Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 6 July 2005

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

• Talk:Race and intelligence/Archives
• Please maintain professionalism in your posts, even on emotional topics like race and intelligence. Don't speculate on the motives of the other contributors to this article. If you want to volunteer at Misplaced Pages, follow the civility guidelines: See Misplaced Pages:avoid personal remarks

Brain size info moved to craniometry page

Much of the info on brain size and structure was moved to the craniometry page. But much of that info, such as info on studies using MRI or autopsy, or the info on cephalic indices, is not directly related to craniometry. Perhaps it deserves its own page, maybe "Race and brain structure" or "Race and brain size"? Dd2 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Go for it. Or that material could be moved back to a subarticle if we employ Summary Style on that section, see below. --Rikurzhen July 5, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

References for IQ gaps in other nations

I continue my Herculean task to check all our references. Two questions for the cognoscenti below. Please help. Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

15 point catholic/protestant gap

In the same section

The difference between the neighboring white Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is as large as the differences between whites and blacks in the U.S.

Now, footnote is again an external link (to Myth: some ethnic groups have genetically inferior IQ's (sic)), but that web page is much harder to navigate. What I am looking for is a reference for the catholic/protestant gap. A POV web page isn't good enough for that.Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)

If I read the web-page above correctly, the data might be in

Richard Lynn discussed in Ciaran Benson, "Ireland's 'Low' IQ," pp. 222-23 in Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman (eds.), The Bell Curve Debate (New York: Times Books, 1995).

I don't have that book. Could somebody please, please check it? Currently we seem to rely on a web page, which relies on a survey by Benson of reseach by Jensen. That's simply too long a chain of dependencies. Arbor 5 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Moved from Village Pump (misc.)

This was originally posted at the Village Pump: (unsigned, by anon User:12.21.214.77)

"This article was such an eye opener that I hardly know where to begin. Let me begin by appoligizing for my self and my poor writing skills. As a minority type person I am undoutably working with faulty equipment so please make allowences for that. I am certain that the test results for every I.Q. test I have been given and that have showed an I.Q. score around 120 must of been an error, or perhaps I cheated- you know how we are. still my puctuation is really bad I know. Well my grandmother was from Florida, that must explin it. It certainly couldn't be because of the schools I went to. After all the grade school I attended was full of sucessful white students. They did very well. There were only three disruptive minority students in the entire place. And we were not allowed to disrupt the other students. In fact if we asked any questions we were sent into the hall for the rest of the day. Some times in order to insure that we didn't cause any trouble we would be sent to the princibles office before class where we would be carefully monitored, sometimes for days on end. No that school cannot be blamed for my underachievement. Besides I was not reaaly there all that much. I had a very poor attendace record. Now I have learned that is due to my southern heritage. I allways thought it was because when I was 2-3 years old I was subjected to dental experiments which I have always blamed for causing my bones to ache so badly that somedays I can barely walk even to this day. i allways kinda suspected that might of also been the reason I did not begin to get my permanent teeth till I was 13 years old. But I'll bet those things are just a racial quip. I thought having pnumonia 3 times in forth grade becuse we had no heat might of influenced my educational opportunities. Also having malenutrition did not really give me the energy to do a lot. I always felt that our poverty leval income was because my father was never hired, the jobs all went to the white people. Now I know it was just a factor due to his race, he was probably mentally incapable of aquiring and holding down a job. What about when I got older and went to a bigger and better school? Did I do better there? Well I allways got F's in math but I know that was not because of my race. That was because i was a girl according to the head of the math department that everyone knows girls can not learn math. I was however able to raise my grades to a c average by following his adivce which was to stop wasting the teachers time by asking questions and turning in papers. Just be a good girl and go sit by the window with the other 2 girls and smile and wave at the high school boys when they drive by. I guess he was doing me a favor by preparing me for a future under a street lamp. i'm so ungratefull. Besides as the school princple so tactfully put it any attempt at "training" me was a waist of time because anyone could tell just by looking at me I was untrainable. so when I quit school in the 8th grade I was at least right about one thing- people like me are untrainable. We are a drain on society. It is depressing to be genetically inferior but I was greatly uplifted by the final sentence that we have the glorius future hope that some day You might be kind enough to alter us genetically so we will be more like You. You know what I want? I really want straight blond hair, blue eyes, and different facial features. I have noticed that people with these things also seem to do much better in life. After all hair, eyes, and faces are very close to the brain. I bet that some how they affect ones funtioning abilities. I bet you can find statistics to prove this. and if you dress up the charts to make them look impressive enough the klan and other similar groups will be even more likely to use them to prove their point. I'm sure this can only benefit people such as myself in the long run. Because after all I am smart enough to have been a sucess in life but I have never done very well. So what else can we attribute my lack of achievement too? Doing all this genetic altering might be expensive though. I wonder if instead of changing all the minority members brains (there are a lot of us) it might be cheaper to just make the white people color blind. after all you guys all have health insurance right? I also must appologize for not reading the article as thourghly as I could of. some how I just couldn't force myself to it- I'm probably attention deficet another racial quip. But from what I could see You didn't really look at all the angles either. I would like to suggest a book that even though it is rather old might add a twist to your ideas. Savage Inequities discusses race and intellegence.I don't remember the author but I bet you can figure that out all by your supperior selves. I didn't see it listed any where but that might of been my own oversight. I also hope you forgive me for just writing things as they came to my smaller head. But that does appear to be an accepted way of doing things here or am i inheritently wrong again??Finally I must say that if the purpose of learning and aquiring knowledge is ultimately for the betterment of mankind (and I assume that despite my genetic heritage i fall into that catagory) you have really let a lot of us done with this article and the manner in which it was presented. Of course i might think differently after I get that glorious genetic altering that you will undoubtedly learn from your German scientist friends."

Are you an African American? I apologize if the article offended you. No one here intends to offend anybody. The point of the encyclopedia is to disseminate information, not to offend anybody.

We did not conduct any studies on intelligence research. We only have written about them. Would you rather those studies exist and us write about them, or would you rather they exist and us not write about them?

If you wish to contribute to the article you are more than welcome to do so. Dd2 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

A concrete case as model (1)

We have several people with formal credentials whose knowledge and training may be applicable to a question that has occurred to me. What was the course of formation of hypotheses and falsification of hypotheses that let to an effective approach to the "disease called kuru was common among the Fore people in Papua New Guinea"? P0M 3 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

I'm aware of the kuru story only through a popular-science account, Deadly Feasts. Kuru presents like a brain-related illness. Infectious causes were rapidly ruled out because of the complete lack of inflammation. Heredity appeared less likely because of the widespread involvement of multiple brain regions in the disease, lack of fit to any known hereditary disease pattern, and extremely high rate of occurrence, though a familial pattern of the disease was noted. Fore cannibalism as a transmission method was considered obvious from the beginning. In particular, the disease afflicted adult women and children, while adult males were spared; the men did not participate in cannibalism. Nearby non-cannibalistic tribes had no kuru. However, cannibalism was initially considered unlikely because no infectious agent was found in the tissue specimens and attempts to transmit the disease to cultures, mice, rats, chicks, and rabbits had failed.

Analogies between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD, rare human disease) and scrapie (common sheep disease) were soon noted. With scrapie, transmission of the disease to sheep, goats and then to mice had been demonstrated. Transmission of kuru to a chimpanzee succeeded, as did transmission of CJD, demonstrating the existence of an infectious agent.

Cannibalism as the transmitter of the infectious agent of kuru became clear when it was realized that the cannibalism was specific: relatives were eaten. This explained the familial disease distribution, and the lack of disease in children growing up in a cannibalism-free community. Once this was realized, the effective approach to kuru (your question) was clear: stop cannibalism. The causative agent of the disease was still not known; biology had to take in a novel concept (infectious proteins) to move forward, and the story is still unfolding. It's fun, and much more familiar to me, but not really relevant to your question.

Briefly, the causative agents are now called prions; they are ubiquitous (yeast prions are known), and are aberrant or non-native forms of a normal host protein. Through nucleation and/or misfolding, a single prion protein (often the normal protein in the non-native conformation) induces normal proteins to take on the non-native prion state, spreading the "infection." The prion itself reproduces its structural information but relies on the host to produce its normal protein substrate. --DAD 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

So according to your understanding the following hypotheses were examined (and I will add a detail or two that I think may be significant):

1.(Commonplace) Infectious causes

rapidly ruled out because of the complete lack of inflammation.

2.Heredity

appeared less likely because of the widespread involvement of multiple brain regions in the disease, lack of fit to any known hereditary disease pattern, and extremely high rate of occurrence, though a familial pattern of the disease was noted.

+(Also, the disease was so highly lethal that it was hard to understand why it hadn't self-extinguished.)

3.Contagion of a microbial or viral agent via culture-relevant features of the Fore population

no infectious agent was found in the tissue specimens and attempts to transmit the disease to cultures, mice, rats, chicks, and rabbits had failed.

4.Further study produced the hypothesis that something had to be being transmitted in connection with cannibalism because of the close fit between Fore group members who actually practiced cannibalism and Fore group members who actually contracted the disease.

This hypothesis became more and more well confirmed -- especially after Fore group members were persuaded to cease their practice of cannibalism and new cases of the disease rapidly declined.

5.Prions, and their mis-folded forms, were discovered, and infection by transmission of the mis-folded forms is now the hypothesis that has the most support.

(infectious proteins) to move forward, and the story is still unfolding.

6.+The story is still unfolding, for one thing, because some researchers still accept the idea of some kind of a viral agent that is behind the ability of the one form of the prion protein to be re-folded into into a disease-causing form.

+The viral hypothesis stands, albeit on shaky legs, because it is next to impossible to prove a negative. Some researchers are still hard at work, searching for a virus.

Really? Definitely need citations for this. I don't doubt there are a few renegades mining the tail of the odds distribution, science encourages that, but I do doubt that there is substantial justification for the pursuit. In other words, a review of Kuru would be complete if it never mentioned these guys. The consensus view, reflected in the review-paper webpage you provided , is:

This means that a prion does not contain DNA or RNA, which disproved Prusiner’s first hypothesis (that the prion could possibly be a virus).

It is always possible that I have misremembered something. When I read about it I was looking for something else. My mind tends to pick up all kinds of lint. I didn't retain the impression that there were lots of people seriously interested in tracking this thing down since people are already clear enough on how to prevent transmission of the disease. In general, however, whenever there is a paradigm change there are people who try to explain away the things that argue for the new view.

Love to have more detail here. --DAD 3 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Maybe the undead are still crawling around, but I found some recent indications that serious researchers are still looking. http://eagle.westnet.gr/~aesclep/prion.htm gives a number of references that look fairly reputable to my inexpert eye. My original point was that you never know when the red swan will swim into sight, and it looks like these folks are still out bird watching. ;-) P0M 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

+It might receive convincing confirmatory evidence if the suspected virus could be isolated and could be shown to pass the disease when provided with a suitable host. (Probably would require a primate -- one thing that wasn't tried in the earliest search for an infectious agent.)

I found a couple of useful documents by Googleing, the first and second hits were: http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/icphp/grand_rounds/archive/2004/pdf/1118-Prion-Torner.pdf http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/McGrath/McGrath.htm

Does this sound like a correct account of the scientific study of this disease so far? P0M 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. I can't speak to the ordering or relative weight of the hypotheses, if that's what you're asking; we should consider this little history a "just-so story". --DAD 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

General and "new intro" specific questions

Note: Answers in sub section below.

1. Could someone list and explain the "practical consequences of group differences in intelligence"? And doesn't this first sentence in the article errantly conclude that there are "group differences" in "intelligence"? Contradictorily, later on in the intro "race" is not presented as a cause, instead the question of "race" being a cause is the "the primary focus of the scientific debate"? If there exists a scientific debate then shouldn't we be required to caveat all sentences that hint or imply "race" has conculsively been determined to be a cause?
2. Isn't it inconsistent to, on the one hand judge everyone by "IQ", and then on the other hand judge everyone by "race", that is judging everyone twice?
3. What about the potential for a "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop", by that I mean how much of the differences can be attributed to "race and intelligence" research itself and its "race" based expectations? Certainly "race and intelligence" research is pervasive in society these days and people may be assuming its conclusions or set of expectations and then unwittingly and errantly creating the differences, to a large degree even. In a society that values freedom shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' "intelligence" as being limitless? But how can that be if "race and intelligence" and related "research" has psychologically damaged the expectations of some "racial groups" and/or people that just happened to receive a low/mediocre score on an "IQ" test? It seems to me that the use of presumption inducing language repetition and one sided presentation of the issue helps construct this "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop".
4. Shouldn't the article note, or have a caveat sooner, regarding the lack of scientific consensus for whether "intelligence" is something that can be objectively measured?
5. Instead of "expected results" to describe "environmental factors" wouldn't it be more clear to say "caused by" (plus the claim by intelligence researchers of the potential for a "genetic component" additionally)?

