Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:11, 7 May 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

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

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

APA and race and intelligence

"Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature"

That is simply false regarding APA. That there are average IQ differences are not disputed by the APAP. See Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.Miradre (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this badly misrepresents the APA. Did he not think to actually read the APA report? What the article now says about it is not a matter of interpretation, it's an outright dishonesty. The report discusses the possibility of a genetic contribution to the gap, and although they say there is no direct evidence for it, its final conclusion is one of agnosticism. To say that the APA has stated "whatever small link exists is definitely not genetic in origin" is extremely disingenuous. Marek should read it if he is uncertain.

It also somewhat misrepresents the AAA. In the AAA statement, the AAA only rejects the idea "that intelligence is biologically determined by race." They don't discuss the idea that intelligence could correlate with race, as Earl Hunt says in his 2011 book - they only reject the idea of absolute racial biological determinism (the idea that racial IQ gaps could be 100% genetic). The AAA statement doesn't reject the idea of a racial IQ gap that's caused by something other than 100% racial biological determinism - they don't discuss other possible causes at all. Volunteer Marek should not have added this paragraph to the lead without discussing it here first. I'm going to remove it until he can build a consensus for inclusion.

Marek also blanked the Segerstråle content with a fairly nonsensical edit summary (are we supposed to just assume that Ullica Segerstråle belongs to the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum, with no evidence?). It is not a good idea to blank sourced content without discussion, especially on an article that's this controversial. Marek should not continue to do this.Boothello (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in OR interpretation of primary sources. I've provided a reliable secondary source for the text I added. What YOU think AAA or APA said doesn't matter. What matters is what sources say they said.

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statement. I didn't say Ullica Segerstrale was part of the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum. What I said is that all kinds of non-crazy people - not just those associated with Marxism - have criticized this racist research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not original research. The APA report is itself a secondary source, and I think every editor except you who's involved in this article has read it and knows what it says. Summarizing what it says in the article is just a matter of doing what we do with any other source. This is what the APA report says:

African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

The content that you added says "Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature." This is the exact opposite of what the APA report says. The paragraph that I quoted says that there is definitely a difference between the average IQ of races, the report says elsewhere that IQ tests are a valid measure of mental ability, and this paragraph also says that nobody knows the cause of this difference.

It looks like you may have found a source that itself is misrepresenting the APA report. If that's so, there are two ways of dealing with this. One is to just apply common sense: to look at the source that this book is claiming to summarize, and see if the book is summarizing that accurately. If it isn't, we should know better than to perpetuate that misrepresentation. If that requires too much critical thinking for your tastes, the other way to handle this is by using whichever source is the more prominent of the two. The American Psychological Association is the largest body of psychologists in the United States, and Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns represents its official position on race and intelligence. The source that you cited is a popular book published by the American Management Association. So we have two sources that disagree with each other: one is the APA report itself, and the other is Amacom's account of what the APA report says, which the APA report itself contradicts. If we have to decide which of these sources is the more prominent of the two, it's not Amacom.Boothello (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Look right below. Clearly, when talking about the APA report, the APA report itself is a primary source.

I can't see how supposedly what I put in the article - straight from a reliable source - is "exact opposite of what the APA report says". In fact, to me it looks like both the source I used and the report itself agree.

You are apparently confusing things based on your own preset ideas: what the source says is that the APA report says is that "There's no link between intelligence and race". The quote you give above says that there's an IQ difference (which has been narrowing) between races and that there's almost no support for a genetic basis. It is entirely possible for both these things to be true - there's an IQ-test racial gap but there's no connection between intelligence and race (one obvious reason for this could be simply that IQ tests are total crap, but there are also a lot of subtle reasons). So your contentions that the source somehow got this wrong or contradicts the report is just your own original research. I see no such contradition.

"If we have to decide which of these sources is the more prominent of the two, it's not Amacom." - per Misplaced Pages's policy we use reliable secondary sources, not our own idiosyncratic interpretation of primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The APA is a primary source regarding it own conclusions. It is a secondary source when it summarises studies made in previous studies. Commonsense is not applicable. What is applicable is finding a source that is more reliable and that summarises the APA report differently.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I think that the new version of the second paragraph in the lead is slightly misrepresenting the UNESCO statement. Here's that part of the UNESCO report:

According to present knowledge there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same.

According to the paragraph in the article, the UNESCO report says that "there is no evidence for innate differences in mental capacity between races." Saying that there is no proof is not exactly the same as saying that there is no evidence, and I think the article should make it clearer what UNESCO actually says.

I'm also not sure this should go in the lead section. The lead is supposed to be summarizing the rest of the article, and this isn't summarizing any other part of the article. It's also somewhat redundant with the summary of the APA report in the last paragraph of the lead. Could this paragraph be moved to another section of the article?Boothello (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading a distinction into the UNESCO statement that is not actually there. I think it is quite clear that they mean proof not in the sense of "conclusive evidence", but in the sense of overall convincing arguments. I think we can remove the other summary of the APA report frm the lead, since there is no reason to privilege its conclusions over those of the UNESCO, AAA, or AAPA in the lead. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think our own interpretation of the UNESCO statement should matter. Our job is to report what the source says. So if "proof" is the word used by UNESCO, then it should be the word used in the article.

Responding to your other point, the UNESCO statement is sixty years old. I think it's fine that the article mentions it, but I don't think it deserves equal time with a statement from 1996. Psychology has advanced a lot since 1950, and even if there was no proof (or no evidence) about something sixty years ago, that does not demonstrate very much about the state of knowledge today.

The AAA and AAPA reports are more recent, but they don't address the debate over race and intelligence as directly as the APA report does. As I said above, what the AAA report rejects is the idea of absolute biological determinism, but there are very few researchers who believe that racial IQ gaps are 100% genetic. The AAPA report rejects the idea of inherent biological superiority or inferiority, and says that race has no effect on language or the ability to assimilate into a culture, but it does not directly address the topic of race and IQ at all. The lead section of this article has been based on the APA report for a long time, since before me or Midrare were here, and I don't think there's a good reason to change that.

If you think it's important for the views of UNESCO and the AAA to be included, I would suggest creating a new section for this called "group statements". We could also consider including the AAPA statement there, but as I said it does not address the topic of race and IQ at all, so I don't know whether it's relevant.Boothello (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating Miradre's irrelevant and ridiculous criticism of the date of the UNESCO source. It has been ratified three times since it was first published, and it is still the basis for all UN policies regarding human rights. I am not buying it and I don't think anyone else does either. Your interpretation of the AAPA report is a complete misrepresentation. Miradre is in the defensive and now you are taking over his role. It is not going to work. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been closely watching all your discussions with him, so I don't know if he used the same arguments. I'm only telling you what I think is sensible. It's completely standard practice for Misplaced Pages articles to give more prominence to more recent sources. I don't think the UNESCO statement should be disregarded or excluded from the article. I'm just saying that it's less current than the APA report, because its most recent version (from 1978) is still more than twice the age of the APA report. If you disagree with that, please provide a reason rather than just lumping me together with Miradre and saying you explained this already.

Also, please quote the part of the AAPA statement that you think addresses the cause of racial IQ gaps. The only part of it I can see that comes close to it is this:

Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.

This says two different things - it says that genetic capacity for mental ability varies between individuals, and it says that all populations have the same ability to assimilate any human culture, so that there's no basis for doctrines such as racial segregation that assume otherwise. Where does this statement say anything about whether or why there are differences in mental ability between races (rather than between individuals)? It looks to me like the AAPA statement is deliberately silent about it.Boothello (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to have this discussion at this point. I have been dealing with Miradre's nonsense twisting of compltely obvious statements for the past couple of months. I am not going to replay it with you. I am sorry but I don't have the patience to play that game any more. The source could hardly be any more clear in saying that there is no biological basis for positing differences in behavior or mental capacity among groups. I cannot continue to assume good faith with this magnitude of distortion of sources. I think you should read it again, and if after having done that once more you still want to go down that road then it will be through some kind of administrative venue.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're running out of patience here. It's a very demanding topic area and in that respect I can't really blame you. I am disappointed, though, that your attitude toward Miradre is being directed at me - it's not my fault if he hasn't been reasonable. If you explained this to him already, then presumably it is his own fault that he doesn't understand it. But it's not reasonable that you won't discuss it with me for this reason, and it means there's no way for me to know what you think is wrong with my suggestions. Misplaced Pages depends on discussion and consensus-building. If you no longer have the patience to engage in discussion, and are finding yourself unable to assume good faith about the editors who disagree with you, then it might be prudent to take a break from this topic for a while. I can see from your edits and your talk posts that you've been frustrated, and while I understand your frustration, I don't think it's conducive to the project.

I also think that your exclusive focus on opposing me and Miradre isn't helpful, both for you and the articles. Last night was the second time that Volunteer Marek added the same content that was reverted the first time he added it - saying that the position of the APA report is that there's probably no relationship between race and mental ability, even though it's been completely clear that there's no consensus for this change. From your edit summary here I think you know that this misrepresents the APA report, since changing the description to fit the data would not be necessary if it were an accurate summary to begin with. Surely this kind of misrepresentation is something that you can recognize, rather than turning a blind eye to it while you focus on arguing with no one except me and Miradre?Boothello (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been and is plagued by Single Purpose editors and puppets of the meat and sock varieties. This long term pattern does mean that assumptions of good faith have a shorter lifespan here than elsewhere. The way you are twisting well known sources and seeing things in them noone but Miradre has ever seen is disconcerting. Marek is not misrepresenting the APA report, the quote he is giving is completely faithful to the source he gives, namely Paige & Witty's book. We may not agree with how Paige and Witty interprets the APA report, but at least their interpretation of it is a reliably published secondary source. In fact we should not be making interpretations of the reports ourselves as they are primary sources in that sense, we should be discovering how reliable secondary sources have summarised them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If I need to find secondary sources that summarize the APA report differently from Paige & Witty's book, I will. Here is how the report is summarized in Lovler, Miller, and McIntire's book Foundations of Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach: 

In response to the publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a task force of psychologists representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of the psychology profession. Based on the work of this task force, the APA published a report, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (Neisser et al., 1995). The report did not disagree with the data presented in The Bell Curve; however, it interpreted the data differently and concluded that although no one knows why the difference exists, there is no support for the notion that the 15-point IQ difference between Black and White Americans is due to genetics.

 

That's fairly accurate to the source. Unlike Marek's source, this book makes it clear that APA report acknowledges the existence of the IQ gap, although the APA report is a little more qualified in their rejection of a genetic explanation - the report says that a genetic interpretation has no direct evidence, not no support at all. Here is how the APA report is summarized in Shaun Gabbidon's Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime: 

Following the publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Assocation (APA), felt a need to form a task force to examine the state of knowledge on IQ. (Neisser et al., 1996). The final report from the task force noted several key findings including the consensus that IQ tests "... do in fact predict school achievement fairly well ... They also predict scores on school achievement tests, designed to measure knowledge of the curriculum" (Neisser et al., 1996, p.81). The report also acknowledges that there are differences in IQ by group (see pp. 92-95). However, after reviewing the empirical evidence, the task force concluded " no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites" (p. 97).

 

That is also a more accurate summary of the APA report than Paige & Witty's book. But just to give an example of how easily the APA report can be misrepresented in secondary sources, here is one more example, from Cornelius Troost's book Apes Or Angels?: 

Jensen’s position on racial IQ differences is largely endorsed by the American Psychological Association. A task force of 11 members of APA published a report called Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1996). The authors agreed that differences in intelligence exist, can be measured fairly, are partly genetic, an influence life outcomes. These basic facts should not hide the reality that the left among psychologists disagreed strongly with Jensen and tried to demonize him.

 

This is a secondary source reporting that the APA report concluded that racial IQ differences have a partly genetic basis. This goes to show that there are secondary sources misrepresenting the APA report in either direction. But the majority of secondary sources summarizing the APA report seem to be doing it mostly accurately, as in my first two examples above.  

There's no reason for the article to repeat Paige and Witty's claim while ignoring Troost's claim, as well as all of the sources that summarize the APA report accurately. One option is to include all of the accounts of that the APA report says, including both the accurate ones and the accounts that misrepresent it in either direction. But when secondary sources about the APA report disagree this much, both with one another and with the APA report itself, I think the most reasonable thing is to just cite the APA report itself and report what it says accurately. Do you have a better suggestion how to handle it, that doesn't involve cherry-picking the secondary sources we agree with and ignoring those that we don't?Boothello (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Boothello, "consensus" cannot be held hostage by a couple intransigent editors and you can't remove sourced content based only on a IDON'TLIKEIT reason. In fact removing sourced content can be seen as disruptive. A particular misrepresentation of WP:CONSENSUS does NOT trump WP:NPOV and WP:V. So yes, I added the content. It is sourced. The only objections to it appear to be that a particular editor or two disagrees with what the source says - but the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability" (from reliable secondary sources) not "truth". In this case I think both are met but only WP:V is necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for the article to repeat Paige and Witty's claim while ignoring Troost's claim - actually there is. Paige and Witty are a reliable secondary source. Troost is a self published vanity press unreliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think the Lovler, Miller and McIntire summary is better than the Paige and Witty one. Here is another from Schacter, Wegner & Gilbert's "Psychology": "When the American Psychological Association appointed a special task force to summarize what is known about the cause of the difference between the intelligence test scores of Black and White Americans, they concluded: “Culturally based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available” (Neisser et al., 1996, p. 97). Such is the state of the art."·Maunus·ƛ· 12:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

blanket revert

This blanket revert of my edits

1. Removed sourced text as well as the sources themselves.
2. Restored undue information
3. Restored misrepresentation of a source used
4. Resulted in edit conflicts as I was still trying to tweak the article.
5. Removed pertinent information about Binet, which was also sourced.

Quite simply, that was a blind, blanket battleground edit - it doesn't even look like SightWatcher bothered to actually read the edits. He certainly did not give a reason for #s 2-5 and gave a specious and false reason for 1 ("I'm reverting you because one of my buddies reverted you". It's also false that there has been no discussion - did you bother actually looking at the talk page?).

SW, you've removed two pieces of sourced text. Both were inlined cited to reliable sources and are very pertinent to the topic of this article. I would appreciate it if you self reverted as there's just no justification for this kind of disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

...and I most certainly don't see SightWatcher participating in discussion anywhere on this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are not being helpful. There are three people commenting who clearly disagree with your edits- Miradre, Boothello, and me- and the only other person commenting on them, Maunus, doesn't seem to have a strong opinion for or against them. There is clearly no consensus for the change you are trying to make, which is why it was reverted the first time. Yet instead of engaging in discussion here and trying to build a consensus for it, you left a brief comment disagreeing with the other people who commented, and then reinstated your changes exactly verbatim without waiting for reply. Reverting a major change that's opposed by several editors, and expecting it to not be added back until consensus supports it, is not holding an article hostage. This is normal WP:BRD process, and you have been abusing that process by repeatedly adding the same material with barely any discussion.

Boothello explained above about what's wrong with the content you keep adding- you picked out one secondary source that gives a biased summary of the APA report, when most secondary summaries of it are more balanced and accurate, and a few are biased on the opposite direction. With this in mind I'm going to again remove your changes from the article, until you can build consensus here for them to be included. A consensus is more than just you leaving a few comments saying that you disagree with everyone else. If you can build consensus for this content, then it can be added back. But discretionary sanctions are authorized on this article, so I don't think you should try to force it into the article by edit warring.-SightWatcher (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You've just done an excellent job of completely misrepresenting, to put it politely, the situation. Let's see:

There are three people commenting who clearly disagree with your edits- Miradre, Boothello, and me - Yes, the usual three involved editors, all with accounts which all became operational in October or November 2010, shortly after the Race and Intelligent ArbCom case closed, tag teaming on this and other articles.

Maunus, doesn't seem to have a strong opinion for or against them - let's let Maunus speak for himself, don't put words in his mouth.

The information is sourced to a reliable source and the best that Boothello can offer for its exclusion is IDON'TLIKEIT and some strange original research based on his reading of primary sources. It seems you are just blindly supporting him and this is the first instance of you actually taking part in this discussion.

Yet instead of engaging in discussion here and trying to build a consensus for it - false - i have been participating in the discussion - and this is quite hypocritical coming from someone who has just made his first comments on this talk page.

you have been abusing that process by repeatedly adding - I added the content, it was removed under a flimsy pretext, I re-added it, it was removed again by you under another flimsy pretext. That's not "repeatedly adding" by me, don't try to pretend the situation is different than it really is. If there's is abuse of the BRD process, it ain't on my side.

explained above about what's wrong with the content you keep adding - yes, he concocted some strange original research as a justification for removing well sourced text from the article. That's not a good reason to violate wikipedia policy.

you picked out one secondary source - on Misplaced Pages we use reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:V.

that gives a biased summary of the APA report - that's nonsense original research that Boothello and yourself are conducting. Your opinion that a particular reliable, secondary source is "biased", simply because it disagrees with your beliefs is completely irrelevant and useless as far as Misplaced Pages policy is concerned. If you have a problem with the source I provided, take it to WP:RSN.

when most secondary summaries of it are more balanced and accurate, and a few are biased on the opposite direction. - complete nonsense. All the additional secondary sources that Boothello listed above are more or less in agreement with the reliable secondary source I provided, or at least don't contradict it. The fact that you and Boothello insist on reading into those sources things which are not there is just a reflection on you and him/her. Not a single reliable source has been provided that contradicts the source I've used, all we've had here so far is a few editors just making stuff up out of thin air in a desperate attempt to keep reliably sourced text they don't like out of the article.

I don't think you should try to force it into the article by edit warring - I haven't edit warred, so please don't make accusations you can't substantiate as that can be seen as a violation of WP:NPA.

With this in mind I'm going to again remove your changes from the article - what changes? What the hey are you talking about? The ones you've already removed? Are you going to re-insert my changes just so you can revert them again or something?

I'm perfectly willing to ask for outside opinion on this. It'll probably go the same way that the disagreement over at Pioneer Fund went, and perhaps it will shine a light on some of the behavior by some of these accounts that has been going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

it's quite obvious that this article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts. the copious amount of unreliable sources. the undue weight given to fringe views, and miadre's hundred-edits-a-day makes it impossible for other wikipedians to check the massive pov-pushing that is going on. the article has degraded long enough. an administrative measure is needed.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

there's no disagreement between sources here....

...only a disagreement between the sources and a couple of editors who are engaging in original research.

The text I added is:

"Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature."

The original text, verbatim, from the source is:

"The idea (of black intellectual inferiority) lives on in the minds of many, notwithstanding the strong statements from the world's largest organizations of individuals interested in anthropology, the American Anthropological Association, and the less powerful, yet very clear statement from the American Psychological Association. Both declare that there is not much evidence of a link between race and intellect, and what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. 'Despite the clear statements by these credible professional organizations, many ordinary people still believe in black intellectual inferiority' . (Emphasis in original).

I don't know how much more clearly I can present this text in the article without either committing a copy right violation or employing a block quote. Obviously this text is very pertinent to the article, gets right to the point and is exactly the kind of information that should go into the lede.

Ok, now here are Boothello's sources which supposedly "contradict" it:

1. The APA report itself which notes that there are IQ differences across races. But IQ differences across races are not the same thing as differences in intelligence and the APA report doesn't make that mistake. Only a couple of Misplaced Pages users who believe - contra most scientists and researchers - that IQ=intelligence see it that way. There's no contradiction here. The report goes on to state that even as far as the differences in IQs go "There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation." - which roughly agrees with the source I provided. At any rate, this is a primary sources and we should not be interpreting this as that is original research.
2. Lovler, Miller, and McIntire Foundations of Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach, which states The report ... concluded that although no one knows why the difference (in IQs) exists, there is no support for the notion that the 15-point IQ difference between Black and White Americans is due to genetics.. Again there's nothing about intelligence in there. There is, once again a statement that the IQ difference is due to genetic has NO support, which is similar to what my source says.
3. Shaun Gabbidon Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime, which again talks about the IQ gap and then states after reviewing the empirical evidence, the task force concluded " no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites. This does not contradict my source.

Now, there does appear to be one (single, unique, solitary) source provided by Boothello which does appear to contradict the source I provided. This is Cornelius Troost's book on religion, called "Apes Or Angels?". The summary for the book begins with "For many readers this book will be a mind-altering experience. It has a thesis that is a challenge to the conventional thinking of most Christians and their counterparts, the secular humanists." , and the rest is pretty similar. So we have a book which contradicts the reliable source which is a "mind-altering experience" blah blah blah. Could it be... let me check... yes, it sure does appear that this is a self-published book? In other words, this is a completely unreliable source.

