benefit people such as myself in the long run. Because after all I am smart enough to have been a sucess in life but I have never done very well. So what else can we attribute my lack of achievement too? Doing all this genetic altering might be expensive though. I wonder if instead of changing all the minority members brains (there are a lot of us) it might be cheaper to just make the white people color blind. after all you guys all have health insurance right? I also must appologize for not reading the article as thourghly as I could of. some how I just couldn't force myself to it- I'm probably attention deficet another racial quip. But from what I could see You didn't really look at all the angles either. I would like to suggest a book that even though it is rather old might add a twist to your ideas. Savage Inequities discusses race and intellegence.I don't remember the author but I bet you can figure that out all by your supperior selves. I didn't see it listed any where but that might of been my own oversight. I also hope you forgive me for just writing things as they came to my smaller head. But that does appear to be an accepted way of doing things here or am i inheritently wrong again??Finally I must say that if the purpose of learning and aquiring knowledge is ultimately for the betterment of mankind (and I assume that despite my genetic heritage i fall into that catagory) you have really let a lot of us done with this article and the manner in which it was presented. Of course i might think differently after I get that glorious genetic altering that you will undoubtedly learn from your German scientist friends."
- Are you an African American? I apologize if the article offended you. No one here intends to offend anybody. The point of the encyclopedia is to disseminate information, not to offend anybody.
- We did not conduct any studies on intelligence research. We only have written about them. Would you rather those studies exist and us write about them, or would you rather they exist and us not write about them?
- If you wish to contribute to the article you are more than welcome to do so. Dd2 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
A concrete case as model (1)
We have several people with formal credentials whose knowledge and training may be applicable to a question that has occurred to me. What was the course of formation of hypotheses and falsification of hypotheses that let to an effective approach to the "disease called kuru was common among the Fore people in Papua New Guinea"? P0M 3 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the kuru story only through a popular-science account, Deadly Feasts. Kuru presents like a brain-related illness. Infectious causes were rapidly ruled out because of the complete lack of inflammation. Heredity appeared less likely because of the widespread involvement of multiple brain regions in the disease, lack of fit to any known hereditary disease pattern, and extremely high rate of occurrence, though a familial pattern of the disease was noted. Fore cannibalism as a transmission method was considered obvious from the beginning. In particular, the disease afflicted adult women and children, while adult males were spared; the men did not participate in cannibalism. Nearby non-cannibalistic tribes had no kuru. However, cannibalism was initially considered unlikely because no infectious agent was found in the tissue specimens and attempts to transmit the disease to cultures, mice, rats, chicks, and rabbits had failed.
- Analogies between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD, rare human disease) and scrapie (common sheep disease) were soon noted. With scrapie, transmission of the disease to sheep, goats and then to mice had been demonstrated. Transmission of kuru to a chimpanzee succeeded, as did transmission of CJD, demonstrating the existence of an infectious agent.
- Cannibalism as the transmitter of the infectious agent of kuru became clear when it was realized that the cannibalism was specific: relatives were eaten. This explained the familial disease distribution, and the lack of disease in children growing up in a cannibalism-free community. Once this was realized, the effective approach to kuru (your question) was clear: stop cannibalism. The causative agent of the disease was still not known; biology had to take in a novel concept (infectious proteins) to move forward, and the story is still unfolding. It's fun, and much more familiar to me, but not really relevant to your question.
- Briefly, the causative agents are now called prions; they are ubiquitous (yeast prions are known), and are aberrant or non-native forms of a normal host protein. Through nucleation and/or misfolding, a single prion protein (often the normal protein in the non-native conformation) induces normal proteins to take on the non-native prion state, spreading the "infection." The prion itself reproduces its structural information but relies on the host to produce its normal protein substrate. --DAD 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
So according to your understanding the following hypotheses were examined (and I will add a detail or two that I think may be significant):
1.(Commonplace) Infectious causes
- rapidly ruled out because of the complete lack of inflammation.
2.Heredity
- appeared less likely because of the widespread involvement of multiple brain regions in the disease, lack of fit to any known hereditary disease pattern, and extremely high rate of occurrence, though a familial pattern of the disease was noted.
- +(Also, the disease was so highly lethal that it was hard to understand why it hadn't self-extinguished.)
3.Contagion of a microbial or viral agent via culture-relevant features of the Fore population
- no infectious agent was found in the tissue specimens and attempts to transmit the disease to cultures, mice, rats, chicks, and rabbits had failed.
4.Further study produced the hypothesis that something had to be being transmitted in connection with cannibalism because of the close fit between Fore group members who actually practiced cannibalism and Fore group members who actually contracted the disease.
- This hypothesis became more and more well confirmed -- especially after Fore group members were persuaded to cease their practice of cannibalism and new cases of the disease rapidly declined.
5.Prions, and their mis-folded forms, were discovered, and infection by transmission of the mis-folded forms is now the hypothesis that has the most support.
- (infectious proteins) to move forward, and the story is still unfolding.
6.+The story is still unfolding, for one thing, because some researchers still accept the idea of some kind of a viral agent that is behind the ability of the one form of the prion protein to be re-folded into into a disease-causing form.
- +The viral hypothesis stands, albeit on shaky legs, because it is next to impossible to prove a negative. Some researchers are still hard at work, searching for a virus.
- Really? Definitely need citations for this. I don't doubt there are a few renegades mining the tail of the odds distribution, science encourages that, but I do doubt that there is substantial justification for the pursuit. In other words, a review of Kuru would be complete if it never mentioned these guys. The consensus view, reflected in the review-paper webpage you provided , is:
- This means that a prion does not contain DNA or RNA, which disproved Prusiner’s first hypothesis (that the prion could possibly be a virus).
- It is always possible that I have misremembered something. When I read about it I was looking for something else. My mind tends to pick up all kinds of lint. I didn't retain the impression that there were lots of people seriously interested in tracking this thing down since people are already clear enough on how to prevent transmission of the disease. In general, however, whenever there is a paradigm change there are people who try to explain away the things that argue for the new view.
- This means that a prion does not contain DNA or RNA, which disproved Prusiner’s first hypothesis (that the prion could possibly be a virus).
- Love to have more detail here. --DAD 3 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
- Maybe the undead are still crawling around, but I found some recent indications that serious researchers are still looking. http://eagle.westnet.gr/~aesclep/prion.htm gives a number of references that look fairly reputable to my inexpert eye. My original point was that you never know when the red swan will swim into sight, and it looks like these folks are still out bird watching. ;-) P0M 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
- Really? Definitely need citations for this. I don't doubt there are a few renegades mining the tail of the odds distribution, science encourages that, but I do doubt that there is substantial justification for the pursuit. In other words, a review of Kuru would be complete if it never mentioned these guys. The consensus view, reflected in the review-paper webpage you provided , is:
- +It might receive convincing confirmatory evidence if the suspected virus could be isolated and could be shown to pass the disease when provided with a suitable host. (Probably would require a primate -- one thing that wasn't tried in the earliest search for an infectious agent.)
- +The viral hypothesis stands, albeit on shaky legs, because it is next to impossible to prove a negative. Some researchers are still hard at work, searching for a virus.
I found a couple of useful documents by Googleing, the first and second hits were: http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/icphp/grand_rounds/archive/2004/pdf/1118-Prion-Torner.pdf http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/McGrath/McGrath.htm
Does this sound like a correct account of the scientific study of this disease so far? P0M 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
- Seems fair to me. I can't speak to the ordering or relative weight of the hypotheses, if that's what you're asking; we should consider this little history a "just-so story". --DAD 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
General and "new intro" specific questions
- Note: Answers in sub section below.
- Could someone list and explain the "practical consequences of group differences in intelligence"? And doesn't this first sentence in the article errantly conclude that there are "group differences" in "intelligence"? Contradictorily, later on in the intro "race" is not presented as a cause, instead the question of "race" being a cause is the "the primary focus of the scientific debate"? If there exists a scientific debate then shouldn't we be required to caveat all sentences that hint or imply "race" has conculsively been determined to be a cause?
- Isn't it inconsistent to, on the one hand judge everyone by "IQ", and then on the other hand judge everyone by "race", that is judging everyone twice?
- What about the potential for a "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop", by that I mean how much of the differences can be attributed to "race and intelligence" research itself and its "race" based expectations? Certainly "race and intelligence" research is pervasive in society these days and people may be assuming its conclusions or set of expectations and then unwittingly and errantly creating the differences, to a large degree even. In a society that values freedom shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' "intelligence" as being limitless? But how can that be if "race and intelligence" and related "research" has psychologically damaged the expectations of some "racial groups" and/or people that just happened to receive a low/mediocre score on an "IQ" test? It seems to me that the use of presumption inducing language repetition and one sided presentation of the issue helps construct this "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop".
- Shouldn't the article note, or have a caveat sooner, regarding the lack of scientific consensus for whether "intelligence" is something that can be objectively measured?
- Instead of "expected results" to describe "environmental factors" wouldn't it be more clear to say "caused by" (plus the claim by intelligence researchers of the potential for a "genetic component" additionally)?
Answers
Answers go here, I am especially interested in #3. zen master T 4 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
Answers 1
- Me, too. I do not believe that "intelligence" is an immutable, purely genetically inherited quality. Wealthy people would be fools to send their children to private schools if teaching were not a significant factor.
- Hear, hear. I'd love to find anyone who did believe such a thing, since it contradicts all the research of which I'm aware. --DAD 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
- I have read claims by a statistician that he has found a way to identify good and bad teachers by tracking the students randomly assigned to their classes.
- At the risk of "presenting original research", I should also say that I've had terrific success in helping children overcome "math anxiety". My students typically catch up two to four years in a few weeks. I went from 4th grade math ability to high school level in one summer, merely from learning ONE PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE.
- I don't think my melanin deficiency accounts for my 760 in math (at age 13). It's because of what I learned from my algebra tutor. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 13:57 (UTC)
- Ed: I do not believe that "intelligence" is an immutable, purely genetically inherited quality. Are you implying that the article says so? It doesn't. I myself am a maths teacher (and a damn good one), and quite stubbornly believe in the value of education. Arbor 4 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
- Sheesh, everyone's so sensitive and touchy here, these days. How shall I answer this? ("Are you implying that I'm implying something? You wanna step outside and settle this like trees?" Are you 'arboring resentment? :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Answers 2
1a) The practical consequences of group differences in intelligence are:
- Because intelligence predicts so many valued life outcomes (see practical importance of IQ), groups will also show differences in those outcomes (attending college, entering a profession; spending time in jail, having children out of wedlock), but these differences will be greatly reduced or vanish when individuals of different groups but the same IQ are compared. Understanding the source of IQ differences may unlock ways to combat social injustice.
- Because group differences in academic achievement are a persistent concern for (US) society, and group differences in intelligence may explain some achievement differences, understanding group differences in intelligence is crucial to proper formulation of corrective measures. In particular, attempts to equalize treatment for all students, if group IQ differences are real, will favor the higher-IQ groups and hurt the lower-IQ groups. See Linda Gottfredson's writing for a more detailed discussion ()
- Group differences in hiring patterns are a persistent concern for (US) society. Cognitive ability scores are the single best predictor of job performance, the key hiring parameter (Hunter & Hunter 1984), but the higher the predictive validity of the test, the more marked the group differences in scores. This is called "adverse effect"; e.g. see Hausdorf et al. 2003. Thus group differences in measured intelligence have a direct impact on discrimination in hiring. Understanding the source of group differences in intelligence may help combat discrimination.
1b) Your point of view that inquiring about racial IQ disparity presupposes that "race" is a cause has been noted. Your posts have not provided any evidence that this POV is shared by any scientist or peer-reviewed publication, or indeed by anyone. Moreover, "race" is not proposed as a cause, nor does the scientific literature show any consideration of "race" as a cause. Genes that have segregated along ancestral lines, such as the Ashkenazim DNA repair cluster, are a potential cause, as are cultural, socioeconomic and environmental factors. The article lists the non-genetic causes first. This might induce the supposition that these factors are believed to be most important by researchers. I, for one, am willing to let it stand.
- I mean the intro contradicts itself directly, "race" is presented as both a conclusion for "intelligence" differences and also presented as determining whether "race" is an additional cause is the "primary focus of the scientific debate", how can something be conclusive and yet still be open to debate? The issue is the way the first sentence is constructed. zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- Stating "groups differ where their members cluster along the IQ line" does not present "race" as a conclusion, or even a hypothesis; consistent with this, "race" is not even included in the list of non-environmental factors. Suppose, for a moment, that nutrition explained 100% of IQ differences. Such a finding would not in any way contradict the first sentence. Nor would it invalidate the question, "Why is there racial IQ disparity?" Instead, we could simply answer, "Because, interestingly enough, racial groups have distinct patterns of nutritive intake." Where is the contradiction again? --DAD 4 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
3) Multiple parts:
- The influence of expectations has been treated extensively. One (of many) predictions of the expectations model is that racial differences should persist, with a consistent direction, across almost all forms of cognitive testing. The corresponding prediction of group differences in cognitive ability is that racial differences in scores should be an increasing function of g-loading -- the more the test loads on general mental ability, the larger the difference. The former prediction has been repeatedly contradicted, while the second has been confirmed. Many lines of evidence converge on the same results (e.g. reaction-time tests, biological correlates of IQ such as brain size, congruence of g factors between racial groups).
- All forms of testing and test authors, teachers, and students may suffer from and perhaps unwittingly perpetuate unjust expectations for how "racial groups" or people who just happen to score low on a test will perform? Low test scores can certainly have the effect of dramatically lowering a child's expectations for their intelligence (which would not be a kosher thing to perpetuate if aware of the effect). zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- In a society that values freedom shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' "intelligence" as being limitless? Sure, if it's true. A mountain of literature suggests it's not; the 0.5+ heritability of IQ is among the best-established and simplest demonstrations. (This point has nothing to do with race.)
- My point is society should not limit, arguably artificially, the pursuit of intelligence (even if "race" is a factor)? Has this "mountain of literature" considered in detail the possibility of the "psychologically damaged lowered expectations feedback loop"? Have others/critics considered the possibility this "lowered expectations feedback loop" is the goal of "race" and "intelligence" "researchers"? zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- That sort of "should" statement, without a citation, is naked POV and has no place on WP. The article openly states that some have questioned researcher motives. And don't ask me what's in the "mountain" regarding the pet feedback-loop theory, or regarding rank speculation about researchers' goals. It's your job to cite your sources, not mine. --DAD 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
- I mean should as in "logically follows". It would be unscientific of "intelligence researchers" to discount counter criticisms and the effect their implied results may have on the psychological expectations of the masses, the only other explanation for the discounting of criticisms, the one sided frame, and the presumption inducing repetition is these "intelligence researchers" have political motives and a plan outside of the realm of science. zen master T 5 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
- Uh...logically follows...right. Perhaps it would help if you'd state your claims as a syllogism ("A implies B. B implies C. Therefore A implies C.") and then we could all weigh in on whether your conclusion logically follows. I'm dubious. Kindly stop with the raw slinging of accusations about motivations and plans. It's not helping. --DAD 5 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
- Certainly "race and intelligence" research is pervasive in society today. Couldn't disagree more. None of my colleagues were aware of this research; they had heard of The Bell Curve but all believed it had been thoroughly debunked. In my experience, the belief that racism (overt or structural) infects every corner of society is pervasive today and virtually no one knows about the research.
- Citations are key for this interesting theory about a feedback loop driven by the research results. (Logically, one prediction should be a widening of the IQ disparity over time, but in fact the gap appears quite stable...but this is original research, too. Sorry!) I'd like to see what literature you're referring to that specifically states the hypothesis.
- That is inaccurate, the "IQ" gap is lowering, and lowering worldwide and it changes over time, how do you explain that (the Flynn effect). I also meant "pervasie" as in "illegitimatelly pervasive", or at the very least "researchers" and critics should in detail consider this possibility. zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- Let me first note the failure to provide citations, again, despite a direct request. I'm perilously close to concluding that there aren't any. Now, the Flynn effect is a worldwide rise in IQ, not a narrowing of the IQ gap; kindly check your facts (or just the Flynn effect page). There is also substantial evidence that the Flynn effect does not operate on general mental ability (g) much or at all (again, see the page, or for a second set of results see Rushton and Jensen 2005). Thanks for distinguishing the kinds of pervasiveness; perhaps you can provide a citation for what constitutes "illegitimate" pervasiveness versus "legitimate" pervasiveness? I'm having trouble keeping up with the novel terminology without citations. And again with the "should" -- uncited normative opinions have no place here. Moreover, telling researchers and critics what to consider is completely orthogonal to what WP is about. We're assembling knowledge, not setting research agendas. --DAD 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
4) IMHO, the article should indicate clearly that "intelligence," while the most general term applying to measures of cognitive ability, is used solely as the common-sense term, but that the article will treat the measurements, and that Intelligence (trait) and IQ should be consulted for consideration of how valid these measures are. The present article does this. We can quibble about how soon or late this should be done; for my taste, it's done properly.
5) I think you're right on this point, and I've edited the intro accordingly.
Hope this helps. Thanks for your thoughtful questions. --DAD 4 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
Answers 3
Before someone else “kills” me, let me say that I think that many of these are public policy or “politics” (= what is out there that we have to deal with whether we want to or not) questions. Their answers may be more important in guiding the way information is presented in the article than in determining information to be presented.
1. “ practical consequences of group differences in intelligence”
- To me, it just means that if, for instance, the kids attending school in Chester, Pa. all or almost all have a miserable time and all test out way low on IQ tests, college boards, etc., then even though a few of them may do exceptionally well in life the whole group of them is less likely to do well than kids in the XYZ Science High School who tested into it, and came out with high scores in those same kind of tests. Noticing that one demographic group is doing poorly is a good indication that something is probably going wrong and needs attention.
2. It is wrong to “judge everyone by ‘IQ’”, and it is wrong to “judge everyone by race,”
- and to do both things is even worse. On the other hand, evaluating everyone by race may be the right thing to do if you are trying to decide which people in Boulder, Colorado to allocate limited supplies of UV blocker spray to. Evaluating everyone by IQ may avoid stupid things like happened in my high school where my friend was steered into vocational education classes because his father was a traveling salesman.
3. “What about the potential for a "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop"….”
- It will tend to lower expression of the genotype, tend to produce an individual who will test out at a lower level on IQ tests. Probably worse than that, it will have strongly deleterious effects on the general self-evaluation of those who are not immunized by good parents, teachers, etc. against its effects. That’s what the whole “Black is beautiful,” movement is about. And that is why it is especially important for writers to inoculate the readers of their reports against mistakes of interpretation that could make those writers the unintentional allies of racists.
- This question is interesting because it deals with self reference and feedback. If you have a phalanx of studies that look at factors that influence test measures that attempt to measure intelligence, then that will dilute the effects of such feedback to some extent, because the individual will see many factors that are not beyond his/her control. If you make it clear that correlation does not prove causation, the individual is more easily able to see that his/her group may be subject as a group to certain deleterious influences, and seek ways to counter these influences rather than accepting as his/her fate the permanent state of his/her IQ score and the permanent state of his/her group’s IQ score.
4. “Shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' ‘intelligence’ as being limitless? "
- That was my favorite high school teacher’s belief. It’s like the story of the man who was somewhat tipsy and late getting home to his wife. He took a shortcut through the cemetery and fell into a grave. He was helplessly fingering the top of the hole when a despondent voice said, “You’ll never get out of this grave. It seems like I’ve been down here forever.” But the tipsy guy got out. The moral of the story is that if you assume you are defeated and never try then you’ll never get anywhere. The person who says, “You can’t do that!” is not your friend.
- On the flip side, believing that one has an unlimited potential to accomplish one’s goals may cause feelings of guilt if one can’t overcome some problem. My Chinese surrogate mother watched me trying to make myself sick by studying too frantically for an exam. She said the right way to view things was always to do your best, never be a slacker, and then take the result of the test as an objective measure of what you were capable of when you had really done your best. Take guidance from that result in planning future studying.
- A third way of looking at things is to say that anyone can win at cards when dealt an unusually rich hand. The good card player, however, is the one who makes the best of the cards that fate has dealt him/her.
- Educationally, what we most need to avoid doing is anything that would cause students to believe that they have no hope of succeeding. How to deal with a world in which the test results we are discussing are already “out there” is the big question. That is why I think your questions are relevant, not as suggesting content issues in the article but as suggesting valid concerns about how the facts (Dr. X made study Y that established a correlation between factors A and B) need to be contextualized for the general reader.
4. “Shouldn't the article note, or have a caveat sooner, regarding the lack of scientific consensus for whether "intelligence" is something that can be objectively measured?”
- In “A possible fix” I spoke of “intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests.” Probably that way of saying it is not clear enough. I was trying to get an idea expressed, that when we speak of “intelligence” all we really have as the referent of that word is the result of some tests that measure some responses. We may imagine that there is an unseen thing called “intelligence” that is being measured, but who knows whether we are even coming close to characterizing what is really there. There is also a too-easy assumption that we get the full cooperation of the people being tested. Back to your question, the problem is how to say the thing correctly. A “capstone” article on “things that influence intelligence” would be a good place to start because the little section that leads to the fan-out article on “race and intelligence” could point out how misleading that word is. All my attempts to get “intelligence” put in scare quotes or otherwise flagged have failed. People in the general population are unsophisticated about issues of this kind, and sometimes it is very difficult to even talk about things simply for terminological reasons even among well informed people. P0M 5 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
"Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level"
This statement is technically not true. I've done some rudimentary calculations giving Blacks the benefit of the doubt, but it is statistically not likely that there are any African Blacks with IQs over 180, assuming an avg IQ of 80, SD of 15, and a population of 1 billion. On the other hand, there should be about 343 East Asians with IQs over 180 (assuming an avg of 105, SD of 15, and a population of 1.2 billion) and 44 Ashkenazim with the same (assuming an avg IQ of 113, SD of 15, and population of 11.2 million). Dd2 4 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
- The distribution is not perfectly Gaussian in the tails. Can't make the kind of statistical statement you made at IQ 180. --DAD 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
- I tried to link that statement to the opening picture (which shows a restricted IQ range) in order to circumvent that problem. --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 20:08 (UTC)
summary style discussion cont.
The Misplaced Pages:Summary style proposal has been brought up again as a solution to a newly recognized problem. I agree that we should try to employ Misplaced Pages:Summary style for this article. I did the (relatively) easy job of turning Culture-only or partially genetic explanation? section into a sub article with the help of MS Word's autosummarize feature. It was relatively easy because the text of that section has high in detail but low in total number of topics. It was also, I think, crucial because it was running far too long. Other sections may be harder--autosummarize probably won't help--but I encourage the willing to try. Summary sections should be ~1 paragraph per 10k summarized, up to 3 paragraphs. I would recommend Race and intelligence (History) and Race and intelligence (Public policy) OR Race and intelligence controversy (moving from IQ test controversy) and something like Intelligence and public policy (which could optionally be merged with IQ#Practical importance and serve as the sub-article for that section as well). (Careful naming suggested to maximize room for growth.) --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
Categories: