Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 18 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

	Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Does anyone have this source at hand?

I'll list some sources here, and update it by edits from time to time.

• Kenny, Michael G. (2002), "Toward a Racial Abyss: Eugenics, Wickliffe Draper, and the Origins of The Pioneer Fund", Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 259–283

Citation needed for gap decrease

I undid the good-faith delete for now; however, the gap decrease needs to be cited or some other (cited) statement inserted regarding the progression in, and understanding of, the gap—or the delete will need to stand. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Nisbett, "Race, IQ and Scientism," pp. 50-52 in Steven Fraser, ed., The Bell Curve Wars (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).-- mustihussain (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a good source for this - here is the set of pages from your citation , and it does not address the size of the decrease that is uncited in the article. On page 50 it mentions (in a quote from The Bell Curve) that the gap has narrowed by .15-.25 standard deviations, but in the article it says "the difference has shrunk from about 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations", which is a difference of 0.4. I'll take a look at Weiji's suggestions soon. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources. Hunt and Carlson notes this too.

• Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

• Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan, eds. (2010). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Kaufman source also does not mention anything about the difference having "shrunk from 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations." The Weiss source has no page numbers and is a fairly large volume, do you have page numbers handy for the specific data in the article? (Preferably a quote from it actually, since the book does not appear to be browsable at Google Books) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted before, the WAIS-IV book reports the b-w gap as 14.54 points in the 2008 standardization sample. This certainly does not support Flynn and Dickens' claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is pure OR. Please stick to reliable sourcing. aprock (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Nisbett's new book, "intelligence and how to get it”? according to a book review in new york times the gap is now 9.5 points among 12-year-olds.-- mustihussain (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaps differ by age; one age can't be taken as fully representative, that's why we need a proper citation for the statement regarding the overall gap or need to craft something else that we can properly cite. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaps also differ by brand of IQ test, and in any event IQ points are not measurement units (nor are the standard deviation units used to derive IQ standard scoring). There are also cohort effects to consider. That's why it's encyclopedic and fair to the sources to say that there is a gap (there is, at the moment) and that the gap has been generally decreasing, but not to specify the size of the gap with much exactitude in the lede. And of course the article text, probably beginning right from the lede, has to make clear that both the significance and the cause of the gap are matters of considerable dispute. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence documentary

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-and-intelligence-1-7_school

I believe this video should be included in the External links.Oren.tal (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's weak.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

why do you think so?Oren.tal (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not in the business of providing links to Dailymotion. What is the authorized original source of the video with no copyright violation? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

well, it is channel 4 documentary about the issue. so that is why I think it should be included.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo

I think the channel four documentary is probably a good external link - but it should be to the channel4 website not to a videosharing website where the content may be illegal or the link may break.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article is going to include external links, I think some of the old links it used to have should be considered. I found these in a version of the article from around the time of mediation, but they've disappeared for some reason since then.

Collective statements

• APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence
• Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. American Anthropological Association. Adopted December 1994.
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13–23 January–February 1997

Review papers

• James Flynn and Charles Murray debate – news summary
• June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
• Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
• There Are No Public-Policy Implications Robert J. Sternberg
• What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True? Linda S. Gottfredson
• Heredity, Environment, and Race Differences in IQ Richard E. Nisbett
• The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson
• Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
• Race, Genetics and IQ Richard E. Nisbett (PDF)
• The Inequality Taboo Charles Murray archived version
• Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen

Might not want to re-include all of them, but I think they're at least more relevant than a TV documentary.

In general I think that including documentaries is a pretty bad idea. In an area of legitimate science a documentary looks pretty pathetic next to actual published research. I can't count how many times I've seen paleontology documentaries completely dumbing down and misrepresenting the topic - sometimes not even intentionally. This happens all the time with science documentaries directed at the general public, so I think it's best to keep them out of the article regardless of the perspective that they take. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the Flynn & Murray debate should be included in External Links. It's a rather informative discussion between two prominent scholars in the field.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the texts should be in the sources - not in the external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of link

See . Exactly what policy prevents linking to a related article? If there are any problems with sources in the other aricles it should be noted there but that numerous peer-reviewed articles have cited and used the IQ scores establishes notability and some academic acceptance.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Geographic ancestry section

Sorry-- I'm new at this and my ref tags got messed up. Removed the stuff recently added by full shunyata because we can't cite wikipedia directly, and the other stuff I removed looks like synth because its cited to papers that aren't discussing Lynn's conclusions. The last one doesn't mention IQ at all. -SightWatcher (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If a professionally published paper discusses the factual issues of this article, it may belong in this article no matter who it responds to. (There is, of course, the issue of citing too many primary sources and not enough secondary sources in most articles related to the recent Arbitration Committee case connected to this article, but sources must be represented here according to their weight in the professional literature.) The way to cure a footnote referring to a section of a Misplaced Pages article is to turn it into a wikilink. Therefore I've just reverted your two brand-new edits. But welcome aboard; we can always use more careful editors here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Um...the point is that the articles should not be used in response to Lynn because they don't address Lynn's studies. Granted I'm new to wikipedia but this looks like textbook synth to me. The Dickens study is already in the article elsewhere , it just doesn't belong here in response to Lynn. Thanks! I'm just going by what I've read on guidelines thus far. I'm trying to learn and hope to actually contribute some if possible! -SightWatcher (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If Lynn asserts a fact, and another researcher asserts a contrary fact, that may be just fine for article text. It would be synthesis if either factual statement were indirect, but it's just good use of sources to see which sources assert which facts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is quite obvious. Let's say that a sociologist discovers a certain correlation between x and y. If the same scholar publishes an explanation for the corelation, we can put that in. If anothe scholar publishes a differe nt explanation of the correlation, we can put that in too. Even if the second scholar does not discuss the first scholar's viesws, thi is clearly NOT SYNTH. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like synth. Slrubenstien’s explanation would make sense in theory, but look at the actual text of the article. It’s doing more than just stating facts contrary to Lynn's conclusions.

Here are the conclusions from Lynn that the article talks about:

"Several studies performed without the use of DNA-based ancestry estimation attempted to correlate estimates of African or European ancestry with IQ. These studies have found that mixed-race individuals tended to have IQs intermediate between those of unmixed blacks and whites, with a correlation of 0.17 between the estimated degree of difference in ancestry and the size of the difference in average IQ."

And here comes the first problem:

"The studies also suggested that African national IQs range from 67 to 70 using Richard Lynn's controversial study while suggesting the African-American mean IQ is closer to 80. In reality the black American mean IQ is about 90, much higher than a heterosis correlation of 0.17 would predict, which would predict an IQ closer to 80 in African-Americans with about 20% European admixture."

Since the article cited for this passage isn't talking about Lynn's conclusions, it doesn't say this is higher than what a heterosis correlation of 0.17 would predict. Or that this would predict an IQ closer to 80. These conclusions are not in any of the sources being used. They're nothing but original research. There’s also a problem presenting Dicken's estimate of African American IQ as fact, since this estimate isn’t universally accepted. The section that Sightwatcher linked is a good example of how to cover this topic neutrally though.

And then we have this:

"The European admixture suggested by Lynn is not nearly as uniform by geographical region in the US as previously believed. Suggesting a possible lack of correlation between European admixture and IQ scores."

The paper does not mention IQ at all. Stating it suggests "a possible lack of correlation between European admixture and IQ scores" is once again not supported by the source and its definite original research.

If you two think these two papers should be cited here it needs to be done in a way that isn't a synth/or issue. I'm going to make a minor change to get it more in line with Misplaced Pages policy and hopefully it’s an acceptable compromise. -TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles