Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:22, 25 August 2006

Race and intelligence is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 18 August 2006 Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically. This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

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

Template:Todo priority

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

Race and intelligence received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Race and intelligence was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

Archives
Archive 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

FAQ: article name change?

See:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22#The_Huge_Problem_with_this_article:_IQ and Archive_13.

Bogus arguments

IQ tests scores are not an absolute measure of intelligence; they tend to ignore many aspects of human cognition and the cognitive process. Things like creatively, wisdom, ability to learn, ability to adapt and practical skills are not gauged by these tests in a meaningful way. IQ tests also fail to measure the same construct among all people to whom the tests are applied, the more culturally distinct the group (I.E. Truckers, and Musicians) the greater the discrepancy. To apply a single test to an entire population of distinct individuals from varying backgrounds is unbelievably biased unless used to gauge a particularly relevant skill. Example: Race horses are not gauged for their poker skills. - Just as Sociologists are not measured by their ability to paint.

The fact of the matter is intelligence does vary among humans, but this can be for many reasons: prenatal care, subjective interpretation, interest factors, differing environments, life circumstances etc. My concern is not with differences among individuals, but with claims that imply that group differences involving subjective and highly bias testing situations can amount to genetic differences in the traits being tested.

How does one compare the intelligence of a gifted painter with that of a mediocre Physicist? According to the narrow methods and perspectives used and held by many Psychometricians, the Mediocre Physicist is likely to be perceived the more intelligent. Why, because this is what the testing situation demands that they believe/think.

Psychometric tests do not and can not measure the number of years spent in practice, nor can they measure interest, motivation, interpretation, diet, home & social life, daily activities etc.; nor do they try! Despite these obvious and fundamental short comings this model is often presented as valid and unbiased by many practitioners.

Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp (1971:233) made the following insightful observation: “ Cultural differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particular cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in one cultural group, and its absence in another.

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define “intelligence” according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005). - IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg, 1998,1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).

Further more, IQ is not a fixed quantity; it can be raised (It is not as difficult to rise, as it is to maintain). This has been demonstrated numerously through studies involving environmental stimulation.

Examples of such studies:

In 1987 Wynand de Wet (now Dr. de Wet), did his practical research for an M.Ed. (Psychology) degree on the Audiblox program at a school for the deaf in South Africa. The subject of the research project concerned the optimization of intelligence actualization by using Audiblox. Twenty-four children with learning problems participated in the study, and were divided into 3 groups.

The children in Group A received Audiblox tuition. The children were tutored simultaneously in a group by means of the Persepto for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987. The first edition of the group application of the Audiblox program was followed. No diagnostic testing was done beforehand.

The children in Group B received remedial education. They were tested beforehand and based on the diagnosis each child received individualized tuition on a one-on-one basis for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987.

The children in Group C were submitted to non-cognitive activities for 27.5 hours during this period.

All 24 children were tested before and after on the Starren Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal Scale (SSON), a non-verbal IQ test that can be used for deaf children. Dr. de Wet reported that he could do nearly all the Audiblox exercises without adaptations, except the auditory exercises. Because he had to use sign-language, the children could not close their eyes. The average scores of the three groups on the SSON test were as follows:

Average IQ's before intervention, after intervention, and general Increase

IQ scores Group A (Audiblox group): 101.125 - - 112.750 - - 11.625 Group B (Remedial group): 107.125 - - 116.250 - - 9.125 Group C (Non-cognitive): 104.250 - - 108.875 - - 4.625

Reports received from the teachers indicated that the improvements achieved through remedial education and through Audiblox transferred to the general school performance of the children. The transfer scored through the Audiblox, however, was superior to that of the remedial education, says Dr. de Wet. Finally, because Audiblox can be applied in a group setting, it is much more cost effective that remedial education, he says.

Reference: De Wet, W., The Optimization of Intelligence Actualization by Using Audiblox (M.Ed. (Psychology) Thesis: University of Pretoria, 1989).

The Glenwood State School

A particularly interesting project on early intellectual stimulation involved twenty-five children in an orphanage. These children were seriously environmentally deprived because the orphanage was crowded and understaffed. Thirteen babies with an average age of nineteen months were transferred to the Glenwood State School for retarded adult women and each baby was put in the personal care of a woman. Skeels, who conducted the experiment, deliberately chose the most deficient of the orphans to be placed in the Glenwood School. Their average IQ was 64, while the average IQ of the twelve who stayed behind in the orphanage was 87.

In the Glenwood State School the children were placed in open, active wards with the older and relatively bright women. Their substitute mothers overwhelmed them with love and cuddling. Toys were available, they were taken on outings and they were talked to a lot. The women were taught how to stimulate the babies intellectually and how to elicit language from them.

After eighteen months, the dramatic findings were that the children who had been placed with substitute mothers, and had therefore received additional stimulation, on average showed an increase of 29 IQ points! A follow-up study was conducted two and a half years later. Eleven of the thirteen children originally transferred to the Glenwood home had been adopted and their average IQ was now 101. The two children who had not been adopted were reinstitutionalized and lost their initial gain. The control group, the twelve children who had not been transferred to Glenwood, had remained in institution wards and now had an average IQ of 66 (an average decrease of 21 points). Although the value of IQ tests is grossly exaggerated today, this astounding difference between these two groups is hard to ignore.

More telling than the increase or decrease in IQ, however, is the difference in the quality of life these two groups enjoyed. When these children reached young adulthood, another follow-up study brought the following to light: ┨e experimental group had become productive, functioning adults, while the control group, for the most part, had been institutionalized as mentally retarded.⼢r> Other Examples of IQ Increase

Other examples of IQ increase through early enrichment projects can be found in Israel, where children with a European Jewish heritage have an average IQ of 105 while those with a Middle Eastern Jewish heritage have an average IQ of only 85. Yet when raised on a kibbutz, children from both groups have an average IQ of 115.

In another home-based early enrichment program, conducted in Nassua County, New York, an instructor made only two half-hour visits a week for only seven months over a period of two years. He spent time showing parents participating in the program how best to teach their children at home. The children in the program had initial IQⳠin the low 90s, but by the time they went to school they averaged IQⳠof 107 or 108. In addition, they have consistently demonstrated superior ability on school achievement tests.

Further References: • Clark, B., Growing Up Gifted (3rd ed.), (Columbus: Merrill, 1988). • Dworetzky, J. P., Introduction to Child Development (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1981). • Skeels, H. M., et al., “A study of environmental stimulation: An orphanage preschool project,” University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1938, vol. 15(4).

Leon J. Kamin (Bell Curve Wars, 1995 p.92): “Extensive practice at reading and calculating does affect, very directly, one's IQ score.”r>

Robert Sternberg on the matter of IQ gains (Interview with Skeptic magazine): "I think it's hard to maintain the IQ gains. But if you think environment is important in the development of intelligence, and you put people in a really good program and you raise their IQ, and then take them out of the program and put them back in the poor environment in which they started, chances are you are going to lose a lot of the beneficial effect. If you give someone antibiotics for a disease, cure them, then put them back in the original septic environment, the disease will return. We've seen this when we work with children with parasitic infections. We can give them Albendazol and it will cure their parasitic infection. But if you put them back in the environment in which they acquired the infection, they will just acquire it again."

I personally do not agree with his comparing of IQ with disease or infection, but his point is valid; I am sure the same can be said for a good music program or art school. I think the main problem here is maintenance. Example: If a body builder does not exercise for some time his muscle mass will decrease. Or, if an artist does not paint for some years his/her skill will diminish. In other words, “use it or loose it.”

There are many other studies that prove IQ to be a non static phenomenon of little genetic value; one of the most notable and well known being the Flynn Effect: This study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomenon has been called "the Flynn Effect."

”Research shows that IQ gains have been mixed for different countries. In general, countries have seen generational increases between 5 and 25 points. The largest gains appear to occur on tests that measure fluid intelligence (Gf) rather than crystallized intelligence (Gc).”⼢r>

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

This being said, how well do IQ tests predict real world success? - According to Stephen J. Gould the only thing an IQ test can accurately predict is how well a person scores on the test. Many others have made similar statements

Robert Sternberg on the matter of intelligence etc: My first set of interests is in higher mental functions, including intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. - I have proposed a triarchic theory of successful intelligence, and much of the work we do at the PACE Center is in validations of this theory. The theory suggests that successfully intelligent people are those who have the ability to achieve success according to their own definition of success, within their sociocultural context. They do so by identifying and capitalizing on their strengths, and identifying and correcting or compensating for their weaknesses in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments. Such attunement to the environment uses a balance of analytical, creative, and practical skills. The theory views intelligence as a form of developing competencies, and competencies as forms of developing expertise. In other words, intelligence is modifiable rather than fixed.

We use a variety of converging operations to test the triarchic theory--componential (information-processing) analyses, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, cultural and cross-cultural studies, instructional studies, and field studies in the workplace. The results of all of these kinds of studies have been encouraging.

Key References: Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000).Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skyligh

http://www.yale.edu/rjsternberg/

Robert J. Sternberg (b. 8 December 1949) is a psychologist and psychometrician and the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He was formerly IBM Professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University and the President of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Sternberg has also been the editor or co-editor of well over 50 psychological Journals.

Sternberg is also the author or coauthor of several college-level textbooks in psychology:

• In Search of the Human Mind, now in its second edition (1998) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is a full-length introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint both of the evolution of organisms and the evolution of ideas. The textbook emphasizes the importance of the dialectic in how ideas evolve. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Pathways to Psychology, now in its second edition (2000) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is an abbreviated introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint of the multiple pathways that converge on an understanding of psychology—multiple theoretical paradigms, multiple methodologies, multiple styles of learning. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Cognitive Psychology is now in its second edition (1999) with a new, second edition to be published for 1999 by Harcourt Brace College Publishers. It is an introduction to cognitive psychology suitable for courses such as cognitive psychology and cognition. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and emphasizes the importance of intelligence as an integrating concept in the study of intelligence. This text comes with a brief instructor’s manual and with a test bank. •

• Introduction to Psychology is now in its first edition (1997) and is published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers in their College Outline Series. This text is intended as a review of psychology, and is suitable as an ancillary for students taking the introductory course, or as a review for students studying for various examinations, such as the Advanced Placement psychology text or the GRE Advanced Test in psychology.

Major Honors Include:

• Early Career and McCandless Awards of American Psychological Association • Outstanding Book, Research Review, and Sylvia Scribner Awards of American Educational Research Association • Palmer O. Johnson Award, American Educational Research Association • Cattell Award of Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology • Distinguished Scholar Award of National Association for Gifted Children • Past-Editor, Psychological Bulletin • Editor, Contemporary Psychology • Past-Associate Editor, Child Development, Intelligence • Past-President, Divisions 1 (General Psychology) and 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association • Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award, Connecticut Psychological Association • James McKeen Cattell Award, American Psychological Society • President-Elect, Division 24 (Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology), American Psychological Association • President, Division 10 (Psychology and the Arts), American Psychological Association • Guggenheim Fellowship • National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship • National Merit Scholarship

- Also see work by Harvard University's Howard Gardener.

Sternberg on Psychometric G (a quote from his interview with skeptic magazine): “What I found at that time was that if you use the kinds of tasks that are used in intelligence tests, then you will get the g factor. That statement reflected analyses we did that instead of using individual difference analysis used process analysis. Even using process analysis, we got a general factor. So if you were to ask me, "Do I think that there is general factor in the kinds of tests that psychometricians use?" I would say "Yes." That is a different question from, "If you define intelligence, not just as IQ, but as involving more than what the IQ tests in fact test, is there then a general factor?" then I would say the answer is "No." So the way psychometricians operationalize it, you get a g factor.”

Note: There are three major schools of psychometric interpretation and only one supports the view of g and IQ.

Race and Genetics:

- Osbonre and Suddick (1971, as reported in Loehlin, 1975) attempted to use 16 blood-groups genes known to have come from European ancestors. Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation over the 16 genes and IQ scores was not highly positive as would have been predicted if European genes in Blacks increased IQ scores. In Fact, the correlations were -.38 and +.01. Because the results were not significant, the authors concluded that European genes lower IQ scores.

- Zuckerman (1990) demonstrated the dubiousness of results obtained through race premises. He found much more variation within groups designated, and, like many other species, humans showed considerable geographical variation in morphology (p.1134). Yee, et al. (1993) further concludes this.

- A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children showed that there was no genetic basis for IQ differences between black & whites. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (Flynn, 1980; also see Richard E. Nisbett, Race, Genetics and IQ; The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

- Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children. Co-investigators include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

- According to most geneticists human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed; human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. As well, there is as much or more diversity and genetic difference within any "racial" group as there is between people of different racial groups. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups here in North America and elsewhere. Also, what is considered black America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population." (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992. Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann and Wyatt, 1993; Also see Dryna, D.Manichaikul, De Lange, Snieder, and Spector, 2001; Holden, 2001)

- Also, IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, The Bell curve wars, 1995). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire population together as a single body. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

-In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to achieve less academically and perform poorly on conventional Psychometric tests.

-Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates.

Much evidence against Rushton and Lynn to come! Until then, see empirical evidence against Rushton, here:

Reply to Rushton: Review by Douglas Wahlsten, University of Alberta:

http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Race_and_intelligence"

Flynn

I don't know how to do this and this entry is almost certainly not in the correct place. Jim Flynn did NOT "discover" the increase in scores over time. Earlier authors included Thorndike with the Binet (who offers various explanations) and Raven. So the entry in the Flynn box needs to be modified to say that he "publicised and extended the accumulating evidence that there had been a dramatic rise in the scores on some components of general intelligence". Unfortunately, I can't see how to get into that box to modify it.

Also, after the statement that he doubts whether the increase reflects an increase in "real" intelligence, there should be a sentence raising the question of what on earth he means by "real" intelligence and, secondly, asking whether the parallel increases in height, athletic ability, and, most importantly, life expectacy over the same period might also be termed "unreal". Back projection of these trends to the time of the Greeks would yield equally absurd results!

Again, I cannot insert this because when I open the "edit" file I discover a whole pile of stuff in here which does not show up in the visible text although it is indeed relevant.

Quester67 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

belief, data, conclusion

re: H&M calculations... there's no good reason to single out this single published conclusion from all others as being less firm

a belief is the weakest possible description. beliefs can be false or true, justified or not. moreover, "belief" connotes a lack of justification -- Belief is usually defined as a conviction to the truth of a proposition without its verification, therefore it is a subjective mental interpretation of the perception results, own contemplation/reasoning or communication.

a hypothesis is the same thing as a theory which is the same thing as a conclusion. all conclusions are hypothese/theories. none are 100% established, nor 0% established (unless they can be known a priori).

data is the rawest form of a measurement. everything else involves some kind of model building and thus is moving across the gray line from data to conclusion.

counterfactual conclusions are not intrinstically less knowable than factual conclusions. indeed, counterfactuals lie at the heart of causal reasoning. in this case, i know of no arguments against the resampling simulation done by H&M to establish the effects of changing the average IQ (ceteris paribus). --Rikurzhen 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rik, but maybe a useful formulation would be something like "According to their model, gnats cause foo" instead of the current "They find that gnats cause foo" or "They believe that gnats cause foo". Arbor 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything like that is fine. Arbor, is there a name for their resampling technique? I recognize it as being akin to bootstraping, but not really. --Rikurzhen 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to pass on that. I work in a theoretical field and my patchy understanding of statistics comes via probability theory only. The nitty-gritty details of actually doing statistics in real life are beyond my terminological expertise. :-) Arbor 09:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Did some minor editing - let's make clear that their conclusions are according to their model, and aren't incontrovertible fact. Clearly, they cannot prove direct causality, and are only making assumptions based on observed correlation. There is a large difference between a statistical model, and fact, and this need to be clear to the reader. We know, for example, for a fact, that when you combine baking soda and vinegar you get carbon dioxide. This experiment can be repeated, and verified independently by anyone at STP. Statistical models are not subject to independent, repeatable experimentation to validate causality, especially when dealing with such complex subjects. Much of the confusion in the world about science is due to the blurring of this line in popular media, and it behooves us to do a better job on Misplaced Pages. --JereKrischel 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, these aren't "minor edits". You are turning a standard presentation of a scientific result into an unreadable mess. There is simply no way you will get away with such biased wording. Almost all science is done this way, it the original formulation is the way it is normally reported. On Misplaced Pages. And in scientific survey articles. The article itself takes no sides in what is true or not. We say "A and B find that gnats cause foo." That's the way we are supposed to write that. If anybody disagreed, we would also be supposed to write "A and B find that gnats cause foo, but C, D and E find that snarks cause foo instead." (Assuming that is a notable publication with a comparable degree of trustworthiness to .) Or "A and B find that gnats cause foo, but G and H have questioned their methodology." What we cannot do is to report this subject using selectively biased language, as you are supposing. You would have to rewrite a lot of encyclopaedias if you wanted to do that. Arbor 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to use compromise wording, while making explicit that they are talking about their simplified model showing effects, but not watering it down as mere "prediction", which seems to be causing some consternation. Unfortunately, I think that if we don't make things sufficiently explicit, the reader is left with the wrong impression. I know it makes for a wordier article, but I'm sure that together we can find a decent compromise between brevity, and accuracy. --JereKrischel 01:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this up. Reasoning is in the edit summary. Do you have access to TBC to see what they've written? --Rikurzhen 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, your changes are not NPOV as you're disparaging their results by your description; all else equal (ceteris paribus) is at the root of scientific inquiry, as it is impossible to model everything; there should be no discussion of correlation as that term has a specific meaning in statistics which doesn't apply here; random sampling isn't a "random technique"; etc --Rikurzhen 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the resampling calculation to look at what a populuation would be like on variables Y after a change in variable x is limited only in that it looks only at the first-order effects. A higher-order effect would be of the kind where (for example) changing average IQ causes a change in the relationship between IQ and marriage. Put another way, the calculation assumes that the world would continue to be structured the same way it is now only there would be more or less people at each level of IQ -- all else equal but changing IQ. --Rikurzhen 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think there has to be something inbetween "all else equal" and "ignoring other factors" - it seems like not enough of a caveat of the theoretical and simplistic nature of their model and calculation. Certainly the authors admit as much regarding their model - such hesitations on the part of the authors themselves should be prominent. It is misleading and WP:NPOV#undue weight to present it as if it were an actual fact, in the way that if you take 25 cents away from a dollar you get 75 cents. By not making clear that it is a simulated model, I think we do a grave disservice to the reader. I guess I see it in the same way as climatologists who use models to predict the weather - it is a prediction, not a fact, that it will be 94 degrees next Tuesday in Los Angeles. Is there some compromise langugage we can find that will make it clear that these aren't facts being presented, but statistical models? The current language seems both POV pushing and misleading. --JereKrischel 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any publications which criticize this analysis (in specific or general). Otherwise, we're talking about crafting article content on the basis of personal opinion. You should read the relevant section of TBC -- maybe you'll see something I'm missing. I've tried to use their words and phrases, which AFAIK is the appropriate things to do wrt NPOV -- per Arbor above, H&M say foo is heart of NPOV. --Rikurzhen 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being clear. We're not talking about any criticism of their analysis, in specific or general - merely properly reporting what they actually did. What they did was simulate a 3-point drop (and I suppose a 3-point raise) in IQ, and measured the effect their simulation had on certain metrics. They did not actually prove in any way that such a modification to IQ would have the effects their simulation calculations predicted - neither did they do any sort of experiment to validate their simulation (in fact, as you point out, they explicitly stated they ignored other effects). It is POV pushing to present their work as if it represents incontrovertible fact and calculation. Perhaps you would care to quote them directly instead of paraphrasing them in a POV pushing way that misleads the reader about what they actually did? Maybe that would be an appropriate compromise... --JereKrischel 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a lengthy passage--too long. I cannot even imagine the "experiment" to test their predictions. (How do you change average IQ of a population experimentally?) They report their results as a valid first-order approximation in the context of a demonstration of the large tail-effects from a small change in mean IQ. ... I think your line of reasoning may be missing something crucial about what's reasonable to expect from a social science investigation, which is why I asked about whether you knew of some particular or general criticism. What we cannot do is water down their published conclusions. --Rikurzhen 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, I think JereKrischel's point is that they aren't actually performing many if any experiments, the crux or key point is they are basically manipulating data on a piece of paper (theoretical models etc...)? If there exists citeable criticisms of their allegedly unscientific methodology of course to be neutral we must present this issue differently than they do, right? Isn't neutrality more important than the desire to unquestioningly repeat what they represent as a "conclusion"? Cruxtaposition 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Cruxtaposition, thank you for your support, but I'm not stating that their methodology was unscientific at all - all I'm concerned about is that their scientific *simulation* be presented as the simulation it was. One could very well repeat their procedure on additional data sets, and validate or challenge their initial conclusions in the context of a simplified, simulated model, and in that sense it is scientific. However, it does not come close to definitively demonstrating that a 3 point move in IQ would have any specific effects, which is what I think the current langugage leads the reader to believe. I'm not in favor of watering down any published conclusions, but I am in favor of presenting those conclusions accurately. Their conclusions, simply put, were that if you simulated a 3-point drop or rise, ignoring secondary effects, you got certain changes in other metrics. Can we just make sure we state that clearly? --JereKrischel 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok JK, you have a valid point about making sure to report scientific/data simulations as experiments(?) rather than as conclusive determinations but my concern is even larger, after recently reading the scientific racism article I think this article completely obfuscates the citable allegation that "race and intelligence" research is racist propaganda fabricated to have the appearance of science. What do you think? Cruxtaposition 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only respond to that in one way, Cruxtaposition - assume good faith. Rikurzhen and Nectar, although we may disagree violently, are trying to do their best to make a good article. I think that they honestly believe in their cause, and want it presented in an open and honest manner. I think that they tend to push POV when they summarize, paraphrase, and report on various studies, but I think that it isn't intentional but just a matter of ingrained perspective. I believe that they are open to changes in the presentation, but they have severe concerns about painting the research they cite as completely invalid. I'd like to make it clear that it is questionable, but not so much as to lead the reader to believe that it is completely unfounded. I suppose I'd like to have the article leave a reasonable doubt.

My personal opinion is that much of the basic research both Nectar and Rikurzhen cite, and even much of the basic research cited by some of the Pioneer Fund grantees (who in many cases are just doing meta-analysis of other studies, not original work), is sound. There are biogeographic genetic differences between people, and it is clear that these can have practical effects. That being said, all too often this basic research gets twisted into a form which asserts classical "race" stereotypes and paints with an overly broad brush given the actual data behind the meta-analysis. On the one hand, you have people who get angry about any idea that biogeographic regions could have different characteristics, and on the other hand, you have people who want to simplify the complex nature of biogeographic differences and talk about "Black", "White", "East Asian" as if they are monolithic, immutable groups.

In the end, I think it would be very helpful if Nectar and Rikurzhen tried writing from the other POV (the one which wants things presented with reasonable doubt, instead of incontrovertible fact), but I can understand that it can be difficult. I try my best to not have my edits imply complete invalidation of the research, but I know sometimes I cross the line as well. I'm sure as we go forward, we can work things out appropriately.

Oh, a final P.S. - I got cited for 3RR during my attempt to find compromise langugage (with several different edits being considered identical because they had two words repeated 3 times, and a close approximation twice), and I felt that was unfair on the part of the accuser - please assume good faith on my part as well. I'm not here to edit war, I'm really trying to find common ground. Thanks everyone! --JereKrischel 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is the worst kind of policy if it causes you and/or others to allow a suggestive and scientificly rascist article to remain unchallenged. Judging from the (inexplicable) tone of your response I think you underestimate all of the problems with this article. The priority should be to eliminate misleading dichotomies and suggestive and racism inducing word choices from Misplaced Pages and not perpetuate Rikurzhen and Nectar's denial, especially since I have not seen any instance of them ever debating in good faith. There is strong evidence that "race and intelligence" is nothing but intentionally misleading propaganda, this should be reported on and their word choices cleaned up or caveatted. The fact that Rikurzhen and Nectar have, perhaps unwittingly, systematically denied, downplayed and mischaracterized all fundamental criticism of "race and intelligence" is an extremely serious concern and massive violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Given the extreme violation of the principle of neutral presentation occuring in this article your response is vastly inexplicable. If few new readers are reading this article and are likely to be infected by its intentionally misleading presentation and your only concern is to wake Rikurzhen and Nectar up softly then I suppose I defer to your plan, but it seems a vastly insufficient way of conveying the extreme degree to which this article and area of "research" presents the issue misleadingly, in my interpretation. Cruxtaposition 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AGF is not an easy policy, to be sure, and it has its flaws, but like democracy, it is the worst possible system, except for all others that have been tried. As much as I disagree with Rikurzhen and Nectar, they have been conscientous in engaging in dialog, and I have great hope for future compromises. I think the important part is for us to clearly understand how, in good faith, someone could disagree with us. In Nectar/Rikurzhen's case, I believe I understand their legitimate concerns - and the only way anyone is going to be able to find compromise with them is to acknowledge those concerns as legitimate, and find ways to address them. I firmly believe it is possible to make this article more NPOV, accurate, and less misleading than it is right now, and for it to be done in such a way that does not discredit the concerns of Nectar and Rikurzhen, and other editors who may be, in their private lives, proponents of the hereditarian stance.

It is not easy, to be sure, and I rely heavily on the good faith of the hereditarian editors, but in the end, I have to believe we share common ground in our desire to contribute and improve Misplaced Pages. Hopefully, as hard as it may be, you'll be able to try and AGF and have positive results. --JereKrischel 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith or give the benefit of the doubt (but don't stop doubting) is perhaps a good initial policy if you lack evidence to the contrary which in this case is absolutely not true. In my interpretation the only explanation for Rikurzhen and Nectar's position is they've been infected by (or brain washed into mindlessly supporting) what "race and intelligence" publications represent as conclusivity and the way those publications have errantly framed the entire issue around "race" (intentionally confusing description with causality). Cajoling proponents of one "stance" can not possibly be justification for the exclusion, downplaying and mischaractization of alternative stances and fundamentally disputed points. It is Misplaced Pages policy that a "stance" should be presented inside a generic article that presents the subject neutrally, which this article is the anti-thesis of. Cruxtaposition 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you give AGF a try. I know that in the end, so long as we're willing to discuss things, we can move forward. --JereKrischel 02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AGF has been relentlessly abused by POV pushers and apparent propagandists who rarely if ever debate in good faith, AGF is in tatters along with many of the principles behind most Misplaced Pages policies. Though, I am always open to discussion, but I must note that I still interpret your position to be inexplicable, it does not compute that you would "disagree strongly" with Nectar and Rikurzhen and yet you allow the misleading presentation of this subject (that they, perhaps unwittingly, support) to remain unchallenged. Cruxtaposition 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Late response... JK's last edits (+simulation) are fine. --Rikurzhen 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zen-master sockpuppet

I've been following the discussion here for over a day and it occured to me to ask Arbor exactly how JereKrischel's changes are "biased wording"? Everything JereKrischel is pointing out about this "research" is true. The article needs more critical sources and every disputed point and disputed word choice should be changed or caveatted. Pristine Clarity 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everything pointed out is true. The problem is that it's already pointed out in the original text, and pointing the same thing out an additional 15 times in a small text isn't improving readability and distracts the reader from what is actually written. --Zero g 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your response doesn't make sense to me, every occurence of non neutral presentation requires a caveat or re-wording, right? We need to disassociate presentation from conclusivity. In my interpretation this article (and area of "research") is so vastly non scientific and utilizes a minefield of propaganda-esque suggestive language it's staggering. Unfortunately, it is difficult to illustrate just how wrong the way this issue has been presented. Pristine Clarity 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, everything needs to be placed in the proper context which the text in question currently does. If you can't illustrate how wrong (pov) this issue has been presented adding weasel words isn't going to improve the article. While I see room for improvement I'd suggest basing any refutations on expert opinion and keeping repetition to a minimum. --Zero g 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How should someone go about trying to convince you what you consider to be the "proper context" is wrong? "Expert opinion" is not allowed to violate Misplaced Pages's presentation neutrality policies, right? What you interpret to be "weasel words" are actually necessary caveats, though they don't come anywhere close to conveying the extreme problems with the way this issue is misleadingly structured. Pristine Clarity 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything JereKrischel is pointing out about this "research" is true. That's pretty much the definition of a NPOV/NOR violation. --Rikurzhen 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that an NPOV/NOR violation? Please attempt to defend what others (including critical sources) interpret to be a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? You seem to be confusing "original research" with determinations of presentation neutrality violations? Pristine Clarity 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? --Rikurzhen 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you disagree with my interpretation but that doesn't make it inaccurate, nor an NPOV violation. I am only trying to get you and everyone to see the (extreme) lack of neutral presentation on this issue. Pristine Clarity 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific presentation?

This article does not utilize anything resembling a fair, neutral, nor scientific presentation of the issue. The current version of this article presents this issue as regurgitated from pro Pioneer Fund sources, Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies should be a much much much higher standard. Given a highly disputed and controversial subject an article should explicitly note each and every disputed point and explain to the reader exactly where the controversy begins. One of the biggest controversies surrounding this subject (that the current version of the article fails to mention) has to do with language, this article absolutely should not exclusively use pro Pioneer Fund sources' word choices. Pristine Clarity 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen Master? --Rikurzhen 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please attempt to explain the current version of this article's vastly unscientific paradigm of presentation? Pristine Clarity 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, our job is just to report the issues in the accepted language used in the literature.--Nectar 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who has ever criticized this article and area of "research" has been trying to tell you there is no such thing as "accepted language" on anything having to do with this issue. You seem to be arguing Misplaced Pages should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim? That can not possibly be neutral. Pristine Clarity 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing Misplaced Pages should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim Indeed, that's exactly what NPOV requires. --Rikurzhen 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund Research

The Pioneer Fund conspiracy theory of race and intelligence research appears to have originated with a 4-minute ABC News clip from 1994 related to The Bell Curve. Attempts to find documentation about PF being associated with "bias" turned up a single published report which denied that PF caused bias in researchers, but suggested that PF had an influence by who they selected to fund. Are there published accounts to support the claim that the PF connection is not simply a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense, but an actual conspiracy? --Rikurzhen 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the evidence on Pioneer Fund sufficient? And isn't any label of conspiracy necessarily pejorative? In the end, the practical difference between funding biased researchers, and biasing researchers with funding doesn't seem all that much... --JereKrischel 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I'll repeat the NOR in a nutshell to make the point clear. A claim that PF is bad + PF funds R&I doesn't give us R&I research is bad. --Rikurzhen 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

Wait a second...the Pioneer Fund article shows published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements and theories in their citations. The claim that PF=bad PF=R&I > R&I=bad is not original thought at all - it is well published and understood. What do you think isn't already published? What particular synthesis isn't found in the notes and references of the Pioneer Fund article? --JereKrischel 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think isn't already published? That criticisms of PF can be taken as reflecting badly on the R&I science they support. AFAIK, for example, Tucker argues against this specifically. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from one of the references on the Pioneer Fund page:

He cautions that the Pioneer Fund is "a Fund that was founded by supporters of Hitler's policies against ethnic minorities and handicapped people and that provided money for introducing Nazi propaganda into the United States; it still sponsors research (and projects) that have striking similarities to the work that provided the scientific basis for Nazi measures." Benno Muller-Hill, author of Murderous Science: Crimes against Germany's Ethnic Minorities, echoes Kuhl; Muller-Hill writes that the Death Camps of Hitler's Germany were not the result of a crazed minority of empty-headed bumpkins, but rather "the result of the work of leading scholars of international repute ... Nazi racial policies were the work of trained scholars, not ignorant fanatics" - it was a science gone mad.

http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000042.htm

--JereKrischel 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another specific example of published connections made between Pioneer Fund and the research they support:

The Pioneer Fund has its origins in the eugenics movement of the late 19th century. This branch of science held that mankind could be genetically improved by proper breeding, ideally of white people with other white people. Its founder was Wickliffe Draper, the reclusive and, as it turns out, racist heir to a New England textile fortune. Draper's foundation was established to encourage "racial hygiene" and at points his money helped distribute a 1930s Nazi film on the subject.

William H. Tucker, a professor at Rutgers University's Camden campus, wrote a book on Draper and the Pioneer Fund. What he found was an interconnection between almost every academic with a strong racial theory and Pioneer.

"Everywhere I went where there was a scientist who had a racist sensibility, Pioneer had gotten in touch with him," Tucker said.

If Pioneer could not openly fund a cause, Draper, often using the staff from Pioneer, would funnel some of his own money. He gave $350,000 to help William Shockley, the Nobel laureate who invented the transistor, develop his theories about lower black intelligence. When Earnest Sevier Cox of The White American Society wanted to promote his campaign to repatriate American blacks in Africa, the money came out of Draper's pocket.

When Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley sought to prove Shockley's theories, Pioneer funded him. When Wesley Critz George of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill needed to put out an anti-civil rights pamphlet called "Biology of the Race Problem," Draper quietly underwrote the project, sending his staff to arrange the transfer of money.

"It was Pioneer in all but name," Tucker said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/450021.stm

--JereKrischel 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That first quote is from an organization of apocalyptic Christians who aren't citable in a science article.

The second quote states the Pioneer Fund is immoral and funds race and intelligence research, which is different than arguing criticisms of PF affect researchers' results.--Nectar 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that apocalyptic christians cited someone doesn't make the source uncitable (they cite Kuhl and Muller-Hill). Similarly, Tucker's quote, "Everywhere I went where there was a scientist who had a racist sensibility, Pioneer had gotten in touch with him,", is a direct criticism of PF grantees. Again, I'll assert that funding biased researchers is indistinguishable from biasing researchers with funding. In either case, the argument being made (by others, not me), is that the research done by Pioneer Fund grantees has a predetermined racist agenda - whether or not that is because the Pioneer Fund finds racists, and funds them, or finds normal scientists, and encourages them to racist conclusions with the carrot of their funding, is an open question, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nazism Kuhl attributes to R&I research doesn't derive from its support from the PF, which is what we're looking for.

William Tucker's book on the fund is AFAIK the criticism with the most academic influence and summarizes the Pioneer issue here:

If the fund has done no more than provide resources to universities for scientific research of high quality, then Pioneer may have been victimized by an intellectually stultifying pressure to conform to political orthodoxy. On the other hand, if the many grants made by Pioneer—not only to a number of well-known scientists but also to a host of obscure academics who similarly maintain that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites—mask other, less laudable goals, then the fund may be hiding an oppressive political agenda behind the protection of academic freedom.

. . .

Of course, neither the existence of an odious agenda on Pioneer's part nor the desire of some grant recipients to assist in promoting it justifies attempts to harass researchers, impede their work, or prevent them from obtaining support from the fund. The sort of treatment accorded to Rushton, for example, by both his own department and the administration at the University of Western Ontario has been nothing short of disgraceful. . . Other Pioneer scientists, such as Jensen and Eysenck, have undergone similar harassment for arriving at politically unpopular conclusions.

A final indication of Pioneer's interest solely in science, according to Weyher, was the fact that the fund has supported "only the top experts." It was true that the fund could cite a list of distinguished researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, and others who could point to accomplishments besides their studies of racial differences. But there is an equally long list of other Pioneer grantees, including Robert Kuttner, Donald Swan, Roger Pearson, Ralph Scott, and Frank McGurk—all obscure academics lacking any major scientific achievements and notable primarily for their contributions to a string of racist and neo-Nazi causes. . . As the Satterfield plan envisioned, the purpose of the former group of grantees has been to provide scientific conclusions that can be offered to dignify the policies advocated by the latter.

This seems to be a criticism of race and intelligence research in the sense expressed in the utility of research section (racists' use of the research results). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nectarflowed (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure that the claim that some researcher (e.g., Jensen, Rushton, etc.) "is racist" is pretty well documented outside of the context of PF. What's not documented in any scholarly literature (AFAIK) is an argument from PF to a criticism of the science of R&I. (Note that calling someone racist is not the same as saying that they are wrong about science.) --Rikurzhen 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a racist is not the same as saying they are wrong about the science...but comparing the research the Pioneer Fund promotes to the discredited "sciences" of phrenology, eugenics, and other Nazi atrocities *is* saying that they are wrong on the science. Again, you may disagree, but I think it is clear that such thoughts (as wrong as they may be, as ad-hominem as they may be) are published, and not OR. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly funds the researchers that try to prove the culture only hypothesis? I think the article might benefit from a more global view on the money that goes around to the various parties. --Zero g 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it would be informative if we had the funding trail for all of the research. My guess though, is that it is much like tobacco "research" at the heyday of RJR - you'll have industry funded folk, and then everyone else. This doesn't make the industry folk inherently wrong, of course - skeptics of human causation of global warming are in a tiny minority, but that doesn't discredit their research necessarily. I'd be very interested to see any data on funding, to see if there is an anti-Pioneer Fund out there. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that the source of funding influences the results of research. This has been shown in many fields.Ultramarine 10:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And frankly, regardless if it has or hasn't influenced specific research, accusations of that nature have been published outside of wikipedia, and are citeable. --JereKrischel 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what precisely has and has not been published is at the root of this issue. We have to get it precisely right, and I think that the PF-->bias notions that keeps recurring on the talk page and in the article has not been published (except perhaps the ABC News story I cited). As I said above Are there published accounts to support the claim that the PF connection is not simply a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative sense, but an actual conspiracy? --Rikurzhen 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, Rikurzhen - any published accounts claiming that the Pioneer Fund is a racist conspiracy are of course in the realm of theory. They can and do present evidence for their theory, but the only way to definitively prove their theory is correct would be direct admissions from the conspirators, right? I think you're going past the requirement for a published citation where someone calls them a conspiracy, and presents whatever evidence they have, into the realm of unreasonable expectations where you demand that their evidence be incontrovertible proof. Were we to hold that same standard for some of the racial science being quoted here, wouldn't we run into the same issue? The r-K selection theory between "races" is published, but should we avoid citing it until there is incontrovertible proof and repeatable experiments that show that it is "actual r-k selection"? --JereKrischel 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the PF connection by itself is enough to taint any of their research, and certainly way more than enough for us to report the possibility of taint. I suggest everyone take a look at the scientific racism article, the crux or key point is the fact that publications have been fabricated to have the veneer or appearance of science but upon closer examination are intentionally misleading propaganda with zero scientific value. Cruxtaposition 11:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master, if all we have are fringe claims that the APA and intelligence research and genetics communities are all in on a conspiracy, such claims cannot be presented as anything more than fringe without violating NPOV and NOR.--Nectar 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that, given the PF's history and the roster of its fundees, there is legitimate suspicion that it selectively promotes one side of the current debate, for reasons possibly related to its historical position. Whether it does this by supporting specifically one type of research results, or by selectively supporting researchers with a specific mindset, people don't agree on. I believe however that a lot of people agree that there is at least the appearance of bias. I think the blurb in the intro and the PF section at this point cover the issue quite nicely. I wouldn't think it necessary to add anything, but I don't think it's warranted to remove anything on that point.--Ramdrake 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the world of science it's a serious accusation to accuse people of being bribed. Misplaced Pages shouldn't level that gun unless it's being levelled in the literature. Mainstream scientific opinion creates disciplinary constraints that prevent scientists from believing just whatever they want to (Gordon 1997). Editors who don't like that idea may give preference to figures who have no disciplinary or science-professional constraints, such as the non-notable anti-racist activist currently given prominence in the introduction, but scientific standards would require preference be given to those who have mainstream, scientific credibility (Tucker). Not doing so is an example of Misplaced Pages promoting minority POVs at the expense of mainstream POVs.--Nectar 06:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, you're unfortunately still missing the point. As I think nobody here will contest, race and intelligence research has ample social ramifications. Thus, it is normal to also give voice to anti-racist viewpoints (as they are involved in the ramifications of the issue), and not just to the "majority" viewpoint of R&I researchers. We must depict all significant viewpoints in the article to respect NPOV, and I think it's been demonstrated time and again this is a very significant viewpoint.

Also, if you'll re-read, the presumption is not one of bribery per se, but of facilitating and encouraging a specific type of scientifically controversial result, either directly or through funding scientists with specific views. And yes, in some cases, scientists can and do believe whatever they want. Rushton's r/K hypothesis has many, many problems with it yet a few scientists still think it's right: paleoclimatological, historical, behavioral evidence all concur to disprove it.--Ramdrake 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I am sure we understand. The only interesting question is what WP should do with it. The only thing we can do is to attribute the viewpoint you are sketching to somebody else and report it. I suggested Why people believe weird things, where a good part of a chapter is devoted to this argument. What we can not do is to have our presentation influenced by the conclusion. Finally, and tangentially, I could level the charge of "encouraging a specific type of ... result" at every researcher who works under the AAA umbrella. After all, the AAA has gone public with a view of R&I research that is much more explicit than what the Pioneer Fund has ever formulated. By implication, all research associated with the AAA (especially, all research by AAA members) becomes tainted with the same kind of questionable motivation that ostensibly discredits Pioneer-funded results. Pompous rhetorical question: should this silly observation of mine have any consequences for how we present the viewpoints of cultural anthropologists? (Answer: no. That would violate WP:NPOV.) It's a similar debate to whether we need to discredit Gould's POV by saying that he's a communist. We can mention that somebody else (Bernard Davis, for example) has formulated this reservation, and that's all we can do. Arbor 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree. This is why I went and fetched yet another cited reference for what the Pioneer Fund does. That way, it is demonstrably a reported opinion rather than an editorial opinion (which wouldn't do at all in Misplaced Pages, we agree). My point is, we can't start dismissing reported opinions because they're "not part of the mainstream", or "not based on scientific research". This is a subject that touches deeply in both science and society and where there are two significant, opposite viewpoints (sorry for belaboring the point, I know everybody understands). Not sure where you'e getting at with the AAA. Their statement, AFAIK was mostly that race as it is traditionnally defined was a social, not a biological construct. This is very much in line with Cavalli-Sforza's interpretation of his own results. I don't see how that can introduce a bias.--Ramdrake 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As have been stated many times before, the Pioneer Fund is not only important for possible bias. It is an important part of the history of the research, of how hte the reserach if funded, for media image, policy implications, and so on.Ultramarine 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis vs Conclusion?

One problem with the current version of this article and "research" is it presents the issue extremely conclusively and suggestively. This area of "research" presents this issue using the anti-thesis of the scientific method in my interpretation. Does the current version of this article and do these "researchers" present the issue as a "working hypothesis" or are they attempting to portray everything as conclusive? This entire issue seems presented inside a dichotomy and paradigm that prevents readers from significantly considering alternative/environmental causes, it's as if everything is described in terms of "race" to presuppose that as the cause or main cause. This is a massive violation of neutral presentation.

Plus, the foundation of "race and intelligence" research is IQ testing which is itself fundamentally disputed so I don't see how any conclusions can even be proposed until those disputes are resolved? How can there possibly be "practical consequences", as the first sentence of the current version of this article claims, if the premise and foundation of this research is fundamentally disputed? I think this subject should be re-written, re-organized and re-titled around where the abstract foundation of this subject is so we properly convey where the scientific dispute begins, something like IQ test results disparity could work (I am open to alternative suggestions)? And it's additionally disputed whether current "IQ tests" actually measure the abstract concept of "intelligence". Just because someone named their test "intelligence quotient" doesn't mean it accurately measures intelligence (if even possible). Cruxtaposition 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master sockpuppet has been blocked.--Nectar 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, where is the evidence that Cruxtaposition is a sock for Zen-master???--Ramdrake 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just based on the recent creation of that account, and the immediate interest in this article. I've never done any sock-puppeting (and don't ever intend to), but I would suppose the smart thing to do would be to create a bunch of accounts randomly in time, use them in different areas for a few months, and have them converge "coincidentally" on articles. Otherwise, it's just too easy to see new accounts pop up after old accounts have been blocked. That being said, although Cruxtaposition's POV represents one extreme, there is merit to some of the concerns - we need to be very careful about how we present the research that is available, so as not to overstate their results. Hopefully some of the pro-hereditarian editors can help us move towards NPOV by "writing for the enemy" a bit - both Rikurzhen and Nectar seem very well educated on the subject, and I believe that they both could do a good job in mellowing out the language, and still presenting the research fairly. --JereKrischel 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read Zen-master repeat his/her same fringe demands over and over again. S/he was blocked by the arbitration committee because s/he wasn't willing to participate productively or within the rules of the community. I understand how you guys feel. I think the vast majority of WP editors are nice people and npov issues are solveable.--Nectar 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll say it again, Nectar, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue, and work together despite our vastly disparate opinions. I hope you will forgive me if any of my comments seem overly harsh or critical - my sincere hope is to express my concerns in such a way that they are understandable and clear, and sometimes that desire for clarity may come across as aggressive and opinionated. I also endeavor to clearly understand your core concerns and issues, and I hope I've demonstrated some level of understanding of your POV. --JereKrischel 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Contributors

I can't help but wonder what the equivalent of this article looks like on the closed Chinese version of the internet (behind that nice Great Red Wall : ). However, I think that it may be a good idea to attach some relevant information in regards to the racial and ethnic makeup of contributors. There is a page here that outlines some of the forms of consistent bias that wikipedia articles are not unknown for. I would personally (like most human beings with an ounce of common sense), would feel more comfortable reading articles like this if I knew that there was at least one black man analysing this information in order to poke holes in it (having this type of an article being the creation of white society only would surely have some effects on its NPOV value).

Interesting thoughts. I suppose one could use the same sort of analysis as some of the pro-hereditarian camp has done, and discover which "race" is generally better at science, engages in less racism, and more NPOV. Being on the other side (a weak-hereditarian with big problems concerning the arbitrary social "races"), I simply can't buy into the fact that one needs to be of a certain color or ethnicity to create an NPOV article. I believe we are all human, all related, and things like "white society" and "black society" are simply baseless distinctions. Not knowing what your opinion of the article is, requesting that it be vetted by specific "races" actually shows you buy into the pro-hereditarian stance in general, even if you may disagree with specifics.

What would make me a great deal more comfortable is if the partial-genetic influence on intelligence wasn't conflated with social ideas of "race". There is plenty of good science to be done here, and mapping results into racist stereotypes just doesn't seem to help things. --JereKrischel 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (and, FWIW, I'm human, with ancestry and family from every corner of the globe. If you name an ethnicity, I've pretty much got it.)

I generally support Chomsky's opinion on that issue:

I rather doubt that the non-white, non-male students, friends, and colleagues with whom I work would be much impressed with the doctrine that their thinking and understanding differ from "white male science" because of their "culture or gender and race." I suspect that "surprise" would not be quite the proper word for their reaction.

But figures in this field who don't consider group differences off-limits have included representation from Whites, Jews, Asians, and African Americans (Thomas Sowell ).--Nectar 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On the lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" wikipedia article

To me, there is nothing more reflective of the very deep-seated and racially inclined motivations behind this whole blog other than the complete lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" article on wikipedia. Nobody even thought to divorce Racial notions from genetics when contributing to wikipedia. Even within white populations, there are smart people and stupid people - so it would obviously go without saying that there should be an article considering genetics and intelligence that is probably completely independent of race. If possible, totally avoiding any reference to race in such an article would be an indication of the maturity and high level of importance that individuals attribute intelligence in all societies. --Nukemason 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inheritance of intelligence. Please help improving it. Arbor 11:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to this. However, I have had a brief look at the article that you have referred me to and feel that it does not consider certain questions that, perhaps a genetics and intelligence article might (yes, inheritance refers to genetic aquisitions of sorts - but, in the future, not all genetic acquisitions need occur via the mechanisms of inheritance). This is an issue that is covered in the eugenics wiki (briefly, the subsection that concerns eugenics technologies). However, I don't think that certain issues are covered such as *how much* human intelligence can be realistically enhanced (in particular, a point of interest for me has always been about theoretical limitations on human intelligence that are innately tied up with the characteristics of neurons, etc... - currently a hot topic in bio and nano tech). Not so much as a 'point', but rather a smudge.

--Nukemason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation analysis

Immediately available and verifiable information isn't "original" when it's employed in relation to a published argument. Normally it wouldn't be necessary because the editors of an encyclopedia would have professional knowledge of the field, but in this case it's useful for factual statements to constrain interpretation. Making the article less factually informative isn't an appropriate task here.--Nectar 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In this context NOR is probably best thought of as "no original thought", which is how it's characterized at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. (The addition does meet the requirements of verifiability policy.)--Nectar 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're here to report the facts, not for "constraining interpretation". That sounds an awful lot like telling the reader what to conclude from the facts. However, I'd be content to let it go if there is a consensus to do so.--Ramdrake 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by using "factual statements to constrain interpretation" is grounding in empirical reality the many and sometimes far-ranging claims that exist in the literature. (We report both claims and facts, but claims are not the same thing as facts.) --Nectar 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, two things - 1) the assertion you were making in the footnote is unclear. I'm assuming you were trying to say that the journals you specifically mentioned did not report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, is that true? 2) Even if they didn't report any criticism of the Pioneer Fund, it hardly makes a noteworthy point - 99.9% of Hindu religious texts don't discuss the implications of Jerry Seinfeld on modern mores, but that wouldn't be a worthwhile cite, would it? I exaggerate, of course, but my point is that unless these journal you cited regularly criticized other funding agents, their lack of criticism of the Pioneer Fund isn't really notable, is it? The fact that a movie critic didn't criticize a given movie may be notable, but the fact that they didn't critique a new non-fiction book on the amazon rainforest wouldn't really mean anything, would it? --JereKrischel 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The two journals mentioned are responsible for a great fraction of all published reports in this field. Hence, they would be the place to look for the scholarly treatment of PF. --Rikurzhen 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

These two journals are the two that specialize in individual differences psychology/intelligence research and play one of the most prominent roles in determining the course of this area of psychology. American Psychologist, the journal in which the the APA report and one of Flynn's more prominent papers were published in, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which some of Sternberg's more prominent papers are published in, also have no mention of criticism of the fund. The point is that, while some authors claim the criticism of PF is quite important, the criticism of the fund hasn't even been mentioned in relevant journals. (A topic's representation in the literature is considered a prominent measurement of its importance.)--Nectar 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have any of these journals had anything critical to say about any funding sources? It sounds as if they are focused (and rightfully so) on the work itself, not the funding sources. If that is true, one wouldn't expect them to criticize the Pioneer Fund at all, and the absence of such criticism shouldn't be seen as notable. Can you cite any criticism these journals have had of any funding source? --JereKrischel 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, while some authors claim the arguments about the Pioneer Fund are important, in the actual field it hasn't been important. (Something that is considered important to a topic would be mentioned in the literature of the topic.)--Nectar 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, without a clear indication that these journals have criticized other funding sources, and have specifically not criticized the Pioneer Fund, it doesn't seem to help make your point - it feels almost as if you're trying to prove a negative. I think it might be fair to make sure criticism of the Pioneer Fund is properly characterized, so as not to lead people to believe that critics are geneticists when they're actually psychologists or vice versa, and I think the same sort of clear indication of sources is important (noting that Rushton is not a biogeneticist, for example). Not to venture too far off track, but this kind of thing is very important when comparing the conclusions of Cavalli-Sforza versus the interpretation of Rushton of C-S's work - one is clearly *not* a geneticist.

Am I correct in understanding your concern? That is, that any criticism sources be properly identified as to whether or not they are activist groups, psychologists, geneticists, professors, students, etc? I think we can make sure we properly identify everyone's background, to give readers a clear indication of what qualifications and specialties they have. --JereKrischel 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the point is to draw a line between anti-racist or anti-hereditarian activists and the actual scientific field. All that needs to be noted is that, contrary to claims by these authors, the criticisms of the PF aren't important to the field.--Nectar 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think making the leap that the criticisms of the Pioneer Fund aren't important to the field is definitely POV pushing. Let the reader decide if they want to make that leap, we shouldn't be making that decision for them. Similarly, although Rushton may only be a psychologist, and not a geneticist, we should let the reader decide if that makes a difference in his credibility.

The real fine line we need to draw, Nectar, on both sides of this, is not to engage in ad hominem attack on sources (even if they do it to each other). Although now that you mention it, a good section on the differences between what geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists think may be interesting - much of the disagreement we have may simply be because of the various interpretations foisted on what we can both agree is real, scientific genetic research. Anyway, I'll ponder how a section like that might be constructed...in the mean time, I think it should be sufficient to clearly indicate, without asserting any conclusion as to credibility, the background of the people making the various assertions (either in the case of Pioneer Fund, or in the case of psychologists interpreting the work of geneticists). --JereKrischel 09:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My wording above was made stronger to make the potential implications more explicit and is different from the wording used in the article. If psychologists on one side of a debate make the same interpretations as leading geneticists on that side of the debate (e.g. Sternberg and Lewontin or Jensen and Risch) the distinction doesn't seem particularly important. In contrast, in the case of the Pioneer Fund and how researchers who accept grants should be treated, there's significant disagreement between the positions of anti-racists and scientists who are strongly on the environmental side e.g. Sternberg, Flynn, and even Tucker.--Nectar 10:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to assert that psychologists and geneticsts have the exact same interpretations, although significant overlap may be there. Especially with such a sensitive field as race and intelligence, we should make things clear. --JereKrischel 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for these claims: 1. that if there isn't criticism of other funding sources in PAID, Intelligence, et al, then there's no reason to mention that they don't contain criticism of PF. 2. that biologists and psychologists are different.

My understanding is that: 1. sometimes it important to write about what doesn't exist -- there are other instances in the lead block. in this case, the fact that PF criticism isn't a regular part of scholarly discourse is important to note. 2. i just don't get it. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain (I'll use as simple an analogy as I can):

If there are no policemen at the firestation, is it significant to find that there are no policemen from New York at the fire station? No. You possibly could have generalized from the first observation (if it is repreated often enough, that is) that a fire station is not the place you should normally find policemen to start with.

Likewise, if there is no criticism of any source of funding in those journals, (much less of the Pioneer Fund), maybe that's because that's the wrong place to look for criticism of a source of funding, in which case it is not significant that you won't find criticism of the Pioneer Fund, because you won't find any criticism of a funding source in there to start with.--Ramdrake 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I get that idea, but where else but the scholarly journal should you look for such criticism? I did a quick count of the journal references for this article. Here are the top 4 hits:

• Intelligence = 34
• Personality and Individual Differences = 20
• American Psychologist = 16
• Science = 9
• Psychology, Public Policy, and Law = 7

So we're looking in the right place so long as the scholarly literature is the right place to look -- any reason to think it is not? Not finding criticism of PF could mean several things, but one explanation seems obvious. Regardless of the explanation, the fact is certinaly of note. --Rikurzhen 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd be looking in the right place if you found one criticism of any funding agency in one of those journals. Then, it would tell you such criticism is rare, but that this isn't just the wrong forum. The first place to look for criticism of any agency is of course in the media and... oh wait! There is criticism of the Pioneer Fund there. :) I would think the scholarly litterature would be the wrong place to look for criticism of funding sources, because a rather large number of scientists know their next year's research grant may come from a different source than this year's (happens all the time - been there, done that), so the last thing they want to do is to speak up against a funding agency, as they really don't want to alienate them unnecessarily. So, in fact, there is a perfectly LOGICAL reason not to find such criticisms in the journals where they publish. As a matter of fact, the last time I heard someone criticize a funding agency, it was through the media (a researcher wanting to investigate the popular appeal of creationist debates was turned down because he "didn't provide appropriate proof of evolution" or some such silliness). Like I said, until you find a criticism of a funding agency in one of those articles, it's a fairly safe bet that these journals are not the correct venue for criticisms of funding agencies.--Ramdrake 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You're suggesting a remarkable kind of self-censorship. In the environment following the publicatin of The Bell Curve, there was plenty of room to snipe at PF. Again, if not scholarly journals then were should we be looking? Keep in mind the article material in question is the result of the literature search, and you're argument is that we shouldn't mention the lack of mention of PF in these journals. --Rikurzhen 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're conflating criticisms. Following the Bell Curve, there was some academic criticism (of the data and/or its analysis, in journals) and a lot of social and and political criticism (of the motives of the authors, and to some extent of the data and its analysis, in the media mostly). The only thing you have to do to prove me wrong is to find one criticism of any funding agency in anyone of those journals. Until that is done, your demonstration (that PF has no criticism in the scientific journals) has no control group (existence of criticism of a funding agency in a scientific journal). What I advanced earlier was a possible explanation for the failure to find any funding agency criticism in scientific journals. The hypothesis as to the reason may be right or wrong, but so far the fact remains: the absence of PF criticism in scientific journals means something only insofar as one can demonstrate that these journals are an actual forum for such criticism.--Ramdrake 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to their Misplaced Pages articles, several of the Pioneer Fund grantees are on the editorial board of Intelligence.Ultramarine 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The same seems to be true for Personality and Individual Differences. I think that the real question is why these journals do not require disclousre of funding in such a controversial field.Ultramarine 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, what I'm saying is that I don't need to "prove" anything because it's self-evidently interesting that there's no negative discussion of PF in any of these journals. UL, you could try expanding the search to all of ISI &/or Medline, the result will most likely be the same. --Rikurzhen 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several articles critical of the fund published in other journals.Ultramarine 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles are critical: Ultramarine 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Ultramarine has found sufficient evidence that the Pioneer Fund has been criticized in scholarly journals (American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 39, No. 1, 44-61 (1995) for example), so the assertion that there is no criticism from the scientific community in the field is obviously refuted. That being said, I think we should make sure we clearly identify those people making both claims, and criticisms. If a psychologist is making a claim, it is important to note their background. Similarly with a geneticist. Rather than try to make a point that one type of person feels one way, another group feels another way, why don't we just identify the people making the assertions and critiques, and let the reader judge if that should have any impact on credibility. Certainly, we shouldn't be deciding for the reader what makes one credible. --JereKrischel 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An accounting of what criticism has been published would be great (and requested by me for some time), but AFAIK none of these are journals in the field (text in the article). --Rikurzhen 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

link to U.S. google scholar:

Negative reviews:

1. The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund - WH Tucker - 2002
2. " The American Breed": Nazi eugenics and the origins of the Pioneer Fund. - PA Lombardo - Albany Law Rev, 2002
3. The Pioneer Fund: Financier of Fascist Research - SJ ROSENTHAL - American Behavioral Scientist, 1995

The negative review (mentioned in my previous post):

American Behavioral Scientist

Seems to be "in the field" --JereKrischel 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my #3. There are thousands of "no-name" journals. Has ABS published anything else about R&I? Here's the abstract from this article: Many citations used in The Bell Curve to provide a pseudoscientific veneer for Herrnstein and Murray's academic version of The Turner Diaries for the "cognitive elite" came from advocates of eugenics, whose "research" has been supported by the Pioneer Fund. A Nazi endowment specializing in production of justifications for eugenics since 1937, the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of right-wing foundations, think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and global anti-Communist coalitions. This article combines Domhoff's model (1978) of how the ruling class makes public policy, Knapp and Spector's (1991) model of how and why capitalists build racism, and Oliver Cox's (1948) analysis of how and why capitalists build fascism to show that the U.S. ruling class is laying the political, ideological, economic, and paramilitary groundwork for fascism. Liberal reaction to The Bell Curve and the threat of fascism has mainly taken the form of appeasement. History suggests it is time for a different response. --Rikurzhen 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another ABS publication on R&I: The Bell Curve: Too Smooth to be True --JereKrischel 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also "in the field":

• The American Journal of Psychology
• Contemporary Sociology
• AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
• International Journal of Health Services
• Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

That should be sufficient, I think, to make the point. Whether something is a "no-name" journal really isn't something we should be trying to judge, don't you think? --JereKrischel 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As per Nectar below, the journal matters a great deal. As does the actual content of the articles. A cursory review finds that these are not the kind of articles to falsify the claim that "the criticism of the fund has not been an issue in the journals in its field". --Rikurzhen 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't 'have journals in general published criticism of the PF,' it's 'have journals that are significant to the field of intelligence research/differential psychology published criticism.' Another description would be 'journals that play a significant role in the direction of the field.' For example, the two secondary journals I cited above were selected from notable publications in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field.--Nectar 07:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Nectar, is that "significant to the field of intelligence research" seems to be a subjective POV judgement. Certainly, The American Journal of Psychology, Contemporary Sociology, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, International Journal of Health Services, and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, all are in the publication lists of notable researchers in the field - perhaps not those that you agree with, but notable nonetheless. I think it's a losing proposition to arbitrate who the "notable researchers" are, and which journals in their publication lists are "notable publications". Certainly, as pointed out earlier, some of the journals mentioned have Pioneer Fund grantees on their boards - certainly enough to quash any criticism that may have otherwise been brought up. Instead of trying to draw an OR conclusion (no journals "in the field, and in the publication lists of "notable" researchers" have criticized the Pioneer Fund, therefore such criticism is less credible), let's just report the facts as they are, and clearly identify who is criticising the Pioneer Fund, and who is making assertions of a primarily hereditarian stance (psychologists/biologists/geneticists/pundits). If we're going to try and make a point that a certain journal deigned to criticize the Pioneer Fund, then I think it's important to note if the Pioneer Fund has significant influence on that journal. --JereKrischel 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let's please be careful. Citations have been introduced here from science journals that criticize PF. When those were introduced, it was claimed the journals were not sufficiently close to the field of study. When more citations were found from journals which one could assume were sufficiently close to the field of study, they were deemed not to be influential or significant enough in the field. That unfortunately looks very much like a tactic called "moving the goal post". What is now required if we are to restrict the list of acceptable journals would be a list of journals in the field by an authoritative author not related to the Pioneer Fund. Otherwise, we'll be running in circles.--Ramdrake 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "goal post" has always been journals in the field, as that's the point that was made in the article. The four journals I've referred to have been demonstrated to be significant to the field. If you can't quantify (quantification is the opposite of subjective) any intelligence researchers - either environmental or hereditarian - who have published intelligence research in those journals than they're not intelligence research journals. Note that Snyderman and Rothman surveyed specialists instead of random figures, so it's not an original concept. It's an extraordinarily bold claim that the specialist journals in which intelligence research is primarily published suddenly lose their position because a portion of their editorial boards are composed of highly-cited researchers WP editors don't like. That's fine to note that portion in the article footnote. (Elsevier's website is malfunctioning, but the editorial board for Intelligence can be viewed in the google cache.)--Nectar 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, please find a proper cite that says "these are the appropriate journals for the field". Also, once that is done, you would need to demonstrate that these journals accept to publish criticism of funding sources (they may have a policy not to). As for the "extraordinarily bold claim", if journal X has PF fundees on its editorial board, any time an article is submitted to that journal that would be critical to PF would cause those on the editorial board that have ties with PF to be in a potential conflict of interest situation. I don't see anything bold to this statement.--Ramdrake 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "citation" for which journals publish in intelligence research is represented by intelligence researchers, such as Sternberg and Flynn, publishing intelligence research in those journals. Sternberg and Flynn and other environmental editors also sit on the board of Intelligence. According to you, it would be a conflict of interest for such journals to publish hereditarian articles or criticism of environmental positions. Environmentalists like Sternberg most certainly pull out all the stops in their articles that criticize hereditarian positions, but they haven't deemed the sinister Pioneer Fund Conspiracy noteworthy enough to even mention in passing in any of their many articles in these journals. Anyway, this isn't about leading hereditarians not being blacklisted from journal editorial boards, as you would desire, as the other two journals that are significant to this field that I cited above do not have grantees on their boards, AFAIK, but still haven't discussed the PF Conspiracy.--Nectar 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said is that it would a potential conflict of interest situation for PF fundees on the board of these journals to publish an article criticizing PF. I didn't say anything about an article with a pro-hereditarian or pro-environmental stance. And BTW, we still do need a proper reference (and I mean a litteral reference) as to which journals should be considered "in the field" and which shouldn't. The statement that it is "represented by intelligence researchers, (...) publishing intelligence research in those journals just isn't good enough. Your definition of "journals in the field" seems to basically boil down to about four titles. I'm not sure you appreciate how restrictive a definition that is, for any field of science.--Ramdrake 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)The principle you're proposing is that a journal creates a conflict of interest by having editorial board members who take positions on either side of a debate. It's quite normal for journals to have board members who take positions, and in this case there are board members from both sides of the debate. AFAIK Intelligence and PAID have never been accused of bias.

(2) How could a journal be in intelligence research if it doesn't publish intelligence research or any articles by intelligence researchers? I looked some more. Psychological Review has published note-worthy articles by researchers on both sides, and Science and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law are the fourth and fifth most cited journals in this article, but PF criticism hasn't been mentioned in these journals. That brings the tally to 0 in these 7 journals. If you give an example of note-worthy intelligence research in another journal that you want checked for PF criticism, it can be checked.--Nectar 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're asserting that citation in a Misplaced Pages article makes something note-worthy enough to be included in a Misplaced Pages article? I'm sorry, but I don't believe your criteria for what a "note-worthy" journal is makes sense in terms of NPOV. Similarly, a journal, such as Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, may not deal with R&I directly, but it certainly is important as an analysis of the field. I think the principle we should stick to, and implement throughout the article, is clearly indicating the source of criticism or assertion, be it a scholarly journal regarding behavioral sciences, or a psychologist re-interpreting the findings of a geneticist. Trying to come up with criteria for what is and isn't "note-worthy", is definitely OR. --JereKrischel 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Ramdrake, citing a journal's publication list is not orginal research according to the definition given at that page:

• "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. . . Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." WP:NOR

--Nectar 13:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here's the way I see it: you surveyed a handful of publications looking for criticism of the Pioneer Fund. When you found no such criticism (and no other criticism of any other funding source for that matter, AFAIK), you concluded: "I believe these journals constitute the main of the research field's publication space, and as such not finding PF criticism in them means the research field itself is not critical of the Pioneer Fund in its publications." The result tabulation is your OR, and the belief that these journals constitute the main of the research field's publication space is yours (and not objectively demonstrated). For both these reasons, I would say your findings don't have the significance you bestow on them, and don't have a place in Misplaced Pages unless independently arrived at by a verifiable source.--Ramdrake 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be saying it's just impossible to determine whether or not a journal publishes intelligence research. The solution is quite simple, per the above section: if the journal publishes significant intelligence research articles, than it publishes intelligence research. The journals selected are objectively demonstrated to have published significant intelligence research, and more examples can be very easily provided. (Science, though, is a special case compared to the other 6 journals.)--Nectar 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK maybe there is a misunderstanding here we can clear up and go forward. I'm quite convinced the journals you came up with are relevant and significant in the field. It is your exclusion of all other journals I have a problem with. If you can demonstrate that the journals below which were also considered somewhat "in the field" really aren't, with a reason why, I'll withdraw this objection.

1. The American Journal of Psychology
2. Contemporary Sociology
3. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
4. International Journal of Health Services
5. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

These do not specialize just in the field of intelligence, granted, but their scope should include that field, and I know several of them are quite significant journals. So, please demonstrate how they're not relevant to the field (except for their lack of specialization).--Ramdrake 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on. I can't be more explicit with you. A consensus version is not defined as your POV-warrior version with the other side removed. I had changed the text to refer to "intelligence research journals," so the journals we're looking for have clear criteria. The burden of proof is on you to show irrelevant journals such as the International Journal of Health Services are intelligence research journals. Showing that is quite simple: find any significant intelligence research published in the journal.--Nectar 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Biochemists can certainly make claims about electrochemistry, but if they don't participate in the research and discussions in electrochemistry then they're not part of the scientific field. The point in our case is that the journals and researchers (on both sides) that determine the course of psychometrics haven't even mentioned this criticism. Re: OR; It wouldn't be practical for Misplaced Pages to operate under a "all sources are equal and cannot be evaluated" policy.--Nectar 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the 7 journals above was a reference to the articles they published, not this wiki article. For example, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is the journal in which Steele and Aronson 1995 (stereotype threat) was published, and the Sacket et al. 2004 response was published in American Psychologist. If you can provide other journals in which significant intelligence research is published, we can look for discussion of the PF.--Nectar 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Define "significant intelligence research". I think it is clear that the journals listed do publish significant intelligence research, and I don't think you can reasonably say, or even begin to "prove" that they don't. Especially the "Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences" seems particularly relevant, since as a meta-journal (of the history of the field), they are more likely to criticize funding sources, and note historical trends one way or the other. I disagree with your narrow definition of "intelligence research journals", and think that unless you can show a reasonable cite that states that your definition is valid and accepted, it simply is OR. --JereKrischel 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine provided the Google scholar results, and I've listed those with negative criticms of the Pioneer Fund. I think the onus is on you to show some cite that clearly states that these journals are not "journals in which significant intelligence research is published". Your definition of "significant" is ambiguous, and a POV evaluation so far, I think. --JereKrischel 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the numbers of articles in these journals that contain "iq" in the abstract or title, compared to a neutral term, "influence" as a rough gauge of journal issue size and frequency (1994-2005). Journals that have published criticism of the Pioneer Fund are in italics.

"IQ", "Influence", and Ratio

1. Intelligence 123, 52, 0.4
2. PAID 102, 242, 2.4
3. Psychological Assessment 29, 25, 0.9
4. Journal of Educational Psychology 15, 74, 4.9
5. American Psychologist 13, 50, 3.8
6. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12, 263, 22
7. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 9, 18, 2
8. Psychological Review 4, 33, 8.2
9. American Behavioral Scientist 3, 72, 24*
10. The American Journal of Psychology 2, 29, 14.5**
11. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1, 18, 18

*From Sage Publications; ProQuest gives a different number due to the use of shortened abstracts.

**I only have access up to 2002 for the moment, so this figure is for 1991-2002.

Journals that don't comment on IQ aren't in the field. That's fine; it just means they're in a different discipline. (Their opinion should still get reported in this article.)--Nectar 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Race and Genetics:

• GAN error
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Good article nominees without a subtopic
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Delisted good articles