Answers

Answers go here, I am especially interested in #3. zen master T 4 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

Answers 1

Me, too. I do not believe that "intelligence" is an immutable, purely genetically inherited quality. Wealthy people would be fools to send their children to private schools if teaching were not a significant factor.

Hear, hear. I'd love to find anyone who did believe such a thing, since it contradicts all the research of which I'm aware. --DAD 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

I have read claims by a statistician that he has found a way to identify good and bad teachers by tracking the students randomly assigned to their classes.

At the risk of "presenting original research", I should also say that I've had terrific success in helping children overcome "math anxiety". My students typically catch up two to four years in a few weeks. I went from 4th grade math ability to high school level in one summer, merely from learning ONE PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE.

I don't think my melanin deficiency accounts for my 760 in math (at age 13). It's because of what I learned from my algebra tutor. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Ed: I do not believe that "intelligence" is an immutable, purely genetically inherited quality. Are you implying that the article says so? It doesn't. I myself am a maths teacher (and a damn good one), and quite stubbornly believe in the value of education. Arbor 4 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

Sheesh, everyone's so sensitive and touchy here, these days. How shall I answer this? ("Are you implying that I'm implying something? You wanna step outside and settle this like trees?" Are you 'arboring resentment? :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Answers 2

1a) The practical consequences of group differences in intelligence are:

• Because intelligence predicts so many valued life outcomes (see practical importance of IQ), groups will also show differences in those outcomes (attending college, entering a profession; spending time in jail, having children out of wedlock), but these differences will be greatly reduced or vanish when individuals of different groups but the same IQ are compared. Understanding the source of IQ differences may unlock ways to combat social injustice.

• Because group differences in academic achievement are a persistent concern for (US) society, and group differences in intelligence may explain some achievement differences, understanding group differences in intelligence is crucial to proper formulation of corrective measures. In particular, attempts to equalize treatment for all students, if group IQ differences are real, will favor the higher-IQ groups and hurt the lower-IQ groups. See Linda Gottfredson's writing for a more detailed discussion ()

• Group differences in hiring patterns are a persistent concern for (US) society. Cognitive ability scores are the single best predictor of job performance, the key hiring parameter (Hunter & Hunter 1984), but the higher the predictive validity of the test, the more marked the group differences in scores. This is called "adverse effect"; e.g. see Hausdorf et al. 2003. Thus group differences in measured intelligence have a direct impact on discrimination in hiring. Understanding the source of group differences in intelligence may help combat discrimination.

1b) Your point of view that inquiring about racial IQ disparity presupposes that "race" is a cause has been noted. Your posts have not provided any evidence that this POV is shared by any scientist or peer-reviewed publication, or indeed by anyone. Moreover, "race" is not proposed as a cause, nor does the scientific literature show any consideration of "race" as a cause. Genes that have segregated along ancestral lines, such as the Ashkenazim DNA repair cluster, are a potential cause, as are cultural, socioeconomic and environmental factors. The article lists the non-genetic causes first. This might induce the supposition that these factors are believed to be most important by researchers. I, for one, am willing to let it stand.

I mean the intro contradicts itself directly, "race" is presented as both a conclusion for "intelligence" differences and also presented as determining whether "race" is an additional cause is the "primary focus of the scientific debate", how can something be conclusive and yet still be open to debate? The issue is the way the first sentence is constructed. zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Stating "groups differ where their members cluster along the IQ line" does not present "race" as a conclusion, or even a hypothesis; consistent with this, "race" is not even included in the list of non-environmental factors. Suppose, for a moment, that nutrition explained 100% of IQ differences. Such a finding would not in any way contradict the first sentence. Nor would it invalidate the question, "Why is there racial IQ disparity?" Instead, we could simply answer, "Because, interestingly enough, racial groups have distinct patterns of nutritive intake." Where is the contradiction again? --DAD 4 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

3) Multiple parts:

• The influence of expectations has been treated extensively. One (of many) predictions of the expectations model is that racial differences should persist, with a consistent direction, across almost all forms of cognitive testing. The corresponding prediction of group differences in cognitive ability is that racial differences in scores should be an increasing function of g-loading -- the more the test loads on general mental ability, the larger the difference. The former prediction has been repeatedly contradicted, while the second has been confirmed. Many lines of evidence converge on the same results (e.g. reaction-time tests, biological correlates of IQ such as brain size, congruence of g factors between racial groups).

All forms of testing and test authors, teachers, and students may suffer from and perhaps unwittingly perpetuate unjust expectations for how "racial groups" or people who just happen to score low on a test will perform? Low test scores can certainly have the effect of dramatically lowering a child's expectations for their intelligence (which would not be a kosher thing to perpetuate if aware of the effect). zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

• In a society that values freedom shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' "intelligence" as being limitless? Sure, if it's true. A mountain of literature suggests it's not; the 0.5+ heritability of IQ is among the best-established and simplest demonstrations. (This point has nothing to do with race.)

My point is society should not limit, arguably artificially, the pursuit of intelligence (even if "race" is a factor)? Has this "mountain of literature" considered in detail the possibility of the "psychologically damaged lowered expectations feedback loop"? Have others/critics considered the possibility this "lowered expectations feedback loop" is the goal of "race" and "intelligence" "researchers"? zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

That sort of "should" statement, without a citation, is naked POV and has no place on WP. The article openly states that some have questioned researcher motives. And don't ask me what's in the "mountain" regarding the pet feedback-loop theory, or regarding rank speculation about researchers' goals. It's your job to cite your sources, not mine. --DAD 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

I mean should as in "logically follows". It would be unscientific of "intelligence researchers" to discount counter criticisms and the effect their implied results may have on the psychological expectations of the masses, the only other explanation for the discounting of criticisms, the one sided frame, and the presumption inducing repetition is these "intelligence researchers" have political motives and a plan outside of the realm of science. zen master T 5 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Uh...logically follows...right. Perhaps it would help if you'd state your claims as a syllogism ("A implies B. B implies C. Therefore A implies C.") and then we could all weigh in on whether your conclusion logically follows. I'm dubious. Kindly stop with the raw slinging of accusations about motivations and plans. It's not helping. --DAD 5 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

• Certainly "race and intelligence" research is pervasive in society today. Couldn't disagree more. None of my colleagues were aware of this research; they had heard of The Bell Curve but all believed it had been thoroughly debunked. In my experience, the belief that racism (overt or structural) infects every corner of society is pervasive today and virtually no one knows about the research.
• Citations are key for this interesting theory about a feedback loop driven by the research results. (Logically, one prediction should be a widening of the IQ disparity over time, but in fact the gap appears quite stable...but this is original research, too. Sorry!) I'd like to see what literature you're referring to that specifically states the hypothesis.

That is inaccurate, the "IQ" gap is lowering, and lowering worldwide and it changes over time, how do you explain that (the Flynn effect). I also meant "pervasie" as in "illegitimatelly pervasive", or at the very least "researchers" and critics should in detail consider this possibility. zen master T 4 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Let me first note the failure to provide citations, again, despite a direct request. I'm perilously close to concluding that there aren't any. Now, the Flynn effect is a worldwide rise in IQ, not a narrowing of the IQ gap; kindly check your facts (or just the Flynn effect page). There is also substantial evidence that the Flynn effect does not operate on general mental ability (g) much or at all (again, see the page, or for a second set of results see Rushton and Jensen 2005). Thanks for distinguishing the kinds of pervasiveness; perhaps you can provide a citation for what constitutes "illegitimate" pervasiveness versus "legitimate" pervasiveness? I'm having trouble keeping up with the novel terminology without citations. And again with the "should" -- uncited normative opinions have no place here. Moreover, telling researchers and critics what to consider is completely orthogonal to what WP is about. We're assembling knowledge, not setting research agendas. --DAD 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

4) IMHO, the article should indicate clearly that "intelligence," while the most general term applying to measures of cognitive ability, is used solely as the common-sense term, but that the article will treat the measurements, and that Intelligence (trait) and IQ should be consulted for consideration of how valid these measures are. The present article does this. We can quibble about how soon or late this should be done; for my taste, it's done properly.

5) I think you're right on this point, and I've edited the intro accordingly.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your thoughtful questions. --DAD 4 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Answers 3

Before someone else “kills” me, let me say that I think that many of these are public policy or “politics” (= what is out there that we have to deal with whether we want to or not) questions. Their answers may be more important in guiding the way information is presented in the article than in determining information to be presented.

1. “ practical consequences of group differences in intelligence”

To me, it just means that if, for instance, the kids attending school in Chester, Pa. all or almost all have a miserable time and all test out way low on IQ tests, college boards, etc., then even though a few of them may do exceptionally well in life the whole group of them is less likely to do well than kids in the XYZ Science High School who tested into it, and came out with high scores in those same kind of tests. Noticing that one demographic group is doing poorly is a good indication that something is probably going wrong and needs attention.

2. It is wrong to “judge everyone by ‘IQ’”, and it is wrong to “judge everyone by race,”

and to do both things is even worse. On the other hand, evaluating everyone by race may be the right thing to do if you are trying to decide which people in Boulder, Colorado to allocate limited supplies of UV blocker spray to. Evaluating everyone by IQ may avoid stupid things like happened in my high school where my friend was steered into vocational education classes because his father was a traveling salesman.

3. “What about the potential for a "psychologically damaging lowered expectations feedback loop"….”

It will tend to lower expression of the genotype, tend to produce an individual who will test out at a lower level on IQ tests. Probably worse than that, it will have strongly deleterious effects on the general self-evaluation of those who are not immunized by good parents, teachers, etc. against its effects. That’s what the whole “Black is beautiful,” movement is about. And that is why it is especially important for writers to inoculate the readers of their reports against mistakes of interpretation that could make those writers the unintentional allies of racists.

This question is interesting because it deals with self reference and feedback. If you have a phalanx of studies that look at factors that influence test measures that attempt to measure intelligence, then that will dilute the effects of such feedback to some extent, because the individual will see many factors that are not beyond his/her control. If you make it clear that correlation does not prove causation, the individual is more easily able to see that his/her group may be subject as a group to certain deleterious influences, and seek ways to counter these influences rather than accepting as his/her fate the permanent state of his/her IQ score and the permanent state of his/her group’s IQ score.

4. “Shouldn't everyone be encouraged to view their and others' ‘intelligence’ as being limitless? "

That was my favorite high school teacher’s belief. It’s like the story of the man who was somewhat tipsy and late getting home to his wife. He took a shortcut through the cemetery and fell into a grave. He was helplessly fingering the top of the hole when a despondent voice said, “You’ll never get out of this grave. It seems like I’ve been down here forever.” But the tipsy guy got out. The moral of the story is that if you assume you are defeated and never try then you’ll never get anywhere. The person who says, “You can’t do that!” is not your friend.

On the flip side, believing that one has an unlimited potential to accomplish one’s goals may cause feelings of guilt if one can’t overcome some problem. My Chinese surrogate mother watched me trying to make myself sick by studying too frantically for an exam. She said the right way to view things was always to do your best, never be a slacker, and then take the result of the test as an objective measure of what you were capable of when you had really done your best. Take guidance from that result in planning future studying.

A third way of looking at things is to say that anyone can win at cards when dealt an unusually rich hand. The good card player, however, is the one who makes the best of the cards that fate has dealt him/her.

Educationally, what we most need to avoid doing is anything that would cause students to believe that they have no hope of succeeding. How to deal with a world in which the test results we are discussing are already “out there” is the big question. That is why I think your questions are relevant, not as suggesting content issues in the article but as suggesting valid concerns about how the facts (Dr. X made study Y that established a correlation between factors A and B) need to be contextualized for the general reader.

4. “Shouldn't the article note, or have a caveat sooner, regarding the lack of scientific consensus for whether "intelligence" is something that can be objectively measured?”

In “A possible fix” I spoke of “intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests.” Probably that way of saying it is not clear enough. I was trying to get an idea expressed, that when we speak of “intelligence” all we really have as the referent of that word is the result of some tests that measure some responses. We may imagine that there is an unseen thing called “intelligence” that is being measured, but who knows whether we are even coming close to characterizing what is really there. There is also a too-easy assumption that we get the full cooperation of the people being tested. Back to your question, the problem is how to say the thing correctly. A “capstone” article on “things that influence intelligence” would be a good place to start because the little section that leads to the fan-out article on “race and intelligence” could point out how misleading that word is. All my attempts to get “intelligence” put in scare quotes or otherwise flagged have failed. People in the general population are unsophisticated about issues of this kind, and sometimes it is very difficult to even talk about things simply for terminological reasons even among well informed people. P0M 5 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

"Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level"

This statement is technically not true. I've done some rudimentary calculations giving Blacks the benefit of the doubt, but it is statistically not likely that there are any African Blacks with IQs over 180, assuming an avg IQ of 80, SD of 15, and a population of 1 billion. On the other hand, there should be about 343 East Asians with IQs over 180 (assuming an avg of 105, SD of 15, and a population of 1.2 billion) and 44 Ashkenazim with the same (assuming an avg IQ of 113, SD of 15, and population of 11.2 million). Dd2 4 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

The distribution is not perfectly Gaussian in the tails. Can't make the kind of statistical statement you made at IQ 180. --DAD 4 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

I tried to link that statement to the opening picture (which shows a restricted IQ range) in order to circumvent that problem. --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

summary style discussion cont.

The Misplaced Pages:Summary style proposal has been brought up again as a solution to a newly recognized problem. I agree that we should try to employ Misplaced Pages:Summary style for this article. I did the (relatively) easy job of turning Culture-only or partially genetic explanation? section into a sub article with the help of MS Word's autosummarize feature. It was relatively easy because the text of that section has high in detail but low in total number of topics. It was also, I think, crucial because it was running far too long. Other sections may be harder--autosummarize probably won't help--but I encourage the willing to try. Summary sections should be ~1 paragraph per 10k summarized, up to 3 paragraphs. I would recommend Race and intelligence (History) and Race and intelligence (Public policy) OR Race and intelligence controversy (moving from IQ test controversy) and something like Intelligence and public policy (which could optionally be merged with IQ#Practical importance and serve as the sub-article for that section as well). (Careful naming suggested to maximize room for growth.) --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 21:17 (UTC)

from above ... material that was moved into craniometry could be moved back into a subarticle. --Rikurzhen July 5, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey -- ZM has complained about archivists archiving his active discussions. While I'm not sold on the attendant conspiracy theory, I think he has a legitimate beef. Just wanted to make two recommendations:

• When archiving, try to avoid removing subjects that have been active in the past 24 hours.
• If your conversation is improperly archived, simply copy and paste the relevant content into the new Talk page.

My belief is that no one has insidious motives, and that improper archiving has occurred only because we're blessed with an unusually vibrant discussion that rapidly produces unwieldy pages. IMHO, the best way to combat this is to allow archivers to occasionally act when the page gets huge, and then to copy and paste your pet discussions back in. Expect regular archiving. --DAD 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Vote: Can the phrase "race and intelligence" have 2 meanings?

Please vote on whether the phrase "race and intelligence" can be read more than one way. One arguably non neutral definition it can have is that it can imply "race" is the cause for the "intelligence disparity". If this vote determines there is consensus that the phrase is needlessly ambiguous and suggestively presupposing then we will rewrite and retitle the article.

Change - "race and intelligence" is duplicitous and suggestively presupposing

1. Change. Misplaced Pages should discontinue the use of presumption inducing language. zen master T 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Keep - "race and intelligence" is ok

Comments

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists