Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 3 February 2011

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: 14 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 14 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: 14 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Possible misrepresentation of Nisbett

I've been looking for ways to improve this article, and I've found something in it that I'm not sure is right. At the beginning of the "Debate overview" section, there is a sentence that says "Richard Nisbett, in replying to hereditarian arguments, structures the debate into several major areas." This is cited to Nisbett’s commentary on Rushton and Jensen, and Appendix B of his book "Intelligence and How to Get it." Then there's the explanation about heritability within and between groups, score convergence, flynn effect and spearman's hypothesis.

I have looked through these sources (they're both online), and Appendix B of the book does discuss heritability, score convergence and spearman's hypothesis, but it discusses a bunch of other stuff too and those things are in the "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" section. Same with his commentary on Rushton and Jensen. The article currently makes it sound like the Nisbett sources only talk about what's in the "Debate overview" section even though they discuss a lot more than that, and I feel this misrepresents Nisbett. I think this could be improved, either by combining the sections or change/remove the sentence about how Nisbett summarizes the debate. The current way is technically incorrect though. Any ideas?-SightWatcher (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would guess Nisbett was referenced explicitly in an attempt to prevent this article from becoming a coat rack for one theory or another. You could remove the Nisbett lead as it's not strictly needed, or you could merge the two sections and follow Nisbett more faithfully in terms of section headings. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, looks like the Nisbett sources also don't discuss some of the factors affecting IQ that're mentioned in the "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" section, like nutrition and stereotype threat. If we say that this section as well as "Debate overview" are modeled after Nisbett then these things will need to be left out. I don't think we should do that, though, because no doubt other sources discuss them. I agree with the concern about the article becoming a coat rack, and that it's a good idea to mention that this is how a prominent researcher summarizes the debate. But if Nisbett doesn't describe it this way, then I feel he's not the best choice for it. Anyone know of a source that talks about the same aspects of the debate that Nisbett does, as well as nutrition and stereotype threat?-SightWatcher (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my Kindle copy of Nisbett's book found multiple references to stereotype threat in Chapter 6, but only one reference to nutrition regarding race: "Postnatal conditions also favor whites over blacks, especially for nutrition (Ho, Roessmann, Straumfjord, and Monroe, 1980)". There would probably be no harm in listing several sources for the topic outline. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. I actually haven't read all of Nisbett's book yet, just the appendix being used as a source for this section, so I didn't know it discussed stereotype threat too. So the best solution might just be to cite this part of the article to Nisbett's book instead of just the appendix. We still need a source that includes nutrition in its debate summary though. I don't think a single brief mention in his book is enough to cite him for that. Do you know of a source that summarizes the debate while discussing nutrition?-SightWatcher (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No one can recommend a source for this? I don't think this part of the article should be left as is, which seems to misrepresent Nisbett, but I don't know how to change it unless someone can recommend a different source to use.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Lynn's argumentation and criticism

See The current text has several problems:

1. Does not mention that Lynn considers environmental factors such nutrition to be important as well as genetic ones.
2. Gives the impression that Lynn argues that genes explain, for example, economic differences when he uses IQ for this argument.
3. Does not mention the gist of the criticism, that Lynn excluded most the available IQ data and that this caused a substantial different average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa.

As such, I will restore the previous, more correct version unless good reasons are given against this.Miradre (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the environment factors mentioned by Lynn to be added. However he has explicitly stated that even after environment factors are accounted for there is still a 1 SD gap between Whites and Blacks that would be due to genetic factors. Again, Lynn's position as substantially genetic is much more accurate than "in part" genetic when explaining his viewpoint of racial IQ gaps.

Lynn does argue that a significant portion of IQ is related to genetics and that in turn has impacts on economical differences so I'm not sure what the issue on this aspect is.

Wicherts used different sets of IQ data and also used his own measurements to adjust for Flynn affect. It doesn't necessarily make Wicherts data more valid than Lynn's. BlackHades (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you agree to some of the changes, then why do you revert everything?

Lynn has used IQ data, not genetic data, for showing relations to economic growth.

My text does not state that Wicherts data is more correct. It describes his criticism of Lynn's research and his argument that Lynn had exluded most of the available IQ data giving substantially different average IQ. To exclude this important criticism violates npov. If you consider something in Wicherts criticism to be wrong, then please add this with sources.

Also, I find your edit comment weird: "Reverting edits. Get consensus for change. Read talk". I took this to talk after your earlier revert and you never answered.Miradre (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wicherts et al. do not claim that Lynn "excluded most of the available IQ data". They themselves do not use all of the data in their analysis. What Wicherts and others say is that the way Lynn included and excluded studies is biased, and that their own selection of studies is more appropriate.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I quote: "In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African testtakers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80."

Unless a good reason are given I will quote this word for word if necessary in the text.Miradre (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In their reviews of African IQ data, Wicherts et al. themselves exclude lots of studies that Lynn had included. They give reasons why they include or exclude each study, and the gist of their argument is that the selection of studies in Lynn's review of African IQ studies is unsystematic and biased. The total number of studies included in either Lynn's or Wicherts's reviews is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that, according to Wicherts et al., Lynn used biased criteria to include and exclude studies, while the criteria in their own study are (they argue) unbiased.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is misleading, Wicherts et al, in their first paper only excluded two studies. In the second paper they included this and more for a total of 109 samples compared to 28 for Lynn. Obviously the numbers studied is important: I quote, "To arrive at a mean IQ close to Lynn andMeisenberg's estimate of 69, the majority of the data would have to be rejected... ...this would amount to the exclusion of over 25,000 cases, or two-thirds of the available data."

A very serious criticism that should be added is a summary of this: "In the examples given above, the exclusion rule was applied only to samples that averaged relatively high IQs, but not to samples that averaged IQs near or below 70. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of samples' representativeness is not independent of the mean IQ in the samples." "these rules have been applied only to exclude samples with IQs above 74.5, but not to exclude samples that averaged IQs near or below 70." "Lynn and Meisenberg's sole inclusion criterion was so strongly associated with the average IQs (rb=−.88, pb.0001) that it is hard to avoid the impression that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of representativeness was afunction of the average IQ in the sample."

You may or may not agree with this criticism but according to NPOV both sides should be allowed in article.Miradre (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1996 report in the intro

Why have much material from a 1996 report in the intro? Far too old now for its conclusions to be accepted as the state of the art. Preferably it should be removed completely from the intro.Miradre (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What in particular is outdated in the 1996 report? I see it constantly cited in new literature.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You do accept the conclusion that there is no evidence for genetic factors causing the IQ differences? Miradre (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation." Miradre (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's direct empirical support, because that would probably require information about specific sets of genes that cause racial differences in IQ. However, there are tons of indirect evidence for the hereditarian position, which was true already when the report was published.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is your view, not that of the report. One cannot accept and only include certain conclusions of the report, like regarding socioeconomic factors, while rejecting and excluding from mentioning other parts like the conclusions regarding genetic factors.Miradre (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any siginificant changes in the consensus view since the 1996 report's publication. There is certainly no reports of any direct links between specific genes and the race-IQ gap. The hereditarian hypothesis doesn't seem to me to be stand any stronger now than it did then. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lacking discussion of the Pioneer fund

Why is there not more material on the Pioneer Fund? For example the article on Intelligent Design mentions the Discovery Institute repeatedly. In good journals researchers should disclose possible conflicts of interests such as funding sources with a political or commercial agenda and many of the hereditarians certainly have such conflicts of interest.Miradre (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is very relevant - the fund has almost singlehandedly (fundedly?) kept this line of research alive during its toughest times.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The political aspect of this debate is covered in a separate article, History of the race and intelligence controversy. It goes into more detail about the Pioneer Fund. The main R&I article appears to be limited to the debate about what the data says, while the other article is for discussion about who may or may not be biased.Boothello (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this is important also for current research and not just for past history. At the very least the controversy regarding the Fund should be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The history article covers the current debate too. Something like a third of it is devoted to the past 30 years. If this needs to be discussed in the R&I article it needs to be brief in order to avoid overlap. And for balance, if the article is going to go into more detail about the Pioneer Fund, it should also discuss some of the left-wing organizations that opponents of the hereditarian position have been involved with, such as the Sociobiology Study Group and Science for the People.Boothello (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund funding is ongoing. Not history. If there is any overlap then the material in the history article could be reduced. If you want to add something of current interest with good sources, then please do so.Miradre (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A separate section on funding might be appropriate I think as people have had trouble trying to research this area. I don't think the Discovery Institute is an apt comparison as there's loads of people supporting that and the research it funds isn't peer reviewed. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The comparison would be that there is an organization with an ulterior agenda beyond simply supporting research. The Discovery Institute has religious motivation, the Pioneer Fund, considering its creation and history, has a political agenda. Relevent for the same reason one should disclose if the tobacco industry is sponsoring research on smoking, even if peer-reviewed.Miradre (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• This page has been historically dominated by users who have more of a favorable view of the Pioneer Fund, and only recently were they taken out of the picture. I think more could be added about the Pioneer Fund, certainly. II | (t - c) 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there's consensus for adding some material about this. If it gets added, I hope it can be presented in a way that's more balanced than most articles and books that discuss the Pioneer Fund in relation to hereditarian research, which seem to often discuss this source of funding only as a way to discredit the research. The info should include the fact that there has sometimes been no other way to get funding for politically sensitive research, as Dmcq mentioned. And I still think it should also discuss political organization like those I mentioned that have supported opponents of the hereditarian viewpoint.Boothello (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be interesting additions if you have some good sources supporting this.Miradre (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Added something myself regarding this.Miradre (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added another sentence about the similar accusations made against people on the other side. I also think the "views on research" section is pretty badly organized overall, especially as it relies so heavily on long quotes. Maybe someone should propose a rewrite of it here and replace the current version once it has consensus.Boothello (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IQ testing environmental variances

The article IQ testing environmental variances has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument

"Nichols (1987) critically summarized the argument as follows: We do not know what causes the test score changes over time. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin."

Summarized what argument? Never seen non-hereditarians use this flawed argument. Most likely the old quote is misleading due to lack of context. Looks like a straw man representation of the non-hereditarian side. Therefore I suggest it should be removed.Miradre (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy contains essays by lots of different people, and the quote from Nichols is a response to an earlier essay by Flynn. The article should probably mention it's a response to Flynn rather than to environmentalists in general. Apart from that not being clear, though, I don't think it's misleading, and I don't think it's a straw man either. Even if it were, it's our job to present what the sources say, straw man or not. Something like half the quotes in the "views on research" section are hard to understand out of context so I don't know why you've focused on this one in particular. We could try to add information about the background for all of these quotes, but what the section really needs is a complete rewrite.Boothello (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly a caricature of Flynn's argument not an actual attempt at faithful summary or understanding. There is no need at all to include that quote.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can add sources explaining the quote and that presents an accurate "summary" of a important current argument, and what that argument is then please do so. Otherwise it should be removed as unintelligible, outdated, and most likely a misrepresenation. If there are problems elsewhere, then that is not a reason to not fix this one.Miradre (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Victor Chmara already made a proposal here about how to rewrite this section. I don't completely understand why his revision wasn't added. To my knowledge, I don't recall anyone disputing that it was an improvement over the current section. There was a bit of disagreement over whether his rewrite or someone else's was better, so eventually the current version was kept even though no one liked that version much. I think this was a case of paralysis by indecision unfortunately. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems biased to hereditarian side by only mentioning supposed attacks against them while ignoring the Pioneer fund as well as the attacks hereditarians such as Rushton has made against whole groups on non-IQ and political issues. Also, spends a lot of time defending "race" as a valid concept. That should not a goal for this article, the validity of "race" or "iq" should be discussed in the articles about IQ and race. Although this should be pointed out more explicitly in this article by referring that discussion to those articles.Miradre (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how attacks by some group on others on non-IQ issues would have any relevance to the views on research section, could you give an example please? Also how do I identify a hereditarian, is it someone who says there is some influence of genes correlated with areas of the world people lived in for the last few thousand years? Do non-hereditarians hold that there cannot be such correlation, that there is none proven, or nothing that should be investigated, or is the distinction more nuanced? Dmcq (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A hereditarian would be one claiming that it is scientifically proven that at least part of the gaps are genetic in origin. A non-hereditarian that it is not proven. It would be a double standard for an article to only mention that some hereditarians feels "demeaned, ostracized and occasionally threatened with tenure revocation", when for example Rushton on extremly weak grounds accuses various groups of having various dysfunctional behaviors due to non-IQ genes and through the Pioneer Fund continues to fund various far-right extremists.Miradre (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Except a hereditarian might not necessarily claim it proven - but just express a belief in genes being the most important reason for the IQ gap. If we want to delve into why Rushton has been treated as he has we need to describe why as well - his tenure revocation threats were not just because his university didn't like his research it was for unethical reserach methods involving students. Any other professor would have probably been fired for what he did - regardless of whether they were also racists, Rushton only kept his tenure by claiming to be a martyr of PC. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly anyone is a hereditarian by that standard. Not even Jensen thinks the hereditarian hypothesis is "scientifically proven," he just thinks it's more likely than the alternatives. You also can't equate being insulted by Rushton with an actual threat to someone's career. No one has been in danger of losing their job because of him, or been forced to abandon their research. This has however happened because of people on the other side.

I think Victor's version of this section (on the page Trevelyan linked) is an improvement over the current section. Maunus and Miradre seem to be the main people who disapprove of this proposal, so I would support adding that section to the article if Victor could modify it to address their concerns. For example, it shouldn't be difficult to add the paragraph about the Pioneer Fund and Science for the People to the end of it.Boothello (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several other editors whose opinions would be valuable before making any drastic changes - Slrubenstein, Aprock, Ramdrake, Weijibaikebianji to name a few.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rushton's Pioneer Fund have supported various far-rights extremist organisations and individuals that have advocated everything from eugenics to repatriation to Africa and he himself accuses other groups of everything from genetically high psychopathy to genetically poor child-rearing. Misplaced Pages's content is not a popularity contest determined by straw polls. Content is based on other policies like discussion and what reliable sources say.Miradre (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the proper term for dragging in stuff like that is WP:COATRACK rather than anything to do with straw man. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am for returning to the original topic. Does anyone have a source for that this 1987 "critical summary" refers to an important current argument? Exactly what is this argument? Who claims it? The argument is obviously logically flawed so why keep it except as a straw man?Miradre (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it is a straw man argument. However, that is not a reason to remove it, because if we remove all the straw man arguments, there will be nothing left. This whole controversy is based on straw man arguments. Each side is so outraged at the other making large claims with no evidence that they'd claim the opposite (also without evidence) in revenge. Since neither side has any evidence, they resorts to criticizing the other side for their lack of evidence. So in this case, straw man arguments should STAY, as it is everything this controversy is about. If you don't like straw man arguments, don't take part of the controversy (not saying that you did). 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The validity of "Race" and "IQ"

In the "Debate overview" section it would be appropriate to have section called "The validity of 'Race' and 'IQ'". This because the concepts are often questioned by critics of this research. However, this article should have very little if any discussion of this itself since that is a proper topic of the Race and IQ articles. If there is anything more to be said on this topic that is not said in those articles it could be placed in this section. Then there are some material that could be moved to this section from elsewhere in the article or shortened.

Like this paragraph: "Commentators have also argued that hereditarian psychologists have tacitly adopted folk definitions of race and heredity. Other common criticisms have centered on the problems that intelligence is poorly measured and that race is a social construct, not a biologically defined attribute. According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional, or has definitions that vary between cultures. This would make contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially groups that came from different cultures, dependent mainly on which culture's definition of intelligence is being used. Moreover, this view asserts that even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, racial differences in intelligence would still be meaningless since race exists only as a social construct, with no basis in biology."Miradre (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Which particular race article were you referring to? Race is just a disambiguation page. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Race (classification of humans). Has very long sections discussing the validity of the concept.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Richard Nisbet in replying to hereditarian arguments, structures the debate into several major areas"

Possibly, but certainly not into those areas presented in the section "Debate overview". Either before or after adding "The validity of "Race" and "IQ"". As such this sentence should be removed.Miradre (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Processing time section

Is largely unsourced. One supposed source is "Nisbett 2009". This is likely this, http://www.scribd.com/doc/29596219/Appendix-B-to-Intelligence-and-How-to-Get-It-by-Richard-Nisbett, in which case the content has little similarity to the source. Also undue weight for something with so low a correlation with IQ. As such this section should be grealy pruned and made to resemble a source.Miradre (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction time has been shown to correlate with IQ pretty strongly. Jensen's book Clocking the Mind talks about this in depth, and so do a couple chapters in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy. I agree the section can't remain unsourced, but please don't delete it yet, if you give me a few days I'll add some sources and make it shorter.Boothello (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if the current content has little resemblance to Nisbett's text there is a lot of interesting criticism in Nisbett's text of reaction time as evidence of a genetic cause. A correlation of 0.2 is weak. But I will wait and see if the text improves.Miradre (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pruned, npov, source.Miradre (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just been 2 days since you raised the issue. I'm working on rewriting the section. Please give me a little more time to revise it before you delete most of it.-Boothello (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no justification for reverting to a bad version with unsourced and pov material. If there is something to add with sources then that can be added later.Miradre (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I revised the section to make it shorter and include refs. I had to do kind of a rush job with this, since I know you're impatient to get rid of the unreffed content. It was surprisingly hard to find sources that discuss race and reaction time from a pro-environmental perspective, there's a very large body of literature about this from people like Jensen, Rushton and Eysenck but Nisbett was the only source I could find about it from the other side. if you think I left out something important, feel free to add it. If not, though, I think this may really reflect the balance of viewpoints that exists in the source literature about race and RT.Boothello (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You made it longer, not shorter. Also states claims as facts. I will certainly go over it.Miradre (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial overview done.Miradre (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Now the text contains way too much uninteresting and irrelevant information about how RT works. Those interested can look that up in the main article about reaction time. It is not the purpose of this article to explain what MRI or reaction time is in great detail. As such as I think the following should be removed: "Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. In psychometric psychology, RT is considered to be an index of speed of processing. That is, RT indicates how fast the thinker can execute the mental operations needed by the task at hand. In turn, speed of processing is considered an index of processing efficiency. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior. Scores on most types of RT tasks tend to correlate with standard IQ tests, but the exact amount of correlation varies a great deal and depends mostly on number of possible choices in the task: in general, the more choices, the higher the correlation. RT tasks also tend to correlate with g, and no relationship has been found between RT and any other psychometric factors independent of g. The correlation of both IQ and g to RT tends to be more pronounced for elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs) than other types of RT tasks. Like IQ, the correlation between g and RT varies depending on the type of task preformed."Miradre (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with miradre - the topic of reaction time is of marginal importance to the topic of the article as claims about the gap overwhelmingly rely on other tuypes of evidence - it should get little more than a cursory mention.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a tricky balance to get right. Race and reaction time isn't discussed anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, so we have an obligation to make this part of the article informative to readers. I agree it should probably be shorter, though. I've tried condensing it, and I combined the first two paragraphs. How's it look now?Boothello (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh the humanity! aprock (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The article has numerous problems of every kind but here I will focus on the overall structure.

1. The "History" and "Current debate" sections. Consists mainly of a long chronological list of the titles of various publications and by whom. Most likely completely uninteresting to almost everyone. The sections should be combined, the content greatly pruned, and most of the list moved to the "History of the race and intelligence controversy" article. Some other material like policy and research implications should be moved to the "Policy relevance" section.

2. The "Debate overview" and "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" sections. Extremely unclear what the is supposed the the differences between these sections. Instead I propose two new logical sections: "Environmental factors potentially causing racial IQ differences" (with subsections such as nutrition, test bias, SES, and so on) and "Evidence against and for genetics causing racial IQ differences" (with subsections such as brain size, adoption, inbreeding depression, and so on). Miradre (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that procedure - i would name the second section differently - something like "Discussion of possible genetic causes of the IQ gap" or "Arguments for and against ...". "Evidence" suggest that the conflict is based on varying evidence while it is often varying interpretations of the validity of proposed evidence and of different lines of argumentation based on that evidecnce that is the issue. Also there would need to be a section where the valditity of both race and IQ as categories on which statistics can be based is discussed - that falls out side of the environmental/genetic discussion both of which viewpoints assume the validity of both concepts. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I have restructed the article and moved content to appropriate new sections. Nothing deleted or moved to other articles as for now.Miradre (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a few issues with the new structure: first of all, "Spearman's Hypothesis" should go in the "Group differences" section. Spearman's hypothesis only says that racial IQ gaps are mostly due to differences in g. It says nothing about whether that differences is genetic or environmental, so it shouldn't be listed as an argument for or against a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps.

Second, "Heritability within and between groups" should go earlier in the article. The relationship between within-group and between-group heritability is perhaps the most important point in the entire race/IQ debate, so it needs to be mentioned early on so readers can understand it.

Third, the section "Arguments for and against genetic causes of the IQ gaps" shouldn't use the word "cause." I think "Contribution" would be better. Hereditarians don't believe that genetics are the exclusive cause of IQ gaps, just that they play a significant role in it. I'm also not sure that having this title refer to genetics specifically is a good idea at all. For example, differences in brain size could be taken as an argument for IQ gaps being due either to genetics or due to nutrition. The only thing they really argue against is that the IQ gap can be explained completely in terms of education or culture.Boothello (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What aout "influences" - I think this may be more accurate than both "cause" and "contribution" - differences in nutrition is of course both an environmentla and a cultural factor. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Group differences in brain size, reaction time, inbreeding depression, and g (Spearman's Hypothesis) are used as arguments by the hereditarians. In fact, likely all the arguments used by hereditarians are about various group differences on other variables than IQ itself. It would be very confusing for the average reader to split the discussion of these subjects into two parts with one part mentioning claimed group differences for these no-IQ factors and another part much later discussing these differences. How about a brief sentence in the group differences section stating that there also claimed differences for these non-IQ variables which are discussed in the later section? The difference between within-group and between-group heritability fit squarely in a discussion about the role of genetics. Cannot be more important than the whole section about genetics itself. Changing to "contribution" seems fine to me.Miradre (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I m all for anything to make the narrative more interesing. I think as a general rule more context helps. I only wish to point out that WP articles often have list-like sections, because one of WP's major strengths is hypertext and we want to link this article to all the relevant articles. I am not arguing against the discussed changed, only pleaing to keep all of the links. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The list-like material is in the history section. I am not advocating removing anything from the list-like material completely from Misplaced Pages. But how much should be in this article and how much should only be mentioned in the History of the race and intelligence controversy article can be discussed. I think it is questionable that this article should include, for example, "Various other books of collected contributions appeared at the same time, including The black-white test gap (1998) edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, Intelligence, heredity and environment (1997) edited by Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko. A section in IQ and human intelligence (1998) by Nicholas Mackintosh discussed ethnic groups and Race and intelligence: separating science from myth (2002) edited by Jefferson Fish presented further commentary on The Bell Curve by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, biologists and statisticians." I do not think that these are notable enough to mention outside the the main history article and they make this article looks like a boring listing of rather unimportant publications. Only the really notable ones should be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that those books should all be used to reference the article instead - those books are all first class reliable sources for this topic and they are severely underused in writing the article. I agree that there is no point of mentioning them in the text itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After putting some more thought into this, I think the biggest problem with the new structure is that dividing all of the debate topics into "potential environmental causes" and "genetic arguments" amounts to original research. Most of these topics have been written about extensively by both environmentalists and hereditarians. For example, Flynn and Nisbett think that regression toward the mean is best explained by environmental factors, and Neisser thinks race differences in brain size are evidence for nutritional effects rather than genetics, and Jensen and Rushton often mention the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (listed under "Rearing conditions") as evidence for a genetic basis. But by dividing these topics between environmental and genetic arguments, we're implying that each of these lines of evidence supports one position more than the other. I think this is also a bit of a POV problem.

Another problem with dividing the article this way is it opens the door to pointless argument over whether the genetic arguments section is too short or too long compared to the environmental section. Creating this false dichotomy lends itself to stacking up of one section against the other, which is pointless because topics in both sections have been covered from both positions. I think the two sections should be recombined into a single section titled something like "debate overview."Boothello (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the key is to only present "evidence" in the context in which it is used - so that when we have a section about "hereditarian arguments" that section includes Jensen's arguments about the adoption studies amentioning that this is the reason he sees this as evidence for hereditarianism and we include a small mention of why others may not be convinced by the validity of that argument. The same in the environmental section we present arguments and counterarguments - the evidence does not mean anything by itself it only means something when it is interpreted and different scholars interpret it differently - that is what we must report.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between a factor that may cause IQ differences (like nutrition, SES, and so on) and arguments for that there are genetic differences. Regression towards mean is not a factor that may cause racial IQ differences; it is has been used as an argument for that the differences may be genetic. Obviously hereditarians and non-hereditarians are going to disagree regarding whether this regresseion is evidence for a role for genetic or not. But they agree on that this is not a cause of racial IQ differences. So here we have a fundamental och logical division.Miradre (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I think "presentation of the evidence" is very much a dangerous and difficult path to travel. The main problem with this is that evidence presented to the laymen tends to be like reading tea leaves or horoscopes. People see what that they want to see, and ignore the stuff they don't want to see. Taking this tack as the primary structure of the article exposes the problem multiple times. First, when editors try and sift through the mountain of data trying to determine which evidence is "good" and which is "bad", all the while presenting argument and counter-argument for the data. Second, such a presentation encourages readers to synethesize their own conclusions, with little regard to what the science says. Third, this leads to endless strife amongst maintainers who then have to tirelessly check and recheck all the edits that various POV pushers come in to "tweak" or "correct" the evidence. If there is one thing I think would improve the article while simultaneously make it more stable, that would be moving away from evidentiary exposition and more into summary of conclusions with the appropriate weighting. That's not to say there is no place for some explanation of specific evidence, but my guess is that most of that would be best handled in sub articles. aprock (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolana and Han L.J. van der Maas, Intelligence Volume 38, Issue 1, January–February 2010, Pages 30-37

• 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