Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 13 July 2013

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: 30 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 April 11, 2011 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.

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: 30 days

Rewriting brain size

I've decided to make another attempt to rewrite the brain size section. This section was removed (again) as part of Killerchihuahua's massive revert. I think most of the other problems caused by her revert have been fixed now, but this one hasn't yet.

I don't think it's necessary to wait for a consensus before restoring the section, because there never was a consensus to remove it in the first place. If anything, there was a consensus that it belonged in the article and that problems with it should be fixed by editing it instead of repeatedly blanking it. However, I am rewriting the section to address the concerns expressed about it by other editors. Aprock said the section was non neutral because it left out the Hunt and Carlson source, so I'm adding that source. Someone also complained about the using of the Jensen and Johnson paper because it's a primary source, so I'm replacing that with a secondary source. The rewritten section is sourced entirely to secondary sources.

Like before, further improvements to this section are welcome. If anyone thinks the section has remaining problems, I encourage you to fix them by editing it. Akuri (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving brains size that much space seems pretty clearly undue weight, and there are still concerns about synthesis mentioned above. It would be better to write up on the talk page on in your user space what you have in mind to add, and then let people discuss it. Just adding it is likely to be disruptive. Tom Harrison 13:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's taking up less space than it used to. It's less space than "Caste like minorities", a topic that is less supported and studied aspect of race and intelligence than brain size is.

Tom, with all due respect, your suggested method of "write up on the talk page" has already been attempted. But unfortunately some have shown that they will refuse to accept a "Brain Size" section under any circumstances which highlights a deep problem. The section was removed under dubious circumstances 2 1/2 months ago under the impression that the removal is meant to only be temporary. But some editors saw this as an opportunity to try to make the removal permanent by blocking and hindering any effort toward its recreation. There are some editors of this article that wish either to reduce "genetic arguments" section to a stub or remove it entirely calling genetic arguments WP:FRINGE. The "fringe" debate has been rehashed and rebutted repeatedly over the years but that hasn't stopped some editors from using this argument and then wrongly use it as justification to either delete or block relevant cited material that exists in WP:reliable sources and meets WP:V that they simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In the past 2 months, three entire subsections under "Genetic Arguments" have been removed. Whereas less relevant and supported subsections than the ones removed in the environmental section like "Logographic writing system" and "Black subculture" still remains. The very uneven approach of the editing of this article is extremely troublesome and in turn WP:NPOV in heavy jeopardy. This is a difficult article to edit as there is no consensus to the cause of "race and intelligence" in the scientific fields and because for some editors it's difficult to put their own strong personal opinions aside. But I would encourage editors to try to approach this article more evenhandedly despite what their own personal positions may be. BlackHades (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Still violates policy

The section is, once again, violating several core policies. Only the views of an extreme minority are expressed and continues to misrepresent sources.

• The first paragraph is simply a vehicle for 1) repeating "hereditarian" claims that anyone finding fault with their conclusions is motivated by "political correctness" and 2) using statistical correlations to imply genetic causality when in fact no genetic mechanism as ever been found.
• The current version of the second paragraph is essentially unchanged from the previous version (as discussed here).

Earl Hunt writes,writing about the research of hereditarians in this area, states that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are therefore an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are veryexpensive to obtain, somuch of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly and thus makes the data less reliable. Hunt notes that, even when combinedCombined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data still just accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a smallportion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=433–434}}</ref>

• The third paragraph, also discussed here, misrepresents Hunt & Carlson (2007) and appears to exist as an excuse to mention Rushton and his "hypothesis."

Three times in as many months this section has been returned to the article after having been removed for violating a variety of core policies. I suggest the editor self revert this latest restoration and attempt to gain consensus for a version that is aligned with the policies of this project. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The viewpoint is not of the "extreme minority". Hunt and Carlson is considered a well respected secondary source. Their viewpoint is also neutral in regards to "brain size". Certainly doesn't match the hereditarian arguments of Templer, Gottfredson nor the environmentalist arguments of Wicherts, Cernovsky. It quite thoroughly explained Hunt and Carlson's positions. In accordance with WP:NPOV, other viewpoints from both the hereditarian and environmentalist viewpoints should be added as well so the section is certainly not yet complete but it is a decent start.

All you've done so far is criticize every version of "Brain Size" to date without making any improvements of your own. You're more than welcome to make adjustments, changes, additions that you feel are necessary. Is there a reason why you've yet to do this?

There is one problem I do see however. The phrase "writing about the research of hereditarians in the area" should be removed. Hunt and Carlson isn't writing on behalf of hereditarians here. Their statements are their own which they specifically cite their reasoning based on facts that are already known per McDaniels's meta study. Also note that every WP:reliable source on this topic whether from the hereditarian, environmentalist, or neutral perspective, is going to mention Rushton in some form or another as he's done more research on this specific inquiry than anyone else so mentioning Rushton is unavoidable here. Environmentalists like Wicherts and Cernovsky also mention Rushton very heavily. So to try to avoid mentioning Rushton in this subsection would be a complete violation of WP:NPOV when all the reliable sources of this subsection mentions him so heavily. BlackHades (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, I hope you realise that you are no longer presenting anything remotely resembling a compelling argument. Just saying "this is essentially unchanged from the previous version" means nothing. In one of the earlier discussions you linked to, you pointed out some ways the previous version could give a better summary of Hunt, and the changes you're highlighting from that version were made by The Devil's Advocate precisely to address those concerns. Did you not notice that? You're also claiming it's a problem to mention Hunt and Carlson commenting on Rushton, or Jerison commenting on the effects of politics, but these are simply what the sources say. All of these are high-quality secondary sources. You make a big fuss whenever other editors cite a source while leaving out something you agree with in it, so it just shows bias for you to complain about us including the parts of the sources you don't like. Akuri (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, your recent edits have been helpful but there's still one issue. You appear to misinterpret Hunt's meaning. As previously stated, Hunt's comments about brain size research regarding brain size to intelligence correlation and brain size being almost entirely genetically determined, is not based on research by Rushton and Jensen. He is not speaking on behalf of Rushton and Jensen here. He first states what Rushton and Jensen's argument is and then he is giving his own reasons why Rushton and Jensen's argument, that "differences between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size" merits an investigation. Hunt cites (Baaré et al 2001) and Hunt and Carlson cites (McDaniel 2005). BlackHades (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. He is specifically discussing ideas put forth by R&J. Hunt and Carlson, in a paper that is not a review of the research, use R&J as an example to make a point about doing research not about brain size. They explicitly make no comment on its merits. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)\

No. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why Rushton's argument is useful. They cite both (McDaniel 2005) and (Baaré et al 2001) as part of their explanation.

"Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. (Baaré et al 2001)" -- "Human Intelligence" Earl Hunt. pg. 433

"Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005)" -- Hunt and Carlson 2007

Neither of these statements are attributed to Rushton or Jensen. These two facts are independent from Rushton or Jensen. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why they feel Rushton's argument would be an "important link" or "useful principle".

"Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence."--Earl Hunt

"Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference."--Hunt and Carlson

BlackHades (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Even with the recent mitigating improvements, devoting an entire subsection to brain size is undue weight. It should not have been restored; a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article. Tom Harrison 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it undue weight when it is such an intricate part of the hereditarian argument and mentioned by every hereditarian in the field with so many WP:reliable sources that exist that try to explain it from all different perspectives? I don't understand how "Logographic writing system", which is not even argued by most environmentalists, should stay but "Brain Size" which is argued by every single hereditarian in the field should not. A better understanding of the current debate that exists between hereditarians and environmentalists in published papers need to be had in order to properly utilize due and undue weight for this article. BlackHades (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE because the argument is only supported by an extremely small number of social scientists and goes againts all mainstrem science on the topic. This article is not entitled "hereditarians vs. environmentalists". And who are these "environmentalists"? The argument that we should have this section based on the existence of some other unrelated section is not supported by any known policy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please enough of the "extremely small number of social scientists" or "fringe" fallacy. This has been debated and rebutted every single time. For such research to constantly pass peer review and get published in major mainstream scientific journals time and time again proves definitively it is not the "small" figure you claim it to be. If it exists repeatedly in WP:reliable sources, then it belongs in this article and must be given proper due weight and cannot be dismissed so easily. BlackHades (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the section is now cited entirely to major secondary sources. There are no sources that are more mainstream than Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence or the Handbook of Intelligence. Why do you have a problem with Misplaced Pages presenting what's in mainstream textbooks? When you advocate removing the section because you say it presents a viewpoint held by only a tiny minority, you are contradicted by the sources that it's currently using.

Note: this is Akuri logged out. 83.85.180.203 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hunt explaining the views of a tiny minority does not change the weight those views should be given nor does it imply that Hunt finds merit in said views. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why it matters whether he does or not. The bottom line is that the section currently summarises what's presented in mainstream secondary sources, and you want to remove it. You evidently think the content of the article should not be based on what secondary sources say, so what do you think it should be based on? 83.85.180.203 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be based on accurate representations of secondary sources with the intent of conveying mainstream views on a particular topic. The weight afforded any particular view is not determined by mere coverage. It is determined by the level of support the view finds within the community of those practiced in the apropriate arts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to have an accurate gauge of what the mainstream views and positions are. Mainstream does not mean "thinks like me". The study of brain size and its possible relationship to race and intelligence has been and still remains a line of inquiry for not just hereditarians in the field, but environmentalists as well. The two positions stated by Hunt, that individual brain size is related to intelligence and that individual brain size is nearly entirely genetic, are not only extremely mainstream but are nearly universally accepted in the scientific fields. The possible role this plays in race and intelligence certainly remains in debate but even environmentalists such as Wicherts and Neisser have acknowledged the existence of average brain size differences between races. Although they tend to prefer possible environmental explanations for it and/or argue that the average brain size differences between races are small and can only explain a fraction of the observed IQ differences between races. But the point is that Hunt's arguments are based on positions that are known and very well accepted in the scientific fields and are certainly mainstream. BlackHades (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not Hunt's argument. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV applies to the views presented in the authorial voice of the article, not to elements that occur in the direct or indirect discourse of these views. The featured article Philosophy of mind has a section on occasionalism and says: "Occasionalism is the view espoused by Nicholas Malebranche that asserts that all supposedly causal relations between physical events, or between physical and mental events, are not really causal at all. While body and mind are different substances, causes (whether mental or physical) are related to their effects by an act of God's intervention on each specific occasion." No reliable sources actually support occasionalism. But that's fine because occasionalism is not the view being given weight; occasionalism is given no weight. What's being given weight is the view that Malebranche espoused occasionalism and that occasionalism implies those things. If WP:NPOV applied to such elements, then this encyclopedia could never report on the discredited views of others. At Adolf Hitler it says "The Holocaust and Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for the expansion of Germany." Here the view that the Jews were as such is presented, but not in the authorial voice of the article, only in indirect discourse. No reliable source actually supports that view, but that's alright because the view is given no weight. A view can be mentioned without being given any weight. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and as noted by another editor above; "a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article.". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Research on brain size cannot be adequately explained in one or two sentences. There's also far too many WP:reliable sources on the topic to give it such little weight. If the argument is that brain size shouldn't have its own subsection, we would need to completely reevaluate what other subsections merits deletion based on the established cutoff. This would include the removal of the subsections logographic writing system, caste-like minorities, cultural traditions valuing education, group subculture, and possibly others. None of these 4 subsections matches the level of research and inquiry as brain size nor have as many WP:reliable sources as brain size. These would all have to be removed as well if brain size is removed. BlackHades (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No doubt it can be a neutral description of what people say. Since it looks like few researchers say it, it shouldn't have its own section, no matter how neutrally written. If that's true of other sections, those should also be replaced with one or two sentences. Tom Harrison 11:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing an aspect of a topic needed for permitting a separate section on that aspect? And what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing as aspect of a topic needed for permitting two sentences on that aspect, or three, four, etc.? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to tell you something you already know, but that's a matter for editorial judgement, where we reach consensus through discussion. Tom Harrison 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that only "few researchers" say it is absolutely false. Brain size is frequently mentioned in many comprehensive overview of race and intelligence. Whether from hereditarians or environmentalists. Off the top of my head, researchers that have mentioned brain size in regards to the race and intelligence debate includes Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Wicherts, Cernovsky, Neisser, Gottfreson, Hunt, Carlson, Cain, Vanderwolf, Templer, Nyborg, Ankney, Murray, Gould, Nisbett. Many from very reputable mainstream scientific journals. This is not "few" and I'm befuddled that some are still trying to argue this. It is highly relevant to the article and there is way too many WP:reliable sources on this subject to try to censor it out of the article. The real problem is that brain size currently doesn't have ENOUGH weight. The hereditarian and environmentalist positions are still omitted and needs to be added to the subsection per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know that. I actually don't think this encyclopedia should have an editorial size limit. I think if an aspect of a topic is discussed in reliable sources then it is worthy of being included at lengths up to the length that is adequate for fully describing its treatment in those sources. If an article becomes too long for technical reasons, it can then be split into sub-articles. I think this was the original and still best vision for this encyclopedia. I think if clearly reliable sources like recent publications in academic presses by tenured professors at accredited institutions which have not been subjects of any controversy of academic integrity include coverage of aspects of a topic, then this encyclopedia does right if it mirrors that coverage. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating a meta-analysis of IQ studies

The section "United States test scores" goes into the IQ gap a little, but there are many more studies on the gap in the US. What if on a comprehensive table of all the available studies/meta-analyses was started? Would that be appropriate? It could show the year of the study, the sample sizes, the average reported IQ for the group being compared, the IQ test used, etc. E.g:

Citation for #1: Dickens,W.T.,&Flynn, J.R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples. Naleja (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't our job on Misplaced Pages. What is our job is building a free online encyclopedia by sourcing and revising articles based on reliable secondary sources. There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that talk about the latest trends around the world, including the new book by James R. Flynn Are We Getting Smarter? (which I finished reading cover-to-cover last weekend), mentioned in the online bibliography any Wikipedian can use to update articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

New paper and commentary on some issues related to article section topics

A local friend of mine is a behavior genetics researcher (a mathematician with a doctoral degree in psychology) who forms part of the study team of many current studies in human behavior genetics. He just shared in an online forum links to a newly published study and commentary on that study, which should be food for thought for editors of this article on what current mainstream views are human behavior genetics researchers.

GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment (study abstract)

There Is No Gene for Finishing College (commentary on study)

http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQsRietveldetal2013Science.pdf

(FAQs about “GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment”)

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Waving the bloody shirt

I find this article pretty uncyclopedic and POV. This controversial issue is introduced, in the very third sentence, by saying "Historically, claims that races differed in intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, Social Darwinism, and eugenics." Then the very first section, "History of the debate," opens with "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." Talk about poisoning the well! The effects of historical views are all very well in their place, but in this case they seem to be framing the discussion, which should be an objective exploration of the various viewpoints. Can this be fixed? Opus131 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case where the controversy is like an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that it's there, so if you don't talk about it, the very fact that you're not talking about it sends a strong message about your attitude toward it. It might not be an intended message, but it will come through nonetheless. Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The key issue is sourcing what is said in the article. If there are sources that link the topic of the article to the history of the other issues mentioned, and if that linkage is a major emphasis in reliable secondary sources on the article topic, then it is fully appropriate to mention those linkages in the article, including in an early sentence in the article lead paragraph. When in doubt, look for reliable sources to resolve article editing issues. I have shared with fellow Wikipedians a source list on human intelligence and a source list on human genetics and anthropology for a few years now (and I invite further suggestions of sources for each) so that we can reach informed consensus on how to edit articles related to some of these controversial topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To the socio-anthropological aspects, it's not poisoning the well if it's factual. The very first African Americans were free men afforded the same opportunity as all who came to the New World. The ranking of the races, justifying slavery and a whole host of evils, came later. Oversimplifying, still... (subsequent philosophical ramblings deleted pror to posting) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The very first African Americans were mostly slaves and servants of Spanish conquistadors with a couple of free men among them, who were nonetheless most certainly not offered the same opportunity as all who came to the new world because of the Spanish casta system which placed people of "non-christian" blood such as Africans and Indians and Jews on the bottom of the social hierarchy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead requires major changes

WP:LEAD is suppose to have a summary of the body. The lead as it stands right now does not meet WP:MOSINTRO and needs a major overhaul. Recent changes by Maunus also appear to increase the weight of environmental factors while the entire "genetic arguments" section continue to have completely zero weight in the lead. This is problematic and I would like to request assistance in better balancing the summary of the body in the lead. I'll try to spend some time on the lead and do what I can but assistance from others would be helpful. BlackHades (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a summary of points from both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. The lead should avoid trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument as this seems to introduce problems related to NPOV and due/undue weight. For example, the previous text "The gap in IQ scores also correlates with a similar disparity in educational outcomes". While this may be true, it is misleading and doesn't take into account the intricacies of proper cause and effect and the lack of consensus regarding what the cause and effect is among researchers. Also if this text is included, it would be necessary to mention that IQ gaps are also consistent with Spearman's g. Which will probably then cause another line that needs to be included and then another. Instead of trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument in the lead, which appears to introduce a range of new problems, it seems better to just summarize the points of both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. BlackHades (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can not in anyway accept a lead that does not include mention of the fact that the gap has been diminishing over the past 40 years. It would be misleading and counterfactual to suggest that the gap is constant. Secondly ther reason that the genetic argument does not get similar weight as the environmental is that consensus is that there are no known genetic explanations for the gap whereas there are many environmental explanations that have been positively shown to account for part of the gap, if not necessarily all of it. Your proposed changes will make the article more biased and less factually accurate. I have reverted your change. If you wish we can have an RfC about which version is more better weighted. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The diminishing of the gap is in dispute. It would be misleading and counter factual to suggest there is a consensus among researchers that the gap has been diminishing. Simply because you accept environmental explanations and disregard any genetic explanations doesn't mean the consensus of researchers do. The article should reflect the positions expressed in WP:reliable sources per WP:NPOV not on a wikipedia editor's personal views. You really think it's appropriate to insert more and more environmental talking points into the lead all the while arguing that the ENTIRE "genetic arguments" section, that remains a significant part of the body, should have zero weight? If that's what you want, perhaps you should first work toward removing the entire genetic arguments section from the article. Until then, per WP:LEAD, there must be a summary of the body (including things you don't like) in the lead. You can't just pretend that half of the article simply does not exist. In your own words "what is disputed is the cause". To state that the cause is in dispute and yet only provide one side of the dispute is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV BlackHades (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether a specific view of a subject is being given due or undue weight in the lede depends on whether it is being represented in a manner disproportionate to its representation in the article body. As it stands, a good portion of the article body is devoted to discussing the genetic arguments, but your changes have essentially reduced its mention in the lede to an empty statement that some suspect a genetic cause, while going into some detail on why the environmental explanation is the best and only explanation for the intellectual disparity between racial groups. That is inappropriate. As the article delves into the arguments of each side on a roughly equivalent basis, so should the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the body of the article is also biased by giving undue weight to discredited hereditarian minority views, such as the brain size argument and admixture studies which has no valid research in its favor (as the sections themselves make clear). The only genetic arguments that have neither been discredited nor accepted are spearman's hypothesis, mental chronometry and gradual gap appearance. But given that there is only circumstantial evidence to support them and that they generally are not discussed in the mainstream literature they deserve little or no attention in the lead. There is a certain logic to saying that per policy the lead then needs to reflect that bias but on the other hand that would equate willfully and knowingly making the article less neutral and informative instead of more so. I might be convinced to devoting a line to spearman's hypothesis and twin studies in the lead if done in neutral way. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is very strong acceptance in the scientific field regarding the correlation between individual brain size and IQ for example and the mainstream acceptance that individual brain size differences is nearly entirely genetic. How much of this relates to racial IQ differences is in dispute but even environmentalists like Wicherts and Neisser have acknowledged that there is the existence of average brain size differences between races and have been open to at least the possibility that a very small part of the IQ gap may be due to the existence of average brain size differences between races even if they don't think it necessarily plays a huge role. Regardless the lead should have a summary of both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section in accordance with WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk)

Please show some solid mainstream sources (I would prefer a tertiary source such as a review, but a good secondary source may do) that support that view - not just for individuals but between groups.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For which statement are you requesting a source for? In regards to mainstream science acceptance of individual brain size to IQ, Hunt and Carlson cites McDaniel's (2005) meta analysis which is a review of 37 studies on the correlation between brain size and IQ. The meta analysis concluded "it is very clear that brain volume and intelligence are related".. In regards to brain size differences being primarily genetic, Peper et al (2007) showed 5 out of 6 studies resulted in a total brain size to heritability correlation above 0.89. Given the widespread acceptance of these two in regards to individual brain size, it's no surprise that researchers like Hunt and Carlson find brain size relevant in regards to the racial IQ gap discussion. Note that there's very little controversy that average brain size differences between races exist. The New York Times published an article that completely vindicates Samuel George Morton and shows Stephen Jay Gould was dead wrong. If anything has been discredited, it's the assertion by Gould that average brain size differences between races doesn't exist. With even environmentalists like Wicherts and Neisser today acknowledging it does exist. Although they tend to argue more in favor that the amount this contributes to racial IQ gap is small or come up with possible environmental explanations for the cause of average brain size differences between races. Nonetheless, your previous assertion that brain size has been "discredited" in the scientific fields as a possible genetic explanation for the cause of racial IQ gaps is absolutely 100% false. BlackHades (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We should consider developing a standard for the ledes of controversial articles like this one such that the claims including in the lede are only the most general and, while mentioning what controversies there are for the topic, do not describe the controversies beyond naming the relevant aspects of the topic. I believe we can reduce the lede here to:

"The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence. The causes of differences in putative measurements of intelligence between groups of people is an ongoing matter of dispute among researchers. Whether or not such groups of people can be identified as racial groups, and whether or not such measurements can be identified as representative of intelligence, are also ongoing matters of dispute among researchers."

Substantive issues can be left for the body and subsidiary articles, such that all aspects of the scholarship on these issues can covered without trying to balance delicately the weight of points of view in a space-limited lede. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the premise of this proposal. As I previously mentioned, trying to go into too much detail on one specific argument into the lead creates a boatload of different problems. BlackHades (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that in theory that works for areas where there isn't a single dominant view. In this case the mainstream view is quite solidly in favor of the the environmentalist viewpoint and the lead should not pretend otherwise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. See Hereditarian Position is Mainstream. Editors need to either start providing evidence for such claim, or stop using this false and incorrect argument as justification for removal of large amounts of WP:reliable sources from articles that they just don't like. You are right that this article is biased but not for the reasons you've stated. Over the past several months, large amounts of text that fully meets WP:RS and WP:V have been removed from this article and others, due to this false and incorrect assertion. Until strong empirical evidence indicates otherwise, the constant use of this fallacy needs to stop. BlackHades (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So then it is just an intractable content dispute, because no one even agrees as to what the reliable sources even say, which is the first step to building an article. The article can't possibly improve from that. Maunus says that the reliable sources agree that the environmentalist viewpoint is the solidly dominant position, but BlackHades disagrees. Is that a fair assessment?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty fairly describes the status quo the past couple of years (not just between me and blackhades but between groups of editors working on the article). BlackHades is wrong of course, which likely rests on a failure to look at actual mainstream secondary and tertiary sources which very rarely give a more positive description of the hereditarian view than saying "it is possible". As long as one stays within the little alternative universe of hereditarian publications the world looks very different than to people on the outside. Unfortunately wikipedia has no good way of dealing with this. As for Blackhades' link to his old hat discussion allow me to quote User:aprock (with a little bracketed addition of my own) "I don't even know how to respond to this. You're misuse of sources here is beyond the pale. You've got gaggle of 20 year old articles and op-eds, many of them primary sources, many of them from proponents of Rushton's theories, many don't mention the hereditarian viewpoint, some of them don't even discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously?" There isn't a single reliable secondary source among those sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So what do you take away from the Daley, C. E.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). "Race and Intelligence". In Sternberg, R.; Kaufman, S. B. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–306? Is this source not saying that the hereditarian vs. environmentalist dispute is an actual and significant current dispute for scholars? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology, Human Biology, and Race Citations Bibliography for Use in Updating Articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Weiji, you always make this offer, but it is not a lack of sources that keeps these articles being a mess, rather it is a surplus of POV editors and poor sources. If you want to help step into the game and edit the article - that is what is needed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Dickens,W.T.,&Flynn, J.R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples.

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Start-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