So we have 1 primary source - the APA report itself - which does not contradict the source I provided and at least partially supports it. We have 2 other secondary sources which do not contradict the source I provided and at least partially support it. And then we have a single, strange, weird, non reliable, fringe, self published source which does contradict it. So which way do we go, ey?

As a personal observation, it seems to me that the opposition to the inclusion of this well sourced text comes from the fact that a couple editors insist on exact identification of IQ with intelligence. They seem to think that if a source says that "differences in IQ across races exists" this somehow "contradicts" the statement "there is little or no link between race and intelligence". But that's a logical fallacy (and plain ol' "wrong" too). None of the provided sources make that mistake (except perhaps Mr. Cornelius Troost). And insisting on this mistake is original research. Let the (reliable, secondary) sources speak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is is useful to keep separate IQ and intelligence - the gap is an IQ gap and an achievement gap - not an intelligence gap. I don't think the Troost source is reliable, but the Gabbidon and Lovler et al. sources are. I think the Paige and Witty source is a less apt choice than the textbook sources, because it is more of a popular/applied science book.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I'm not surprised at your claim that the Troost source is unreliable. It's self-published, but the author is Cornelius Troost, an established expert in the field of evolution and education. This is relevant to the topic of race and intelligence and some of his other writings have been published in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Please remember, I don't want the article to actually cite the Troost source. Even if it theoretically could be considered an RS, it's also biased, inaccurate, and not very prominent. I mentioned it only to show the diversity of viewpoints that exists about the APA report. If the Paige and Witty source is better than this, it's not better by very much, and I agree with Maunus that one of the textbook sources should be preferable.

Regarding your other point, you seem confused by the relationship between intelligence and IQ. They're not exactly the same thing, but IQ tests also aren't "total crap" as you suggested in your comment yesterday. IQ tests measure a particular kind of intelligence, which also has many real-world applications outside of IQ tests. The first two of the APA report's five sections are devoted to explaining the mental abilities that are measured by IQ tests, and how those abilities affect outcomes in the real world. Apart from the APA report, this is almost universally agreed upon by psychologists. Some other sources which support this are:

• IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh (1998)
• The g Factor by Arthur Jensen (1998)
• The Handbook of Intelligence edited by Robert Sternberg (2003)
• Intelligence and How to Get It by Richard Nisbett (2009)
• Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt (2011)

Basically, pick any book by an established expert in psychometrics, and this is the viewpoint you'll find in it. With the exception of Jensen, these authors also aren't hereditarians or Pioneer Fund grantees. I'm sure you could also find sources that say IQ tests don't measure anything meaningful, such as Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, but these are by authors who don't have expertise in the relevant fields to be considered authorities about the validity of IQ tests (Gould is a paleontologist, not a psychologist).

The content you added is saying the APA report says that there probably is no connection between race and intelligence. The APA report says that there is a relationship between race and IQ, and the APA report (and most other mainstream psychology sources) say that IQ tests measure a type of intelligence. Therefore, even though this is true to the source being cited (Paige and Witty), this source does not accurately summarize the APA's conclusions. The APA report also says that the cause of the IQ gap is unknown, while the content you added says that it definitely not genetic. In this respect you've actually misrepresented Paige and Witty - Paige and Witty says that evidence fails to support a genetic interpretation, not that a genetic interpretation is certainly false. This isn't acceptable. In addition to using a poor-quality source when numerous textbook sources are available, you've failed to even accurately summarize the source that you used.

Maunus, I would like to replace the Paige and Witty content with one of the textbook summaries of the APA report. Is that change okay with you?Boothello (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are overstating Sternberg and Nisbett's support for the the importance of the g-based intelligence view, it is also not described as being hegemonic or unproblematic in the chapter on intelligence in Schacter, Gilbert and Wegner's "Psychology". IQ tests measure skills that correlate highly with particular kinds of success in particular kinds of societies, because that is what they are designed to do. I can support replacing Paige and Witty with one or two of the textbook sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:SPS exception applies to things like webpages of prominent academics. It does not apply to vanity press published works - if Mr. Troost's work is a respectable part of the mainstream, why couldn't he find a regular publisher for this book? No go.

And for the millionth freakin' time the contention that "the source is wrong" is nothing but your own original research. And no I did not "misrepresent" P&W - don't make stuff up. And for the millionth+1 freakin' time the idea that this is a "poor-quality source" is based on absolutely nothing - is there a reliable source which says that P&W is a poor quality source? No? Didn't think so - except your own fancy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I replaced the Paige and Witty account with the Schacter, Wegner & Gilbert source that you suggested. You can tweak this to make it more accurate if you want. I think we're reaching a consensus now about what's best here, so I hope there won't be any more drive-by reverts to restore the Paige and Witty material.Boothello (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this, because I don't see why we can't use both sources. Paige and Witty have the advantage of being straight to the point and very clear. The textbook sources goes into more detail. So why not get the best of both worlds? In fact, that's what NPOV requires - presenting all reliable sources. I also don't think it's a good idea to remove text which is based on reliable sources, simply because of IDON'TLIKEIT. We're letting a couple of editors' original research trump reliable sources here which is a "bad thing" and a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

there absolutely no consensus here boothello. we should use both sources in compliance with npov, as suggested by marek. i also suggest maunus or marek make the new edit as other editors seem rather disingenuous (what can you expect from single purpose accounts?)-- mustihussain (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Marek this is not original research Paige and Witty contradict what all other sources about what the APA report says. Secondly it is not a high quality secobndary source as a textbook is, but rather a slightly partisan source. I think it is important to source this to as neutral a source as possible. Troost is obviously not a reliable source - if it were it would have been academically published. The reason it makes no sense to use both sources is because that would be too much for the lead, secondly it would create the impression that there is widespread disagreement about what the APA report says - which there isn't I know of no other sources that interpret the APA report as Paige and Witty do.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the contradiction. Also I'm not sure one can even call it "slightly partisan", as one of the authors is the Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, Rod Paige (a quick read through his article should convince anyone that Paige ain't no bleeding heart liberal, as liberals don't usually refer to the NEA a "terrorist organization"). I don't think including the quote from the book would given an impression of disagreement, unless one is 100% wedded to the idea that IQ=intelligence always and everywhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Aside from needing to replace the Paige & Witty source (which is better now) I think the recent changes to the lead section also have a few other problems, which is why I tried to undo them last night. Others seem to think it's important that I explain what's wrong with these changes before I undo them, so I will:

• The information about how IQ scores are distributed between racial groups has been moved out of the lead into the "Validity of race and IQ" section. WP:LEAD says that the lead section of an article should be a concise overview of the rest of the article. This information is the central topic of debate in the race/IQ controversy, so the lead should include it. This information is both prominent and uncontested - nearly every source that exists about race and IQ mentions whites score higher on average than blacks and that Asians score higher on average than whites, and the dispute is just over the cause of this difference. Therefore there is no problem with undue weight for the lead section to mention this, and it is an essential part of any concise summary of the nature of the debate. Excluding this information makes it impossible for readers to even know what the article's lead section is referring to when it discusses "racial IQ gaps". If people read the article starting at the beginning, they won't learn what racial IQ gaps actually are until around a quarter into the article.

• This sentence was added to the lead: "While some researches use IQ as a measure of intelligence, Alfred Binet, the developer of IQ tests, warned that these should not be used to measure innate intelligence." This is cited to page 296 of Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian’s book Introduction to Psychology. Page 296 of this book mentions this warning from Binet, but this information is presented in the context of explaining how IQ tests were misused in the early 1900s, not in the context of modern IQ tests. The authors of this book do not use this warning from Binet as a criticism of modern IQ testing. By contrasting this warning from Binet with the fact that researchers use IQ as a measure of intelligence in modern times, the article is making a point that the authors of this book do not make, which is WP:SYNTHESIS.

When Mustihussain has restored Marek's changes to the lead after I or SightWatcher tried to undo them, the explanation given in his edit summary was that there was no consensus yet whether or not Marek's changes were an improvement. Mustihussain's argument appears to be that the bold changes that Marek made three days ago cannot be undone until there is a consensus to undo them, and that if no consensus can be reached either way, the changes have to stay in the article. This is the exact opposite of standard editing practice. According to Misplaced Pages:Reverting, "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change" The status quo for the lead section of this article is the state it was in from sometime in 2010 until three days ago, not the new version that Marek introduced on Friday.

However, "no consensus" is not on its own a good reason to revert, so I've now explained the problems I have with the new material. Maunus, now that I've explained this, do you mind me undoing these changes until and unless a consensus can be established to restore them?Boothello (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

status quo? this is the most unstable article on wiki thanks to single purpose accounts making massive amounts of edits in shortest possible time. the current version gives both mainstream and fringe views equal weight. that is not acceptable. the time has come for another arbitration.-- mustihussain (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. We're not done discussing Paige and Witty. At this point it may be a good idea to start an RfC.
2. The fact that the article overemphasizes IQ testing is not a good reason to overemphasize it in the lede as well.
3. There really is no intelligence/race or even an IQ/race controversy, aside from a small number of fringe racist researchers like Rushton and Lynn.
4. The fact that they have a following on Misplaced Pages which slants related articles is a PROBLEM, not something that should be spread further.
5. Of course Binet's warning was made in the early 1900's - time travel hadn't been invented yet at that time, you know. Anyway, Binet's warning was against using IQ tests for intelligence testing in general.
6. WP:Reverting is a Misplaced Pages essay, written by what looks like a clueless naive 12 year old, not Misplaced Pages policy (like it says in the big sign up top). Invoking "status quo", and "stability" to justify POV editing, on the other hand, is a violation of one of the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages, NPOV. In addition to the fact that WP:CONSENSUS cannot be held hostage by intransigent editors, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (there's already way too much crap about IQ in this article), which are also policies not essays, applies. Consensus can change.

The above post and suggestion by Boothello tends to point out the futility of trying to compromise in some situations. You let some editors insert their own original research into an article, and delete well sourced text simply because it doesn't agree with the POV they're pushing, and they take that as a signal to further slant the article. We need to simply stick with policies. If a particular text is relevant and sourced to reliable source, then it should not be removed, no matter how much some particular editor dislikes.

@mustihussain, what would another arbitration case do? After it closes and bans and blocks are handed out, we'd just get a fresh crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles, while the watchers loose interest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

then both arbitration and a prolonged semi-protection are required. the current version is just a auxiliary propaganda site for the "mankind quarterly".-- mustihussain (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"There really is no intelligence/race or even an IQ/race controversy, aside from a small number of fringe racist researchers like Rushton and Lynn."

I would suggest that an editor who asserts such a thing would be unsuitable to edit this article. QuintupleTwist (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

YAR/IRSPA (Yet Another Race/Intelligence Recent SPA).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment regarding Marek's arguments. I agree with the general statement that the coverage of the Race and Intelligence has generally given a lot of undue weight to the pro-hereditarian argument, which although I do not agree that it is really fringe, is a minority viewpoint in Psychology and in society in general. The article's have up untill this point tended to make it look as if the issue was tied or even with a slight advantage to the hereditarians. This problem has been promoted because of a steady influc of accounts dedicated to the hereditarian literature with which they are very well versed, but with no interest in representing the other side. This has been a long term problem and its effects can be observed in most articles related to either race or intelligence. Now, there are also several points where I disagree with Marek. There is unfortunately a race and intelligence controversy, many books published on both sides attest to this - the environmentalist side has been pitifully represented up untill this point and the hereditarian side has been given undue weight, but there is a debate that is going to continue as long as there are people interested in justifying racist worldviews. The Lynn and Paige article is tangential to the debate and they are not author's who are seen as authorities by any of the one's actually involved in the research on either side. We can get much better sources than that and we should. The quality of the sources is key to getting this mess straightened up. Up untill this point we have relied much too heavily on pitting primary sources against eachother rather than relying on secondary and tertiary sources to give us a sense of how to balance the coverage of various viewpoints. The idea of quoting Binet's warning is an unfortunate example of using primary sources where secondary or teritiary sources are needed. Quoting Binet would open up the market for quoting all kinds of old research, like Galton, and put it together in novel ways to push what ever agend one wishes to push. That is the wrong way to go. We need to provide perspectives from well respected secondary and tertiary sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be right that the article is unbalanced in a hereditarian direction. But it's a problem that'll need to be dealt with very carefully. If we try to solve it by haphazardly moving things to new sections, or by adding primary sources or tangentially related sources, it will make the overall quality of the article worse rather than better. Which is why I think the changes I brought up in my previous post here are unhelpful.

I think the best thing to do at this point is to remove the out-of-context Binet quote. I also think the information about how IQ scores are distributed between races should be moved back into the lead. As I said, the mere existence of racial IQ gaps is not really disputed by either side in this controversy. And when this information does not appear until a quarter the way into the article, readers won't even know what the term "racial IQ gap" refers to before they get to that point. After that I would be okay starting a new discussion about how to make the environmentalist perspective adequately represented in this article. But I think that'll be a fairly long process, and Marek's changes are the wrong way to start. Do you agree?Boothello (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Binet quote is cited to a secondary source which uses the... wait a minute, it's not even a "quote", where did that misrepresentation come from? Anyway, it's a commentary on Binet, from a reliable secondary source. It's not primary. It's not original research. It's not out of context. It's not "tangentially related" - it's discussed in a primary source in the context of this very topic.
• Even if a race/intelligence controversy can be said to exist (sure, in some sense, it does), that doesn't somehow make Paige and Witty "inaccurate" (they don't say that).
• Paige is obviously an important author here, seeing as he was the Secretary of Education. If you want to we can say something like "authors Witty, and the former Secretary of Education state that both APA and AAA have issued statements etc."
• I agree that much of the problem lies in reliance on unreliable and primary sources. But neither Witty and Paige, nor Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian (a textbook), where Binet is discussed are primary sources. So that criticism is aimed elsewhere I think. Yet Boothello is trying to use it for his/her own purposes.
• Boothello seems to agree with Maunus' assesment that the article is already way too skewed towards the hereditarian "view" but still wants to make it even more skewed by putting even more IQ stuff into lede. How does that make sense?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Paige is an important actor - being secretary of state is a political position not an academic one. His opinion might be important in an article about policies, I don't think it is here. Espeecially nt givent that his description of the report contradicts summaries of the report by scholars on both sides of the fence. It is just not a very good or relevant source, and on top he is wrong as can be verified by anyone who reads the report. There is not a very good case for including it.

If the Binet quote is discussed in relation to the Race IQ gap in the source,then it is not synth. But I still don't think Binet's very old warning is important enough to go in the lead, it should definitely go in the history section if the source mentions it in the context of the IQ gap.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my initial post, the problem with the warning from Binet is not that it's cited to a primary source, but that it's being given a meaning that the authors of the source (Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian) don't give it. These authors mention the warning from Binet in the context of how IQ tests were misused in the early 1900s, and say nothing about this in relation to modern IQ testing. Yet the article uses this warning from Binet as a critique of modern IQ research, even though the authors of the source don't make that point. That looks like synth to me. Also, I'd like your opinion about whether the distribution of IQ scores between racial groups is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, or whether it makes sense for the article to not mention this until around a quarter the way into it.Boothello (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source doesnot discuss the IQ gap but only the early misuses of IQ then I do not think it belongs in the lead. I could be swayed to include it in the history section, but I would prefer to find a source that discusses Binet's warning in relation to racial group differences in IQ.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It discusses Binet in the context of misuse of IQ tests, racial discrimination ("Classifying races") and IQ scores by race. The warning by Binet is used as a way of introducing these discussions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The section in which this is discussed is entitled "Cultural Diversity: Races, IQs, and Immigration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I think it makes sense to work it into the history section. Or perhaps the section on different perspectives on the relation between IQ and intelligence.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So there's no ambiguity about what the Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian source says about this, I'll quote the paragraph being cited:

After Alfred Binet developed the first intelligence tests, he gave two warnings about the potential misuse of IQ tests. He warned that IQ tests do not and should not be used to measure innate intelligence and that IQ tests should not be used to label individuals. However, in the early 1900s the area we know as psychology was just beginning, and American psychologists were very proud of how much they had improved IQ tests. With their improved IQ tests, American psychologists not only used IQ tests to measure what they thought was innate, or inherited, intelligence but also used IQ tests to label people (as morons or imbeciles). As if that weren’t bad enough, early psychologists persuaded the U.S. Congress to pass discriminatory immigration laws based on IQ tests. As we look back now, we must conclude that the use and abuse of IQ tests in the early 1900s created one of psychology’s sorriest moments.

This is clearly a critique of how IQ tests were misused in the early 20th century, not of modern IQ testing. Yet the article presents this warning from Binet as a critique of modern IQ research. I agree with the idea of putting this in the history section, but it doesn't belong in the lead.

Also: what's your opinion about my other question, on whether the lead should mention how IQ scores are distributed between races? I don't think it's sensible that the article currently discusses racial IQ gaps before it explains what those gaps actually are.Boothello (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary I think mentioning the scores before the divergent opinions surrounding their significance have been explained is misleading.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article do you think this information should go? I don't think it should be buried in the "validity" section where it is now. Even if it's misleading to present the IQ scores outside of the debate over their significance, I also think it makes the article very unclear for it to discuss the debate over the cause of racial IQ gaps when it hasn't yet explained what these gaps actually are. It sounds to me like the best compromise is for the IQ data and the debate over its significance to be presented together. I would suggest putting this information into the paragraph of the lead that discusses the four positions that exist about the cause of racial IQ gaps. That way we won't have the problem of presenting this information outside the debate over how it's interpreted, but we also won't have the problem of describing the debate without saying what it is that's being debated.

Also, it looks like we're agreed that the Binet content should go in the history section, so I'll move it there.Boothello (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, is it ok if I make the change I suggested? I think this is the best compromise between your requirements and mine, but before I do it, it would be good to have some confirmation that you don't mind the idea.Boothello (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

maunus, the pro-hereditarian viewpoints may not be fringe in general but a bulk of the hereditarian-"arguments/theories" presented here are. the only way forward is to brutally stick to core wiki-policies. by wiki-standards the current version is not tenable. the article is littered with primary source, even worse, there are whole sections built solely on unreliable primary sources. i suggest to remove all content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources, or maybe even remove everything except the lead (as was done with the race&crime-article) and start all over again.-- mustihussain (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories

In the "Evolutionary theories" section, I am adding a counter view to the discussed view of Loring Brace. The issue concerns the possibility of evolved group differences in intelligence. There is no consensus as to whether it is plausible, form an evolutionary standpoint, that different populations evolved different average levels of intelligence. Given this, a balance set of opinions should be given. If someone objects to this please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Balance does not mean include every published opinion in favour and every possible opinion against. Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source on these issues and while C Loring Brace is a respected authority both on issues of evolutionary biology, biological anthropology and on race - Gerhard Meisenberger is not. I see no reason to include that source and I will proceed to remove it again. Please don't reinsert it before there is a consensus to do so. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Maunus - I'm not clear at all why we should pay attention to what Meisenberger says on the issue. There should be someone a bit more eminent expressing such views if they are widely enough held. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you want to do with. I know of a number of academics who say that the genetic hypothesis is evolutionarily plausible. Meisenberg offers a direct rebuttal to Brace, keeping it simple. Otherwise I will have to rewrite the paragraph, noting people who consider a genetic hypothesis to be evolutionarily plausible and those that don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source. Please stop dismissing publications as "unreliable" because you don't agree with the political stance that they are affiliated with. Rrrrr5 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that these are publications that a particular editor(s) happen to disagree with. It's that these are publications which are widely described as racist and "white supremacist". Un-re-lia-ble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Meisenberg is a respected biochemist. I included him because he addresses Brace's argument directly. If you want I will rewrite the section and cite sources that argue that an evolutionary hypothesis is plausible. For example, Nisbett

"Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are hundreds of ways a genetic difference could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of Blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups" Nisbett, R. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and culture count. New York: Norton. pg. 94

Or, if you want a geneticist, we could go with anthropologist/population geneticist Henry Harpending —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, it is already obvious that there is a group of researchers who disagree with C Loring Brace's argument - otherwise the entire debate would be moot. There is nothing gained by letting the article degenerate into chains of he said-she said. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IF you don't want to include a counter view, delete the section with Brace in it. It makes it sound as if an evolutionary explanation is inherently implausible, which it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well an evolutionary explanation would rely on the assumption that races represent distinct evolutionary lineages which they don't, so I'd say that it is pretty implausible. I don't see how we can have a section on evolutionary theories on race without including the opinions of one of the foremost scholars investigating race and evolution.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are three issues here: 1) is it possible for groups differences to have evolved, 2) what are the mechanisms by which such differences could have evolved, 3) and are these mechanisms plausible? The section on Brace deals with 1). I am trying to put a counter viewpoint -- with regards to the general plausibility. Perhaps we could just start the section with: "There's some disagreement as to whether it's plausible that population differences in intelligence evolved" and then go onto the specific theories and critiques of them. As for your point that "evolutionary explanation would rely on the assumption that races represent distinct evolutionary lineages," this is incorrect. Evolutionary explanations do rely on the assumption that races are ancestrally defined (or related) populations (i.e. African Americans are somehow more genetically related, on average, to Africans than European Americans are), but it's irrelevant as to whether there are "distinct" lineages. Imagine a genetic continuum. Define "race" in terms of "regional" "ancestry" (like the US government does). Take a handful of people from one region and a handful from another and you will have two races (groups with different regional ancestry) that are genetically different. The whole debate about the taxonomic status of population clusters or whether they really are clines is irrelevant to this issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That will not do no. The only way to argue that racial differences in IQ have evolved would be to argue that race has validity as biological category - this is a minority viewpoint, and to show a biological basis for IQ which is also not a majority viewpoint. It is not the case that there is some disagreement - there is an overwhelming consensus that it is not the case that differences in mean IQ between racial groups can possibly have an evolutionary explanation. Any attempt to try to balance this fact so that it looks like the argument in favour of such a theory is stronger than it appears in the statements by AAA, AAPA and UNESCO will be a huge breach of NPOV. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we get back on topic? (If you want to discuss this issue, we can discuss this when we argue over some other changes that I'm going to make.) Right now we are talking about Brace's statement "that there is no valid reason to expect average differences among living human populations". Obviously for Brace to say this, he must think there are human populations that could, in other respects, be different.

This is the topic. Brace's argument is mainstream as far as there is a meainstream on this issue. His position is obviously that there is such a thing as genetically differing populations yes. It is also that race is not such a geneticaly differing population. The specific argument about the survival value of intelligence is tangential to his general argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's tangential, then you won't mind me changing it? Or better, I'll delete it and you can write the non-tangential version in, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The section is already heavily bviased in favour of the pro-hereditarian minority viewpoint. Removing Brace would contribute to that bias and would require me to remove most of the fringe studies by Lynn and Rushton to balance.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Manus, keep in mind that this section is called "evolutionary theories" for race differences. It's biased in the way that the "Potential environmental causes" section is. The heart of this section is hereditarian/evolutionary theories. If you think having the section gives the hereditarian position undo weight then move to delete it. But given the existence of the section -- I suggest it be outlined as below.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)chuck

Manus, First, do you have any reasonable objection to me adding race/IQ Scholar Nisbett's quote. If you want to reject him on the basis of not being a biologists, I move to scratch Brace (and his comment about intelligence) on the basis of not being a behavioral geneticist. I already asked if you wanted me to get quotes from behavior geneticists. You said that would be unnecessary: "It is irrelevant, it is already obvious that there is a group of researchers who disagree with C Loring Brace's argument - otherwise the entire debate would be moot." Make up your mind. I can't add Meisenberg because his isn't eminent, even though he's a biochemist that work with population genetics; I can't add Nisbett because he isn't a biologist, even though he is an eminent race/IQ researcher; I can't add Harpending because doing so would crowd the section.

Look, Let's restructure this section:

• The prior plausibility of evolved differences between global populations (mention Brace, etc)
• The relation between global population and race and arguments about that
• Mechanisms of differentiation (mention Lynn, etc)
• Critiques of those mechanisms (mention whomever)

--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)chuck

The hereditarians are not a minority. Please see The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No that is simply incorrect. Within species variation does not require distinct lineages. Braces' argument is nonsense. Taken to its logical conclusion all traits should be uniform in all organisms. He ignores the fundamental evolutionary principle of tradeoff. QuintupleTwist (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense and failing to even understand the beginning of Brace's argument: since races are not biologically defined populations there is no basis for believeing that selective forces of any kind have operated on them as a whole. Brace happens to be one of the scientists who knows most about human interspecies biological variation. Obviously his argument does not reject the possibility of interspecies variation and his argument does not reject the possibility of intelligence varying between particular biologically defined populations, he says that it is improbable since intelligence must be assumed to be integral to survival in all environments. But he does reject wholesale the possibility that evolutionary explanations could account for IQ differences between racial groups - because the racial groups being studied are not biologically defined groups. There are no evolutionary tradeoffs that could have operated on all ancestors of people that we today classify as Black and not on all the people that we classify into other groups. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That was not Brace's argument at all. In the referenced passage, Brace did not say that there were no groups but that: “Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations.” He was arguing that different populations would not evolve different levels of intelligence, because intelligence is equally valuable for all populations -- NOT because there were no populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Brace has two arguments. Can we just deal with the relevant one (the one in this section). And figure out how to resolve this issue.

They are both very relevant to this topic. And my guess is that contrary to you I have in fact read his book and I know what he says. The notion that intelligence is of equal survival value is not his main argument, his main argument is that race is not biological category and that it cannot therefore have been subject to any evolutionary forces as a group. The argument included there is simply a retort to Rushton's ridiculous and empirically unfounded speculations thinking that life among the large predators of the African Savannah requires less intelligence than life in the cold. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the passage we are discussing: "C. Loring Brace argued that the evolution of human intelligence is founded on the development of human linguistic behavior and that because intelligence is of equal survival value to all humans it is implausible that any clinal distribution in the trait exists. He points to the commonality of human survival strategies during the Pleistocene epoch as incompatible with theories of evolutionarily based differences in intelligence." We are not discussing some other passage. I will be happy to discuss that after we resolve this issue. I either want this Brace passage deleted or I want to add an alternative viewpoint. Don't you like my Nisbett quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by

We are discussing the entire section. Nisbett is a psychologist and not an authority on either race or evolutionary theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion verges on the surreal. Presumably hyenas have the same intelligence as humans as they have to " among the large predators of the African Savannah". This line of argumentation is absurd and it does no credit to the encylopedia to dignify it with inclusion. Furthermore, Brace clearly ascribes to the position that human variation can be described, which appears to be something Maunus is trying to deny based on his personal opinion. QuintupleTwist (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are ascribing me views that I have explictly denied in this thread - and frankly you are lying about me and making pejorative statements about my person. If I write another line adressed to you it will be a personal attack, so instead I will refrain from adressing you again. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research (especially faulty original research). Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source. That's all that really has to be said here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Has anyone here considered splitting this article into "Group differences and intelligence" and "Race, genes, and intelligence." This article could run:

1 History of the debate 2 The validity of "IQ". 3 Group differences 4 Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic 5 Significance of group differences 6 Policy relevance 7.Ethics of research

And the "Race, genes, and intelligence" article would specifically focus on the genetic hypothesis for racial differences. That way we wouldn't have to niggle over whether this or that sentence is being unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say it would be a POVFORK? In a "race, genes, intelligence article," we could outline the gene/environment argument in detail. It would be separate from a "Group differences and intelligence" article which could deal with SES, ethnic, racial, sexual, geographic differences in a generic manner, focusing on the validity of IQ, the magnitudes of differences, the causes of the differences, generally, and other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When you put race and genes and race and intelligence into the same article then it would clearly violate NPOV to suggest that the mainstream view on race, namely that it is a social category and not a genetic or biological one could be kept out of that article. We already have articles on Heritability of IQ and Race and genetics and a whole series of articles on

Not at all. As I noted, race can be a social category (i.e a socially delineated group) and still have biological content. In fact, this is how hereditarians and others often treat race (Blacks = self identifying Africans/African-Americans; Whites = self identifying European/European Americans). Whether or not "Blacks" or "Asians" or whites fit a biological category is irrelevant -- all that matters is that on average there are genetic differences between the groups, which is trivially true. In the same way, SES groups can have heritable (genetic) differences (cf Murray 1994; Jensen 1981) without being "genetic or biological categories." Ditto ethnic groups. You can even cluster groups together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are stacking non sequitur on non sequitur. If race is not a valid biological construct then the basis for believing that a genetic causal explanation for any shared behavioral trait within a racial group is also necessarily invalidated. If someone does not believe that the reason that IQ varies between racial groups is biological and that therefore

Are you just playing dumb? When you say race is not a valid "biological construct," what do you mean? I'm guessing that you don't even understand the meaning of this phrase. When most people say that "races are biological constructs" they mean that they are groupings defined according to some taxonomic criteria. To say that "races are social constructs" is to say that they are groupings defined according to some non-taxonomic social criteria. That's all these phrases mean. Now, it should be patently clear that "social construction" does not preclude genetic difference. For example, here are two socially constructed groupings: "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average." By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are "social constructs." In the same manner, different racial groupings can be genetically different and still be "social constructs," as most people use the term --174.97.236.49 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Since you clearly don't have a clue what the term 'social construct' means, please don't use it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to provide a definition of "social construct" (and "biological construct") which contradicts my point. Let me give a clear example: While sex (male and female) is considered to be a biological construct, Gender (masculine and feminine) is considered to be a social construct. On average, there are nonetheless genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender, because gender overlaps with sex. Would you disagree? Would you maintain that on average there are no biological/genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender? To continue, it's trivially true that on average there are genetic difference between, says, Blacks (African Americans) and Whites (West Eurasian American); for example, Blacks tend to be darkly pigmented and whites tend to be lightly pigmented. Would you honestly contend that the average pigmentation difference between individuals socially classified as Blacks and Whites has no genetic basis? Now, since there are genetic differences between racial groups (e.g. Blacks and Whites), either "race is a social construct" is trivially false OR "race is a social construct" does not mean that there can be no average genetic differences between racial groups. Take your pick.

--174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

It is of course true that categories being socially constructed does not preclude biological difference (and that on average people with different genders also have different chromosomes)- but it just so happens that race and gender are different in this aspect because Race does not overlap with any biological category. There is no biological category that maps onto the categories of "black people" and "white people" with a degree of precision even remotely similar to that of gender - this is because opposed to gender categories, the social construction of racial categories is not a universal one that maps onto an inherent biological difference but an extremely locally defined one that is used to map on to certain subjectively defined and clinally distributed biological traits. And no there are no trivial truth in your definition of the definition between light and dark skin because those terms are relatve and the thresholds for category inclusion differ from place to place and situation to situation and are influence by a gazillion other social factors. You are basically just wasting our time continuing this line of argument. We have the sources and we say what they say.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect to your statement "We have the sources and we say what they say," my concern is that you don't understand what some of them say. Let's take a specific point. In the "race and genetics/ section, you say: "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races." In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races. Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), by my guess would be that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Manus, I glad we agree that the "social construction" of a groups, per se, "does not preclude biological difference." You contend, nonetheless, that for there to be biological differences, socially constructed groups must overlap with biological categories. You provide no justification for this. Above, I gave an example of why this is not the case: "For example, here are two socially constructed groupings: "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average." By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are social constructs ." (For a discussion of the meaning of social constructs refer to: Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy --

• To say "Y is a social construct" is to say X constructs Y (i.e. Y doesn't have independent existence apart from what people say it is)
• X constructs Y if and only if X causes Y to exist or to persist or X controls the kind-typical properties of Y

Now, pray tell, which statement do you disagree with:

• the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" is a socially constructed group that does not overlap with a biological category

OR

• there are genetic differences between the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average."

If you disagree with neither, you agree with me that there can be genetic differences between socially constructed groups even if these groups do not "overlap with any biological category." As I have stated before. Whether or not races are social constructions -- or overlap with biological categories -- is irrelevant to whether or not, on average, there are genetic differences between them.

The fact is that the available evidence points to the conclusion that racial divisions can not be said to be characterized by any meaningful genetical differences - either on average or in individual cases. Your example is again useless because people with lower or higher than average IQ's is based on a single objective criterion - racial groupings are not.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Manus, this is an interesting claim. I won't dispute it here. My point was simply that social construction (i.e non biological construction) doesn't preclude genetic differences. Why is this relevant? In this section you stated: "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races." In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about differences in intelligence. Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), but my guess is that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies ("and that therefore..."). My guess is that this is your interpretation. I could be wrong. To decide, I will have to wait for you to point me to the relevant passage. Anyways, to make this basic point about this one sentence, it was necessary for us clarify what it means to say race is or isn't a biological construct. (By the way, could you check over my proposed edit to the "Heritability within and between groups" section, as I am guessing that you are the one that undoes my changes.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Templeton writes: "The premier human adaption is our intelligence. There is no doubt that our species as a whole has had its recent evolution chaacterized by a large increase in intelligence, but the question still remains if current human populations are genetically differentiated with respect to intelligence, either as a reflection of isolation by distance or local adaptation. Unfortunately this question is usually muddied by two indefensible erros: (a) phrasing the question as a genetic differentiation in intelligence among "races", (b) phrasing this question in terms of the heritability of intelligence or some surrogate such as an IQ test score. As shown previously, races do not exist in humans under any modern definition. Because different traits have discordant distributions it is meaningless to look at "racial" differences in any specific traits including intelligence. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from those specific populations to broader "racial" categories. Hence in any discussion of intelligence the conclusions must be limited to the specific populations under study and not generalized beyond them". (Templeton 2001 p.49 )·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. So to sum up, Templeton says that since there are no human subspecies (according to him), there wouldn't be IQ differentiation along subspecies lines -- but there could be IQ differentiation along population lines (say West Africans versus East Africans versus Europeans versus South Asians). This is different from what you said. You said: since races are not subspecies there couldn't be racial differences in intelligence. There's a subtle but important difference here. Templeton's formulation allows us to inquire about population differences, and, in that sense "race" differences where races refers to local populations (i.e. Europeans instead of "Caucasoids"; West Africans instead of "Negroids"); Templeton's point is that it's not meaningful to generalize beyond these narrower populations to broader populations. This point is not inconsistent with hereditarianism as concerning the US; When it comes to the Black-White difference, "Whites" (European for the most part) are being compared with Blacks (West Africans for the most part) -- both represent narrow populations, more or less. By your formulation, there couldn't be differences between narrow populations because they are not subspecies. We have:

• because populations are not part of races qua subspecies, we can not generalize differences beyond populations --("races do not exist in humans under any modern (subspecies) definition. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from those specific populations to broader "racial" (subspecies) categories")

Versus

• because races qua populations are not subspecies, there can not be differences between races qua populations.

("Templeton argues that racial groups [as commonly defined) neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races [as commonly defined).")

The second statement doesn't follow. And it isn't what Temp said. So the statement in question needs to be rephrased or removed. It might fit better in the section that deals with international differences.

You are misrepresrnting Templeton and me. I already knew when I posted this that you would somehoew twist this top make it fit your case. He is flat out contradicting you in fact. I am not going to discuss this more with you. My time is too precious. I am sure other editors will be able to see what Templeton actually says, and how you are misrepresenting him as saying the opposite of what he says.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Templeton makes it clear that there can be between population differences in intelligence. He argues that it's meaningless to ask if there are between subspecies differences in intelligence. With regards to the hereditarian position, we are asking if there are between race -- where race means population or group (i.e the population of African and European Americans) -- differences in intelligence. You are misrepresenting Tempelton's position. How about this edit: "Templeton argues that racial groups do not represent subspecies and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of subspecies"?

• 1)It's redundant to say that races do not represent subspecies and "distinct evolutionary lineages," since Templeton argued that races are not subspecies because they are not "distinct evolutionary lineages,"
• 2) Again Tempelton says there is no basis for making claims about subspecies. If races are not subspecies, they must be something else (e.g popultions or groups). And Templeton does not say that there's no basis for making claims about populations or groups. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

No you are misrepresenting his position based on a reading statements into the quote that he does not make. Try to read what it actually says: "races do not exist in humans under any modern definition" and "It is meaningless to look for "racial differences in any specific trait including intelligence". He clearly and unequivocally says that there can be intelligence differences between populations that are adaptively distinct or distinct by isolation (a requirement for selective forces to have operated on them and not other groups), but that racial groups do not represent such a group and that studying racial differences in any biological trait is meaningless. You are misrepresenting arguments from sources in a way that is clearly disruptive and makes it difficult to assume good faith in interacting with you. I suggest trying an approach that is less combative and aims at comprehending sources and representing their actual meanings instead of twisting them to agree with your personal goals. Otherwise your career here will be short, as the discretionary sanctions that are in place here are aimed to stop precisely that behavior.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

also Templeton does not argue that race is not subspecies because they are not evolutionary lineages - he distinguishes between the two quite clearly. How can you pretend to correct misrepresentations of a source that you have clearly not read?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is that hereditarians are in the minority position because they believe that races are biological categories, you're mistaken -- consider that both Murray and Jensen made similar arguments for class differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that argument is called social darwinism and is just as baseless as the race argument and it also does assume that class differences are based on genetic differences, namely the genetic difference that they assume cause one class to have lower IQs than other.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the view that race and intelligence are biological is not the minority viewpoint. I would describe the notion that they aren't as the fringe (namely, Marxist) viewpoint. Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone who think UNESCO is a Marxist organization couldn't be trusted to recognize a fringe viewpoint if sitting on it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not a Marxist organization, but it is indeed a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint"! I was unaware that a viewpoint could become a Party Member (or even a fellow -traveller). Isn't Misplaced Pages wonderful, you learn something new every day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

....·Maunus·ƛ· 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, as much as I'm a staunch defender of hereditarianism. This whole article is rather untidy. Why can't you break it into:

• History of the debate (general brief)
• The validity of "IQ"
• Group differences
• Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic (make c brief and generic)
• The environmental versus hereditarian debate (environmental case/hereditarian case) -- setting some word limit to cut down on unrepresentative views (i.e each side has X words to present their side.)
• Significance of group differences as it is.
• Policy relevance given different causes and expected durations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the article needs a cleanup. But no, that is the wrong outline and the proposal is in basic conflict with the policy NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Balance is not achieved by giving each side equal amounts of verbiage - it is achieved by weighing points of view relative to their prominence in academics. Your proposal has no section on race and the problems of race - whch is the most controversial problem with the entire topic. And Cultural causes are also environmental - since we attain culture through interaction with our cultural environments.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Race and genetics

The section "race and genetics" is redundant, verbose, and off topic. We have: 1. race is being confused with population (already in "The validity of "race" and "IQ") 2. there are no subspecies or lineages therefore there there can be no heritable differences -- oh, like skin color -- between any populations (irrelevant and already in "The validity of "race" and "IQ") 3. there is no such thing as between group heritability (patently false. The mathematical equations is: Within group heritability = between group heritability/ 4. when tested for differences, there are no differences between races anyways (contradicts 2, discussed in the race/ancestry part) 5. no IQ genes have been found (irrelevant -- this should be "IQ and genetics" -- and there should be a separate page for this)

This needs to be deleted or rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a weird artefact of the bad organization of the article into pro-hereditarian versus pro-environmentalist arguments. I do agree with you that this article would be better reorganized into a shorter and more on topic article where related arguments and counter arguments are presented together and not repeated ad nauseam in several sections. This is a remnant of an earlier stage of POV pushing activity that argued to include as much hereditarian material as humanly possible. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede - redundant

I deleted the last sentence about a 1996 APA report and statement that was nearly identical to that in the second paragraph (and was probably the basis of the 2007 cite). Included the long quote from the 1996 source in the footnote, so it can be read, but it is redundant to have two such similar statements in the Lede.Parkwells (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

all of them ARE in fact associated with PF

Re - all the individuals listed ARE in fact connected to the PF. So the info is factually correct. I added a source to support that fact. So the info is verifiable and reliably sourced. Furthermore, the source I added SPECIFICALLY lists these very people and discusses their connection to PF. So you can't even argue that SYNTH is being violated as the source is explicitly about these very individuals' connection to PF.

So once more we basically have reliably sourced info being removed from the article per IDON'TLIKEIT. Let me guess, next step is to claim "no consensus" because a bunch of created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts will object no matter what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The article just happens to list these four instead of a different four, there's nothing really unique about these four people and there are plenty of others who could be mentioned here. Then you go and make a specific point that these four are connected with the PF. Maybe we shouldn't list specific people at all, or additional ones who aren't PF-connected? How about Sesardic or Murray?

Every time anyone else has added something, like Rrrr5, or the IP, the default assumption is that it can't stay in the article unless there's consensus, where Maunus or whoever says "please get consensus" or "please respect BRD" But when someone like you or people you agree with add or remove something, the default assumption is that it should be left that way whether there's a consensus or not. Why is this okay?-SightWatcher (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Just happens"? Just so happens that most of these researchers happen to get funding from PF? The underlying fundamental problem is actually one of WP:WEIGHT. The lede of the article tries to pretend that the controversy is between two equal groups of mainstream researchers. In fact the dispute is between a vast majority of mainstream researchers and a few fringe folks, most of whom are associated with an organization that is usually described as racist and white supremacist. Because the lede insists on pretending that these two groups and the two viewpoints they represent are somehow "equal" the least we can do is to actually note the association of these people with the institute.

To answer your question, the difference is that when I add text it is cited to a reliable source. When I remove a piece of text it's because it is either unsourced, sourced to some sketchy source (like MQ) or in violation of another Misplaced Pages policy. When Rrr5 or "the IP" (which one?) or yourself or any of the other post-Arb-com case accounts adds something it is usually NOT cited to a reliable sources. This is evident from the two diffs you provide - in the first one, the claim is sourced to Mankind Quarterly, a racist journal, and the second is unsourced. See the difference?

btw, in light of this and this, I just got to ask: you weren't by any chance canvassed to get involved here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And did I call it right, or did I call it right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the researchers are all funded by the same body, not to note this would be dishonest - they are propounding a minority point of view, and to present them as independent critics of the mainstream, rather than as a particular pressure group/faction would be misleading. This isn't a dispute between two equally-balanced scientific positions, but between the mainstream and the fringe, and to suggest otherwise is falsification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Maunus removed this because there was no discussion or consensus about it, source has nothing to do with it (a source for that would have been really easy to find anyway). That's how it should be, on articles this contentious anything like this needs to be discussed and agreed on.

It might be the case that the article is biased toward the hereditarian perspective right now, but there are ways of addressing that are helpful, and ways that are not. Making the lede offer this commentary about the selection of people that just happen to be mentioned is not helpful. There are plenty of researchers outside of this "faction" that support the hereditarian hypothesis who have nothing to do with the PF (two I mentioned), and the article as it is gives the impression that all of them are associated with it. This looks like an attempt to correct the hereditarian bias in a really unhelpful way. If you think the article is biased, how about propose some changes on the talk page about how to change the wording in other sections, or some other way that's helpful.

Also, I think it's wrong to assume that pro-hereditarian is "fringe", even Maunus believes it to be minority but not fringe. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How small does a minority have to be before it becomes 'fringe'? I'd say that if this 'minority' is largely centred around a single pressure group, 'fringe' is a good description. Still if you can find other of the minority viewpoint that aren't associated with this faction, you'll have a better case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think it is possible to use the term fringe for the hereditarian viewpoint, also I think the Pioneer issue shouldn't be pushed too much since there is also a dynamic that drives hereditarians to the pioneer fund for funding because mainstream funding sources are reluctant to fund that kind of studies - its not just that the pioneer fund pays people to produce hereditarian research - rather people who would be hereditarians anyway look there for funding. The reason this isn't fringe is the sheer amount of controversy and debate generated by the studies , fringe studies usually don't attract volumes of rebuttal but are met with silence. Secondly there are also notable scholars who occupy intermediary positions of different kinds such as Neisser, Flynn, etc. who are neither completely in either camp, this would be difficult with real fringe studies that are simply considered to be impossible to reconcile with the mainstream, secondly we have the issue that there are so many of the hereditarians (something like 50 people signed the mainstream science statement) and the fact that the APA report is clear in considering the position a reasonable one in principle (though not supported by evidence).·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. With this in mind, do you mind if I remove the parenthetical inserted into the lead by Marek?Boothello (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Boothello. Number one. Maunus isn't the final arbiter of issues on this talk page. Even IF he agrees with you on something, that doesn't mean other people do.

Number two. Maunus is just saying that not all heredetierians can be described as fringe. This has nothing to do with the sentence inserted which merely notes, per sources, that all these people listed in lede are in fact associated with the PF.

Number three. Can you please stop trying to remove well sourced material from the article simply because of IDON'TLIKEIT. You have not offered a single legitimate argument for your removal. Your editing is tendentious. Stop trying to connive various excuses for these edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything else left to discuss. One of the justifications you gave for the material you added is that all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by the Pioneer Fund. That was shown false, because there are also many hereditarian researchers who have no connection to the Pioneer Fund, such as those that Sightwatcher listed. The other justification you gave for your edit is that all hereditarian research is fringe, which is also false, for the reasons that Maunus explained above. There is no remaining justification for this change, but you still don't want it to be undone.

You are doing the same thing that you had a problem with when Quintupletwist was doing it. You're adding material to the article without discussing it first, immediately reinstating it still without any discussion when it's reverted. And you also apparently don't care how many people oppose the material you're adding, because you can't assume good faith about any of the editors who disagree with you. Your statement that our opinions don't matter because we're "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts" is an obvious assumption of bad faith.

Your incivility, disregard for BRD, and your refusal to assume good faith about other editors are making it extremely difficult to work collaboratively with you. Maunus is being reasonable, and he also seems to know more about this topic than you do. The only way it's been possible to resolve the conflict caused by your edits is when we're both willing to listen to him. You should keep that in mind when you say it isn't enough that he agrees with me.Boothello (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have neither been incivil nor disregarded BRD. And you might want to read WP:AGF again - it is NOT a blanket injunction to force one side in a debate into a state of all accepting gullibility. Specifically, the guideline (not policy) states: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Given your previous behavior I think a bit of skepticism on my part is warranted. In particular:

You continue to remove well sourced material based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds and original research.

You claim support for your actions when such does not exist.

You continue to misrepresent the debate or my statements. For example, above you state:

One of the justifications you gave for the material you added is that all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by the Pioneer Fund. That was shown false, because there are also many hereditarian researchers who have no connection to the Pioneer Fund, such as those that Sightwatcher listed.

There's so much straw in that straw man you could thatch a roof. I did not say "all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by PF" - that's a falsehood. What I said, is that every single person listed in the lede has connections with the PF. Which they do. And for monkey's sake, the source I added states that very thing precisely So you can argue that the straw man you set up was "shown to be false" all you want - who cares, that's not what I claimed, nor is it relevant.

The statement that I "apparently don't care how many people oppose" me is untrue as well. I do however notice that there's several people agreeing with me here, that the opposition continuously comes from the same group of dedicated users who wish to hold the right of veto against any edit they don't like, no matter how well sourced.

Finally, I'm sorry but it's just eerie that in these disputes, on one side we have numerous editors with many years of experience on Misplaced Pages, who've edited across a wide range of topics, while on the other we have several accounts which are exactly what I described.

Your account, SightWatcher's, Mirandre's, the IP's, and a few others - were all created right after the end of the Race and Intelligence Arb Com case. I guess it could be just a weird coincidence, and I'm even willing to accept that it was a coincidence for, say, you personally, maybe one more account - but for 5+ accounts to all of sudden appear right at this very time is... well, the laws of probability are against it. Furthermore, every single one of these accounts has pretty much stuck to editing Race and Intelligence topics (with few minor exceptions). So yes, "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts" is exactly what you and these other accounts are. Good faith or bad faith, it is what it is. It's really up to you to demonstrate good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You have disregarded WP:BRD in that you added material without consensus, it was reverted, and you and others who agree with you preferred to reinstate it without consideration for discussion and agreement. Optimally, consensus needs to be formed after the revert to keep it there, not to remove it. Otherwise I could put any nonsense I wanted into the article and then claim "there's no consensus to remove it" once someone removes it. As for your statement that I "need to reread AGF", I think it's clear (and I hope that it would be clear to uninvolved onlookers) that your attitude so far in this discussion has definitely not been one of AGF.

As for some of your other points. "You continue to remove well sourced material based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds and original research." No, I removed it based on points made repeatedly in this thread and in edit summaries. Associating these researchers with the PF gives the false impression that all hereditarian researchers are associated with the PF. And as Sightwatcher mentioned, listing any number of other hereditarian researchers in the lead would negate the PF association. "You claim support for your actions when such does not exist." Aside from SW (and now Victor Chmara too ), please see Maunus's response. Even if he is not agreeing with me per se, he is bringing up relevant points that you are ignoring. And yes, a large portion of your argument DOES seem to rest on the fact that you think this research is "fringe". You said: "The underlying fundamental problem is actually one of WP:WEIGHT. The lede of the article tries to pretend that the controversy is between two equal groups of mainstream researchers. In fact the dispute is between a vast majority of mainstream researchers and a few fringe folks, most of whom are associated with an organization that is usually described as racist and white supremacist. Because the lede insists on pretending that these two groups and the two viewpoints they represent are somehow "equal" the least we can do is to actually note the association of these people with the institute."

Maunus indicated that the PF issue shouldn't be pushed too much. And additionally, not every source needs a statement about it in the lead. We already went through this with the Paige & Witty material. The lead is meant to be concise and fully relevant to the rest of the article. I am not disputing that the source is bad or that the statement is OR, I am saying that the statement is not necessary and that it creates a false implication.Boothello (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I added well sourced material. It was removed for specious IDON'TLIKEIT reasons. I re-added it (two days later) and commented on the talk page. That's not "disregarding BRD", that IS BRD. You, on the other hand, are REMOVING sourced material for no legitimate reason. You also seem to have a faulty understanding of Misplaced Pages policies with regard to sourced content. You state: Otherwise I could put any nonsense I wanted into the article and then claim "there's no consensus to remove it" once someone removes it - this is another strawman. I DID NOT add "any nonsense I wanted". I added well sourced text. You removed it. Don't make these kinds of false comparisons. Do you understand the difference between text based on reliable sources and "any nonsense"?

Associating these researchers with the PF gives the false impression that all hereditarian researchers are associated with the PF. - that is your inference. Bottom line is that every single person listed is in fact associated with the Pioneer Fund and this is straight from the source. I don't know how else I can say it - but that is what is important here. I did not write or insert anything about "all hereditarian researchers" being associated with the PF so cut the nonsense. If you think this makes all hereditarian's look bad, that's your problem. A reader should be given a chance to make up their own mind themselves. What we SHOULD NOT do is hide this information from the reader in order to mislead them, which is what you're trying to do (like I said, read WP:AGF again).

If you sincerely want to resolve this disagreement, then I suggest you come up with text which is both honest and, per your desires, differentiates non-PF folk from PF folk. If you want to list additional researchers, herediterian or otherwise which are not associated with PF then I have not and, as long as you have sources, will not object.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned two already, Sesardic and Murray. Try Templer, Arikawa, Loehlin, and J.R. Baker too. Since the lede only mentions hereditarians who are PF grantees (and makes the point that all of the people it mentions are PF grantees), it gives the impression that hereditarian researchers in this area are all associated with the PF even though isn't true.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, add Satoshi Kanazawa to that list too.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a comparable list for the mainstream view? aprock (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a comparable list for the mainstream view only comprising people called Stephen ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) What still stands true is that a good number of hereditarian researchers (and most of the most prominent ones) are indeed PF grantees, and that the hereditarian viewpoint is held by a small minority ofn researchers (whether that minority is small enouigh toi be called a fringe is up for debate).--Ramdrake (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily we don't need to work with a simplistic either/or on what is fringe. We need to work instead with the ArbCom fringe science finding that established categories. The hereditarian viewpoint might count, for example, as questionable science, on a level with Freudianism. I think that is helpful. Back in the day, the views of Carleton Coon were entirely mainstream and scientific. Nowadays they embarrass anyone except the most hardened historians of science. The positions of Rushton and Eysenck not that long ago were regarded as scientific and worth discussion; it's not so true now. Misplaced Pages should keep up to date with scientific opinion, but does not need to be ahead of opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that it is a good idea or NPOV to mention the pioneer fund every time we mention someone who is a pioneer fund grantee, it is not very NPOV since for each of them they also have other credentials that might be relevant and picking this particular one every time is slanted. I suggest only mentioning the pioneer fund when the article is discussing issues about history of research and about funding, not when we mention individual grantees. I do think the pioneer fund is such a big player in the debate that it should be mentioned in the lead, but not in a way that makes it look as simply an attempt to disqualify them out of hand through guilt by association. I think both sides need to be a little reasonable here and find some ways to improve the article through changes that are more substantial than simply supplying oneliners against or in favor.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Heritability within and between groups

I propose rewriting the needlessly wordy section "Heritability within and between groups" as below. The discussion of the meaning or heritability ("Heritability" is defined as..") is redundant. Misplaced Pages already has a section on this. Does anyone object to this change?

"Hereditarians have argued that the high within group heritability of IQ in conjunction with the magnitude of the gap makes it likely that the Black-White gap has a partial genetic basis . James Flynn has outlined the argument :

"Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and between family factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 Sds (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect onwithin-white heritability estimates)"

This argument has been criticized for a number of reasons. This argument has been criticized by other researchers using several different arguments. Firstly, as noted earlier, Templeton argues that heritability is relevant only for explaining within group variance, cannot be used to explain variation between groups. Secondly the heritability figure of .8 for White American populations have been frequently been criticized as being highly inflated. Another is arguing that there are many environmental factors, sometimes small and subtle, that together add up to a large difference between blacks and whites. Dickens and Flynn argue that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ. Hereditarians has replied to these criticisms. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

If someone has an objection to my edit please state why. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

The Flynn effect

I propose moving the "Flynn effect" subsection that is below the "Genetic arguments" section to the "Potential environmental causes" section, since the "Flynn effect" is a "Potential environmental causes" and not a "Genetic argument." If anyone objects to this move, let me know --174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

The Flynn effect is not an explanation of any cause. It is only an observation of fact. It is used as evidence of environmental causes, but is not itself an environmental cause. aprock (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Though, it's not uncommon to use the "Flynn effect" as shorthand for "the presumably environmental causes underlying the Flynn effect." At any rate, do you agree that the "Flynn effect" section should be relocated. It's clearly not a genetic argument.

I've removed the section. Part of the problem is that the article was recently rewritten from a very strong viewpoint, so gaffes like this are not uncommon. They persist because the effort that it takes to make quality edits to the article is generally better spent elsewhere. If you would like to actively edit the article, I would suggest being bold, but open to discussion, and refocusing of effort if the discussion bogs down. I would also suggest signing up for an account. Your edits will be given more credence if you do. aprock (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential environmental causes

For anyone interested, there are scores of environmental causes. Refer to: Wiesen, 2009. "Possible Reasons for the Black-White Mean Score Differences Seen With Many Cognitive Ability Tests: Informal Notes to File." (Google it.)--174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck There is also Neisser's "The Rising Curve", and Resnick et al's. "Intelligence genes and Success", and Jencks' "The Black/White IQ gap". All large scale edted volumes that advance mostly environmental explanations.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inbreeding depression"

I propose rewriting the " "Inbreeding depression" section to make it more readable:

"Heritability and the method of correlated vectors"

Different subtests vary in how much they correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and inbreeding depression. The Black-White subtest differences correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and the effect of inbreeding -- a purely genetic effect. As the hereditarian hypothesis predicts this while environmental hypotheses do not, Hereditarians argue that one can infer a genetic component to the difference. In reply, Nisbett and Flynn argue that the Flynn effect, a presumably non-genetic effect, also correlates with general intelligence loadings and inbreeding depression; as such, they argue that the above correlations imply nothing. Rushton and Jensen have disputed Nisbett and Flynn's claim and maintain that the correlations support a genetic role.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Honestly I would remove the entire section as unencyclopedic. It's a he said/she said about a topic which has no high quality secondary sources supporting it's inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

agree.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Murray as an intelligence researcher?

I have reverted the addition of Chareles Murray in the list of prominent hereditarians, as his field of study and endeavor is neiher inteligence nor anthropology nor human genetics, but rather policy, and his work did not produce any original research, but was mostly a reinterpretation of other research by other researchers (among them Rushton).--Ramdrake (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly think there's now a consensus for this change? Sightwatcher, Victor Chmara, Maunus and myself all have said that this doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the lead. The only people who expressed agreement with you on this are Volunteer Marek and AndytheGrump. What's more, you haven't made an attempt to respond to Victor's point that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are all on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and that that is just as relevant as mentioning their relationship to the Pioneer Fund. Why are we mentioning their affiliation to the Pioneer Fund, but not this? Your statement that "if "Intelligence" is THE premier publication in the field, then the field is in a sorry state" does not render this irrelevant. This field is the article's topic area, and therefore it's what the article needs to be based on, whether you like it or not.

Consensus is more than just a vote. What matters more is the strength of the arguments being made, so I think it's more important how you brushed aside Victor's point without addressing it than that the majority of editors involved in this discussion disagree with you. As an editor whose opinion is in the minority here, and who is not trying to address the points made by the majority, you should not be claiming that your preferred version has consensus.

I find it very telling that for the past month 100% of your content edits have been reverts, that all but two of them have not been accompanied by any explanation on the talk page. And that all but one of your reverts in this topic area have been to reinstate changes made by Volunteer Marek. When the focus of an editor's involvement is to support editors with whom they agree in edit wars, that is not a good sign about whether the goal of their involvement is to work collaboratively with other editors. There are discretionary sanctions authorized on this article, so if you continue with this behavior I intend to go to an admin about it.Boothello (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of the Pioneer Fund reference is weaselly. On the other hand - should we credit Murray with being a researcher on the topic? He's notable media-wise, but is he really appropriate as an academic reference on this particular topic? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that when hereditarian researchers are being listed somewhere, it happens too often that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are the only people listed. It creates the false impression that these four are the only hereditarian researchers who matter, and I think it would be good for the article to mention an additional person. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the fifth person should be Charles Murray or someone else, though. I asked Victor Chmara in his user talk whether he thinks Murray is a better choice than someone like Loehlin or Sesardic, so let's see what he says. What do you think?Boothello (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's bizarre to claim that Murray has not done original research in this field. Murray and Herrnstein's original analysis of IQ data from the NLSY is probably the most debated IQ study in history. His publishing record in academic journals is not extensive but it is not non-existent either, see e.g. , , and . He has probably published more on this topic than someone like Nisbett, who is properly a social psychologist. Murray is one of the best-known people associated with the race and IQ controversy.

There is certainly no consensus to mention Pioneer in the lead section. If anything, there's a consensus against that. If we start inserting all sorts of qualifiers and insinuations so as to cast doubt on the motives of the hereditarian researchers, we will have to do that with the anti-hereditarians, too. For example, should Stephen Rose be described in the article as a "polemicist on the left" or "the last of the Marxist radical scientists", as he has been described in the Guardian (see his article for references)? I hope we will not go down that road. The problem with mentioning affilitations that some scientist may have is that everybody has multiple affiliations, and choosing which one to mention and how to mention it is a completely arbitrary process driven by personal biases. It's best to just neutrally describe these people as psychologists, anthropologists or whatever, and if some affiliations are relevant, discuss them more in more detail in one place in the article and/or in a dedicated article as is currently done with Pioneer.

I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of Murray (Vincent Sarich and Henry Harpending are some others who could be included), but Pioneer should certainly not be mentioned in the lede for the above reasons.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my concern: I know Murray's work best from my days as a policy researcher. At least in the UK he's not seen as particularly credible amongst academics in policy studies. His work is studied as an influential articulation of a political position, but in terms of his use of empirical evidence, his research is considered pretty poor. Essentially, he's a media-friendly advocate, not a quality researcher. I think he's significant as a populariser of ideas, but my reading of the text is that that is not a good criterion for inclusion here. We should be wary of media perception getting in the way of who the serious players are. The Bell Curve didn't get attention for the quality of the work - it was partly the opposite. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Murray is as competent a researcher as anyone, and The Bell Curve used standard social science methods, and its main results have been replicated by other researchers. Most of the criticisms against him are pure political nonsense. Murray once wrote a rather amusing article about the distortions and dishonesty of many of the book's critics, but unfortunately I cannot locate it at the moment ]. Anyway, we can include someone other than Murray in the lede.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Herrnstein was clearly the more respected researcher of the two, and the only one with a background in Psychology. Sarich and Harpending are both minor players, I don't think they deserve lead attention, I do think the Bell Curve should be mentioned in the lead, especially since its publication sparked the current phase of the controversy.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with Murray and/or Herrnstein being mentioned in the lede, as their book is one of the most notable on the topic. Also OK with PF having a brief mention in the lede. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the Pioneer Fund in relation with Rushton et al.

I believe the point that Volunteer Marek was trying to make with his edit is that ALL the most prominent hereditarian researchers are ALSO PF grantees. This. In my view is a significant point. While the point may conceivably be better written (how?), I still think it is important enough to deserve reasonable mention in t he lede, as the PF is a major corporate player through its funding in this field of endeavior.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention the PF when it is specifically relevant. I don't think we should use it as a tag to automatically put after certain people's names. It definitely deserves mention in the lead as all involved groups agree that it has played an important role in all of the phases of the controversy from the earliest period.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Sesardic, 2000. Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability. Philosophy of Science, 67, 580-.
2. Flynn, 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate. Intelligence 38 (2010) 363–36

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