Talk:Richard Lynn: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:21, 14 December 2024 editNightHeron (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,687 edits →Developmental theory ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:22, 14 December 2024 edit undoNightHeron (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,687 edits →Developmental theory Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:
	{{Break}}		{{Break}}
	:{{ping\|NightHeron}} Would you be kind enough to provide some feedback? The only direct objection to this content was submitted under your shared account. Your edit comment states: "The changed version reeks of NPOV violations, using Lynn's terminology in wikivoice and describing his poor quality "research" as if it revealed great truths about sex differences". I interpret this to mean that the content has a non-] tone. Please point out specifics in your objection, using the table below, if it's any help. ] (]) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		:{{ping\|NightHeron}} Would you be kind enough to provide some feedback? The only direct objection to this content was submitted under your shared account. Your edit comment states: "The changed version reeks of NPOV violations, using Lynn's terminology in wikivoice and describing his poor quality "research" as if it revealed great truths about sex differences". I interpret this to mean that the content has a non-] tone. Please point out specifics in your objection, using the table below, if it's any help. ] (]) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	::In the first paragraph your version, and neither the current version (1st column below) or the source (3rd column), identifies IQ with intelligence, referring in wikivoice to the "male advantage in intelligence". Very few writers, except for the hard-core hereditarian fringe, use IQ and "intelligence" interchangeably. In the second paragraph you start with the point-blank statement that the results are "consistent with Lynn's developmental theory", whereas the source immediately (in the same sentence in fact) puts in the "insofar" qualifier. which makes sense, since the results are in fact inconsistent with Lynn's theory, which is clearly talking about gender differences that have some practical significance, not ones that are so small as not to signify any real difference. So despite the wording at the beginning of the first sentence of the source, the actual meaning conveyed in the source is that the data makes Lynn's theory look very dubious. ] (]) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		::In the first paragraph your version, and neither the current version (1st column below) nor the source (3rd column), identifies IQ with intelligence, referring in wikivoice to the "male advantage in intelligence". Very few writers, except for the hard-core hereditarian fringe, use IQ and "intelligence" interchangeably. In the second paragraph you start with the point-blank statement that the results are "consistent with Lynn's developmental theory", whereas the source immediately (in the same sentence in fact) puts in the "insofar" qualifier. which makes sense, since the results are in fact inconsistent with Lynn's theory, which is clearly talking about gender differences that have some practical significance, not ones that are so small as not to signify any real difference. So despite the wording at the beginning of the first sentence of the source, the actual meaning conveyed in the source is that the data makes Lynn's theory look very dubious. ] (]) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

Revision as of 18:22, 14 December 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Richard Lynn: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-06-20

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : *Tidy up the raw external link referencing
Expand : *Need more 'biographical' information (aside from his work, that is); cite for date of leaving editorial board of the journal Personality and Individual Differences

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 Richard Lynn, 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.

The contents of the Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations page were merged into Richard Lynn on 2008-07-13. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Developmental theory

This section addresses an apparent dispute on the relevance of Lynn's developmental theory in the article. See WP:NFRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Misplaced Pages as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Whether or not one qualifies Lynn's theory as fringe, it is a very WP:NOTABLE aspect of his work that is published in peer-reviewed literature and responded to by other researchers. Therefore its inclusion in this context is in accordance with policy. The content in question makes no implicit claim regarding the theory's credibility but is merely descriptive of Lynn's views. If it is considered controversial, post sources in the relevant section that discredit it. Watchman21 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

BUt how we describe should be based on what the majority of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Then include the relevant WP:RS in the article. As it stands there is no mention of the developmental theory anywhere on wikipedia, but his 1999 article on the theory has 231 citations and has been a WP:NOTABLE aspect of the history of discourse in this field. If it is controversial, explain why using WP:RS. Excluding it from the article would be fundamentally contrary to the purpose of an online resource. Watchman21 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, we do not exclude his claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently lacking any description of the developmental theory. One of the problems as it stands is that Rojan and Kaufmann (2006) addresses the developmental theory directly, and is intended as a response to it. Without some basic description of Lynn's views, their findings would lack important context. Watchman21 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes we do, we say he claims women have IQ lower than men, and this gets large with age. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn't what the developmental theory states. Its proposition is that girls enjoy an IQ advantage over boys due to earlier onset of post-pubertal development. Furthermore, that they are later superceded by boys around age 15. In other words, it underpins the IQ differential to asymmetric development in boys and girls. Watchman21 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

231 citations doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Many maybe just mentions, others may be articles rejecting it. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations are not referred to here as evidence of consensus or the validation of a source. Rather it is meant to imply the relevance to the topic per WP:NOTABILITY. The topic of the article is a controversial researcher. That implies there must at least be a rudimentary descripton of why he is controversial. If credible researchers are mentioning or addressing Lynn's theory in their work, why is there absolutely no description of his theory here? Watchman21 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Would you be kind enough to provide some feedback? The only direct objection to this content was submitted under your shared account. Your edit comment states: "The changed version reeks of NPOV violations, using Lynn's terminology in wikivoice and describing his poor quality "research" as if it revealed great truths about sex differences". I interpret this to mean that the content has a non-WP:IMPARTIAL tone. Please point out specifics in your objection, using the table below, if it's any help. Watchman21 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

In the first paragraph your version, and neither the current version (1st column below) nor the source (3rd column), identifies IQ with intelligence, referring in wikivoice to the "male advantage in intelligence". Very few writers, except for the hard-core hereditarian fringe, use IQ and "intelligence" interchangeably. In the second paragraph you start with the point-blank statement that the results are "consistent with Lynn's developmental theory", whereas the source immediately (in the same sentence in fact) puts in the "insofar" qualifier. which makes sense, since the results are in fact inconsistent with Lynn's theory, which is clearly talking about gender differences that have some practical significance, not ones that are so small as not to signify any real difference. So despite the wording at the beginning of the first sentence of the source, the actual meaning conveyed in the source is that the data makes Lynn's theory look very dubious. NightHeron (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Current version	Revised version	Source text (from inline references)
In 2004, Lynn and Irwing conducted a meta-analysis and reported that an IQ difference of roughly 5 points does appear from age 15 and onward on the progressive matrices.	In 2004, Lynn and Irwing conducted a meta-analysis of 57 studies from 14 countries, reporting a male advantage in intelligence (measured via Raven's Progressive Matrices) that begins to appear at the age of 15, eventually reaching an average of 5 IQ points at the ages of 20-29 and onwards.	Results showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points. ... The male advantage becomes 0.33d among young adults aged 20–29 and remains at approximately this size through all later age groups to 80–89.
However, in 2006, researchers such as Johannes Rojahn and Alan S. Kaufman found contradictory results in gender IQ differences. The observed gender differences in development were less pronounced than Lynn's predictions suggested. In fact, the disparities were so minimal as to be essentially negligible.	In 2006, reported findings consistent with Lynn's developmental theory, noting a female advantage in the 10-13 age group and a male advantage in 15- and 16-year-olds. However, the authors would remark that the disparities were too small to be of practical importance.	NNAT data were consistent with Lynn's developmental theory of gender differences insofar as (a) there were no gender differences between 6 and 9 years; (b) females scored slightly higher between 10 and 13 years; and (c) males were ahead of females between the ages of 15 and 16. However, the discrepancies between the genders were smaller than predicted by Lynn. In fact they were so small that they have little or no practical importance.

^a NPOV adjustment may be proposed here, substituting the comma with "in" or "insofar as".

Sex Differences Revision Undone

Why was my revision undone? My edit contains the correct interpretation of the studies the original cited. It's literally what the papers say, validated by the citations linked. The original I edited very disingenuously implies something else. Is it "valid" per Wiki rules because it's what the paper says? Genuinely trying to understand the editing process better because the reverted version is very, very inaccurately stating reality, even if it's accurately restating what the paper erroneously concluded. Thanks.

Pingpong947 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please put new sections on the talkpage at the bottom. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It was reverted by @Generalrelative: who wrote: Rv good-faith edit. This appears to contain original analysis. Please read WP:OR. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I feel it's verifiable by the citations, but can understand the potential conflict with certain sections on the WP:OR page. I've edited the section to include my updated summary of Lynn's study, which restates the conclusion in cleaner fashion. I removed the following paragraph as it actually plagiarizes word-for-word from the abstract, violating WP:PLAG. It also incorrectly attributed paper authorship.

Thank you for correction on where to place new sections. Pingpong947 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

COPYVIO

−

the discrepancies between the ~~gender~~ ~~development~~ were smaller than predicted by Lynn ~~and~~ in ~~fact~~ were so small that they have little or no practical importance.

the discrepancies between the genders were smaller than predicted by Lynn. In fact they were so small that they have little or no practical importance.

On the righthand side the abstract of 10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.004 and on the left hand side the Misplaced Pages article.

Polygnotus (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You also added text, for a start. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As to the alleged violation, its hard to see how that can be summarized any other way, than to be almost the same text. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm, maybe: "The observed gender differences in development were less pronounced than Lynn's predictions suggested. In fact, the disparities were so minimal as to be essentially negligible "? What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, but only change that line. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Yeah that was the only line that was problematic from a copyvio standpoint afaik. I changed it. Is everyone OK with this version? It says essentially the same thing. Polygnotus (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"researchers such as" is not very strong. Perhaps that can be improved. Polygnotus (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not however the only issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:BACKWARDS would rightly have us seeing some problems here. But as long as it is one sentence, this probably isn't a big deal.

Might I ask @Slatersteven why PG is not supposed to edit anything beyond that line? Honest question. If there are yet further COPYVIOs we should best discuss this now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I am many things but I am not PG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not say they could not, but that is the only change I agree with. It is not an agreement with the rest of their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I only objected to the copyvio/close paraphrasing, idgaf about the rest of the edit. Polygnotus (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

ESRI Dublin information is incorrect.

The ESRI does not have a professorial chair system, it is a research institute with fellows and researchers.

Main section sentence should change:

From: He was lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter and professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at the University of Ulster at Coleraine.

To: He was lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter and professor of psychology at the University of Ulster at Coleraine as well as a senior researcher at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin.

The career section should be updated.

From Lynn worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter and as professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at Ulster University.

To Lynn worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter and Professor of Psychology at Ulster University. He held the position of Senior Researcher at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin between 1967 and 1972.

Citation https://www.esri.ie/people?role=68 https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/18/richard-lynn-recounts-his-life-part-2-of-3/ Rathcoolebohs (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Richard Lynn was Research Professor at the ESRI from 1967 until 1972.", yes it seems they do have professorships. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. Rathcoolebohs (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Full protection of this page

I have protected the pagespace for 24 hours to give contributors a chance to consider discussing disagreements instead of edit warring on live pagespace. Everyone I see in this dispute has been around a while, so you know what to do: hash it out on talk. Let's just please not do it on the page itself. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: