Misplaced Pages

May I suggest that instead of comparing the frequency occurence of the string "IQ" with that of a random word like "influence", it be compared with a known common word in abstracts, such as "results" (which should be in nearly all abstracts)? Comparing a target word with a known common word sounds to me closer to a proper control.--Ramdrake 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not finding the acronym "IQ" in the proper proportions in an abstract hardly means these journals (or other journals) are not discussing intelligence (in fact, since there were no ratios of "zero" for those critical, it seems to prove quite clearly the point that journals in the field have criticized the Pioneer Fund). I strongly disagree with your criteria (having "IQ" in the abstract or title), as a method of determining what journals are notable in the field of intelligence research. Certainly your criteria is your own invention, and OR. Or do you have a reasonable cite that states, "One may determine the notability of a journal in the field of intelligence research by measuring the number of times the term "IQ" is present in the abstract or title of articles contained in such journal compared to the term "influence""? --JereKrischel 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand much about these topics or science in general. Anyway, here are the number of articles on "intelligence" in the top two of each category of the above journals.

1. Intelligence 283
2. PAID 278
3. The American Journal of Psychology 12
4. American Behavioral Scientist 7

Re:"specialist intelligence research journals identified by our editors as notable." When we have quantifiable and verifiable measures, you don't need to rely on a WP editor's opinion that some journals are intelligence research journals and some are not. Journals that publish a minor article on intelligence once a year are not "intelligence research journals." --Nectar 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, may I remind you of WP:NPA? "You don't seem to understand much about these topics or science in general" sounds like an ad hominem if I ever saw one.--Ramdrake 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can interprete it as an "attack" if you want, but the point is you guys are making the Misplaced Pages process unworkable by consistently not understanding either the topic or the arguments on the talk page but insisting on edit-warring anyway. If you don't have experience in these areas, being POV-warriors isn't a workable or civil approach. --Nectar 12:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we understand both the topic and your arguments; we just happen not to agree with several of the latter. And BTW, I also have some experience in writing science papers. And as far as POV-warring is concerned, if you consider our edits POV-warring, yours are just as much. Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête. Now, please let's get back to discussing the article, not what we know or don't know about science.--Ramdrake 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You have determined these metrics, Nectar, out of your own personal opinions. Whether or not a journal publishes minor or major articles on any given frequency is *not* an according to hoyle definition of "intelligence research journals". --JereKrischel 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is wrong. Frequency arguments like the one that Nectar uses are the standard way of evaluating scope and quality of scientific publications. That being said, WP is not the place to make such a pronouncement. We can use it merely to decide how much attention we should give to this argument. And currently we are giving far too much to it, based on several metrics. In this, summary-style, article, the PF funding issue deserves a paragraph under Accusations of bias, at most. (And a sentence, at least. But it certainly belongs there, I maintain that the chapter in Why people believe weird things is the best argument for its inclusion.) More extended coverage can be given in the appropriate subarticles. Arbor 09:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the intro, two sentences and 9 lines are devoted to the criticism of the Pioneer Fund, while at least 7 sentences and 29 lines are spent defending it (including footnotes), thus it may be needed to rebalance both sides. It was already discussed that some criticism of the Pioneer Fund was needed in the intro, and given its weight in intelligence research (especially on the pro-hereditarian side) a small section was also deemed appropriate.--Ramdrake 11:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me, appropriate for the introduction would be a half-sentence, at most. Something like "Criticism of R&I research includes accusations of bias based on assumptions about the political ideals of the researchers or the funding agencies." Add "such as the Pioneer Fund" if it makes you happy. The current introduction is too long and detailed anyway and is bound to be cut to pieces next time we submit to Peer Review. There is no way a point-and-counterpoint debate can survive in three first paragraphs of a summary-style article, and the editors trying to fight that war are wasting their time. Write a single good paragraph under Accusations of bias, and write an proper section in the appropriate subarticle. Arbor 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment directly below, I concur with Arbor on this point. I would second his suggestion to replace the lead text block with a sentence. Move the debate to the relevant section of the article. --Rikurzhen 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating (for appropriateness) and summarizing sources is a "power" (so to say) that WP grants editors. saying what journal do and do not say is within that power. we have good reason (after reviewing the literature) to believe that PF has not been an issue in the journals were intelligence research is commonly published. i have at times asked for a similar summary accounting of where and by who PF has been criticized. such a summary might make an appropriate addition. however, i'll renew my objection that the lead text is dedicating too much space to describing PF (pro and con, but of course neutrality is essential). the amount of space dedicated to PF in the intro is disproportionate to its prominence in the article and importance in the field. --Rikurzhen 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing sources is fine, but arbitrarily determining what is a "notable" journal and what isn't, according to a completely made up metric of "IQ" versus "influence" in abstracts and titles is OR, and POV pushing. --JereKrischel 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, if you have nothing to say please stop wasting our time. Notable is a standard term used in science to refer to influence within a topic. Anyway, note that the term under discussion is "intelligence research." There can't be intelligence research without research on intelligence. A biochemistry journal publishes on biochemistry. An intelligence research journal publishes on the research of intelligence at more than a frequency of 1% of it's articles. The frequency of research of intelligence being written on in a journal can be measured by the frequency of articles that discuss intelligence (because intelligence is a necessary part of intelligence research).--Nectar 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable is not a standard term, it is a subjective one, Nectar. "Intelligence Research" certainly includes the journals mentioned with criticisms, albeit not at the frequency which you would like to arbitrate. I think as pointed out earlier, you are moving the bar. Your original point was that people "in the field" did not have such criticisms of the Pioneer Fund. This has been refuted by the examples given. Now you want to marginalize the scientific opinions of people published in scientific journals by asserting that such journals are not sufficiently dedicated to "intelligence research".

Frankly, the point that "intelligence journals that publish research on intelligence at a frequency of more than 1% have not criticized the Pioneer Fund" doesn't really give any useful information to the reader. I've removed the offending section, and hope we can move on from here. --JereKrischel 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So the non-offensive wording you prefer is "Journals that devote more than 1% of there content to intelligence research have not criticized the fund"?--Nectar 08:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or.. what are you talking about? In response to your unreasonable claims, the text in the article was "specialist intelligence research journals." Journals that publish 1% of their content in a discipline aren't specialists in that discipline.--Nectar 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, standard English is to refer to quotations from authors in the present tense. --Nectar 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with your agreement on the non-offensive wording. I'll make the change. --JereKrischel 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see this. A journal publishing reviews of books doesn't constitute taking official positions on an issue unless they state they're doing so.--Nectar 09:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These weren't all reviews of books and some journals did take position, so the original sentence is appropriate.--Ramdrake 12:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'tis not. PF-based criticism is noteworthy, and formulated primarily outside the scientific community. Our description should reflect that. Adding "scientific journals" to the list is misleading because it implies that the specialist scientific community voices this criticism. (I don't understand why you want to peddle an extrascientific opinion in the first place. Moreover, why you insist on giving it the veneer of scientific respectability is beyond me. In any case, you are promoting a highly skewed presentation of an amateur viewpoint. Don't.) Arbor 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read above the many criticisms found in various scientific journals (although not deemed specialist journals) about the Pioneer Fund. Part of the scientific community does criticize the PF and this whole area of research, in addition to the extrascientific criticism. Trying to marginalize or totally occult this opposition as "amateur" or "extrascientific" is simply POV.--Ramdrake 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write "... and in scientific journals outside the field of expertise" or something like that, I would no longer call it misleading. (Honestly, I don't see how such a qualification makes the statement less denigrating about PF-based criticism.) In any case, I am strongly in favour of moving the entire debate into the relevant subsection, which is why my edit simply removed the attribution to "scientific journals" instead of adding another qualification. I won't make this article even more unreadable by participating in the point-counterpoint-qualificationOfCounterpoint-minuteDetailOfQualification exercise that is currently going on. Arbor 13:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the debate is getting specious. Since this is a scientific debate with huge social implications, I am also starting to wonder what is the point of drawing such a fine line in the sand between the societal and scientific sources of criticism. It is well-known that scientists in general are not versed in social critic, especially not in science journals, and on the other hand one does not need to be a specialist in the field to level legitimate criticism in this area of research. To me, the distinction is getting more and more artificial.--Ramdrake 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, please provide a reference that makes the false statement that a journal publishing either an article or a book review means the journal takes an official position. Thanks for not introducing scientifically illiterate statements into the article.--Nectar 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself: A journal publishing reviews of books doesn't constitute taking official positions on an issue unless they state they're doing so. Criticism of the Fund was found in some science journals (not directly in the field, granted, but not limited to book reviews). That criticism was just referenced, that's all. As a rule, journals (except newspapers in some occasions) do not take "official" position on anything, but may contain criticism which is usually attributed to the authors. By the same token since journals do NOT take official positions except in rare cases, the absence of criticism likewise is also meaningless. Thank you for clarifying that.--Ramdrake 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not "by the same token" because nobody claimed an absence of criticism in the specialist literature represented official positions on the parts of journals. Misplaced Pages's job is to represent the literature accurately, which includes the presence or lack of presence of PF criticism in the literature.--Nectar 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So, for us to report that a journal does not contain criticism of the PF, nothing special is required, but for us to report that a journal has published criticism of the PF, an oficial endorsement of the criticism by the journal is a requirement? That's a double standard. You know as well as I do that there is presence of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in journals that are peripheral to this specific field of research. But first deeming these journals not significant in the field of intelligence research and then requiring that the journal take official position against the Pioneer Fund is not the right way to quelch the criticism, not to mention a blatant example of moving the goalpost. Please stop doing that.--Ramdrake 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we make clear that the absence of criticism in specialist literature does not represent the official position of the specialist journals in question? "Criticism in journals with over 1% of their published articles in the field of intelligence research has not been found, but neither have those journals taken any official stance absolving the Pioneer Fund from any potential wrongdoing"? Would that satisfy you, Nectar? --JereKrischel 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is to summarize the literature, not advocate positions. If a criticism doesn't appear in journals in the discipline that would commonly be taken to mean it's not a significant issue in the discipline. Adding "including critiques published in scientific journals" seems a little silly, as scientists are already assumed to publish in scientific journals.--Admissions 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists supporting a topic in journals in normal; it would be notable if scientists had only supported the topic outside of journals.--Nectar 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The notable point here is that scientists very rarely criticize a funding agency (any funding agency), whether inside a journal or in the popular media. That criticism of the PF not only exists in popular media but has found its way in some journals is notable, even if the journals in question are only peripheral to the field of research, and even if the journals did not take an official stance criticizing or endorsing the Pioneer Fund. Now, if one wants to make the point that the few journals considered notable to the specialized field of research do not contain any such critic of the Fund, that's fine too. But the existence of such criticism in any journal is in and of itself notable, regardless of all the caveats one wants to append to it.--Ramdrake 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nectar that we should summarize the literature, and not editorialize it. Arguing in an editorial tone in a reference, leading the reader to the believe that Ulrich Neisser meant a certain conclusion other than what he actually said, is really inappropriate. I further agree with Ramdrake that if we are going to state that specialist journals with greater than 1% intelligence research did not publish any criticism, we should also identify the criticism that occured in other scientific journals, not so concentrated directly on the field as per the 1% criteria. Our other possible alternative is to remove the assertion of the negative (seeing as the lack of criticism by specific journals that publish > 1% intelligence research really isn't all that important of a point, and quite possibly OR, since nobody has published a list of > 1% intelligence research journals or done that research yet), and remove the specification that scientists who have criticized the Pioneer Fund were published in scientific journals. In either case, it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority to bolster a position. --JereKrischel 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing both specifications, as long as we keep the same standard for both issues. It would also make for a more legible text.--Ramdrake 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP editors aren't so helpless and blind as you would imagine. The citation for the 1% is the journals' article lists. This may seem exotic to you, but a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Citation_indexes confirms the reasonable conclusion. This section is going to need to be both NPOV and scientifically literate, whether you POV warriors like it or not. If we need a third party to comment in order to do that, that's something we can do.--Nectar 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the suggestion here was to remove all references to criticism (or lack of criticism) of the PF from the article. If you want to take this up and call in the WP:Mediation Cabal, I don't mind: let's do it. And this calling us "POV warriors" is very much the pot calling the kettle black.--Ramdrake 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the citation for the 1% is original research, judging from article lists by a novel, non-standard criteria, what is and isn't "intelligence research", and then compiling, based upon a limited sample, a list of journals. Why not 2%? Why not 3%? Why not define an article on "intelligence research" as one that actually performs a direct study (rather than a study of studies)? Or perhaps define an article on "intelligence research" as one which uses reaction time tests in addition to IQ as a proxy for general intelligence? Unless you can find a reasonable cite that states, "By generally accepted definition, research journals are considered "in the field" if they produce more than 1% of their articles directly on the field based on the title and abstract contents", you're doing OR. --JereKrischel 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)This article is on intelligence. Intelligence research is on intelligence. The word "intelligence" plays a central role in the last two sentences and is sufficient to gauge articles on intelligence research. OK?

(2)Can you agree there is a categorical distinction between general journals that publish 1% of their articles on intelligence, and specialist journals that publish a majority of their articles on intelligence?--Nectar 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Judging an article's content simply by finding the word "intelligence" in it isn't sufficient to tell whether that article deals with intelligence. There are of course many single word synonyms, as well as phrases which could mean the same thing. 2) There very well may be a categorical distinction between journals that publish 1% of their literature and 51% or more of their literature in a given category, but can't the same be said about journals that publish 2% of their literature and journals that publish 45% or more of their literature? How far does that gap have to be before it is sufficient, or insufficient? Determining those numbers, and the criteria of words in a title or abstract which indicate an article is "intelligence" related is OR, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)Intelligence is the most commonly used term in the literature. Articles give a summary of the article in the abstract, so searching abstracts is only searching articles that deal with intelligence in a significant way.

(2)If the only articles we have discussing a topic are around 1%, the hypothetical question of 'what if we had a journal that was around 5%' is not important. What we know is that journals that have a tendency to publish articles on intelligence haven't discussed this issue.--Nectar 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Do you have a cite for that? Or would it take further original research to make that claim? 2) Perhaps the only articles we've examined so far critical of the pioneer fund happen in journals which publish only 1% of their articles with "intelligence" in the abstract or title (speaking of which, why not count page length of the actual articles, instead of just the number of articles?), but it is only a hypothetical statement to assert that there are none others at higher percentages, right? What we do know is that scientific journals of good repute have published regarding this issue, and there is no expectation that more highly focused journals which do not analyze the impact of funding sources on bias in research would publish any articles on the matter. Frankly, what we should find is a list of journals that analyze and publish articles on critiques of funding sources (let's say, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences), and use them as a measure of how important and relevant the issue has been to the scientific community. Can you assert that no journals which publish at least 1% or more of it's articles on funding source critiques have ever criticized the Pioneer Fund? It seems to me that you're trying to make a point that really doesn't have a substantial affect on the validity of the criticism of the Pioneer Fund that has been published - just because a select few journals, by whatever criteria you wish to identify them, haven't examined the issue doesn't make it any less relevant, important, or valid, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

These questions don't seem relevant from an academic point of view. The journals discussed are the results of reviews of the literature. Can you give a brief summary of your argument for the RfC section below?--Nectar 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Journals in the field

Criticism of the Pioneer Fund (PF) has been limited to some general journals, and hasn't been raised in the specialist journals that deal with intelligence research regularly. The issue is whether the categorical distinction can be made (in relation to another published statement) that the criticism "has not been an issue in the journals in the field." Alternatives have been "journals in intelligence research."

The set of journals which have published the PF criticism have published of their articles dealing with intelligence: The American Journal of Psychology, American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. In contrast, the second set of journals publish a majority of their articles dealing with intelligence, or have published significant articles in the field: Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, Psychological Assessment, Journal of Educational Psychology, American Psychologist, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The number of articles with "intelligence" in the abstract or title in the first two journals of these two sets, for example, are 13 and 7, and 283 and 278 (from 1994-2005).--Nectar 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The absence of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in an arbitrary set of journals dictated by an editor is not noteworthy. This arbitrary set of journals may indeed focus on the topic at hand, but that same focus makes them poor candidates for finding any criticism of any funding source. A more noteworthy observation would be to find a lack of criticism of the Pioneer Fund in journals dedicated to publishing critiques of funding sources. This observation has not been made.

The implication trying to be presented as I understand it is the following - 1) specialist journals identified on the topic of "intelligence" are the best authority for information regarding the field; 2) these specialist journals identified have not been observed to criticize the Pioneer Fund; 3) Therefore, criticism of the Pioneer Fund is less authoritative for being observed only in other scientific journals not identified as "specialist". This comes across like a POV push intended to mitigate or discredit criticism of the Pioneer Fund based on an arbitrary criteria. I contend that the implication being presented is incorrect on its very basis - non-specialists science journals are no less authoritative or credible than specialist science journals when it comes to the criticism of funding sources and their potential bias on research results.

One might just as well identify only specialist tobacco research journals, and claim that because they don't contain criticism of tobacco companies, such criticisms are somehow less credible. It has been noted by other editors that the some of the specialist journals identified have close ties to the Pioneer Fund.

The current suggestion on the table is to remove any language that would try to discredit criticism of the Pioneer Fund by appealing to the authority of "specialist" journals, as well as remove any language that would try to bolster criticism of the Pioneer Fund by appealing to the authority of "science journals". It seems more appropriate to make clear which person is making the critique or defense (psychologist, geneticist, political pundit), rather than attaching undue authority or lack thereof due to the particular publication such commentary was printed in. --JereKrischel 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. The identified journals were the results of a review of the literature, which is the only way to summarize the literature. The point is not to discredit an argument, but to summarize the literature accurately so as to not imply statements are more widely supported than they are (by researchers on either side in the field).--Nectar 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two points to add to the RfC:

1. Criticism of any funding agency is usually rare in any journal, and some journals may exclude it out of policy. One possible reason for this is that a researcher openly critical of a funding agency is likely to alienate this organism as a potential future funding source for his research. Of the journals deemed "specialist" in the field, none were found to have criticism of the Pioneer Fund, but neither did they contain any criticism of any other funding agency, which begs the question as to whether these journals would publish any criticism of any funding agency.
2. Journals deemed "specialist" in the field were validated using a citation analysis technique comparing the relative frequency of two words in their abstracts: target word "IQ" and control word "influence". There was no cross-check using another pair of words (such as "intelligence" and a known common word like "results") which could have yielded different results. Moreover, only a few select journals were analyzed this way, which opens the possibility of some journals that have not been tested also possibly qualifying. In addition, no firm reference as to what the proper word ratio would be for inclusion or exclusion of a journal has been supplied. Lastly, the issue was raised at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Citation_indexes as to whether this was an acceptable practice for Misplaced Pages and not in breach of the WP:NOR rule, and there was clearly no consensus in the feedback, thus making the No Original Research objection a valid concern.--Ramdrake 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond briefly. (1)It is certain that anti-hereditarian researchers such as Sternberg would include the criticism in their very strongly worded responses to hereditarian research if they thought it would benefit their criticism. (They've stated they don't support these kinds of criticisms.) Intelligence, which critics Sternberg and Flynn sit on the board of, did publish discussion of the issue in an editorial, but only in the form of criticism of media presentation of the fund. (2)This is a reference to a previous discussion. The description of journals in this section refers to the number of articles they've published that have "intelligence" in the abstract or title. The proposal at WP:NOR to specify in the policy citation indexes as permittable was successful.--Nectar 23:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the response by Nectar:

1. Response to my point 1 (that criticism would be mentioned if it existed) is simply an assumption by another editor, and not substantiated by any cited source. To the contrary, a search on Google Scholar of the words "Pioneer Fund" and "critic" will retrieve about 200 cites, and while there is a certain amount of redundancy in these 200 cites, it will turn up a good number of criticisms of the Pioneer Fund in the scientific press, although whether these are in journals that can be considered specialist journals in the field or not is a current matter of dispute.
2. "The proposal at WP:NOR to specify in the policy citation indexes as permittable was successful." This is just plain incorrect if I read the section in question:

-One editor made the comment this wasn't the right place to bring up this discussion.

-Another (anonymous) strongly hinted this was OR.

-A third one agreed with Nectar, but hinted the majority of editors probably wouldn't agree.

-A fourth editor (involved in the current issue of this page) plainly disagreed with Nectar.

I don't see how that can be construed as a "successful" proposal. Also, for the record, as can be seen by referring above, the word search across abstracts was NOT for intelligence but for IQ. There is a small but meaningful distinction here.--Ramdrake 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The first two of the non-criticising journals published positive reviews of Lynn's history and defense of the fund, so the issue is clearly considered within their scope. (2) I believe reviewing the proposal at WP:NOR shows it was successful. It's been stated in this and the previous section, the figures now under discussion are for the term intelligence. (The disparity is larger for IQ).--Nectar 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the RfC as officially listed

Nectar, I don't think the question you listed in the (public RfC) represents accurately the debate we've had so far. However, the question as spelled out at the beginning of the RfC section material is the right one. I'd appreciate to see them both be the same (i.e. as it is currently reflected above here). Thanks!--Ramdrake 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorical distinction itself was removed from the article after the disputed terminology was removed, which seems to mean the categorical distinction was disputed. Can the categorical distinction be put back in the article?--Nectar 22:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, the way I see it, if commentators find that there is a categorical difference between the two, then we need to report on the presence or absence of criticism in both categories separately. If commenters find no categorical difference between the two, then we must report that "some scientific journals are critical of the PF" without qualification. Is that what you want? If it is, I can certainly live with it.--Ramdrake 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The categorical distinction in question was regarding a specific topic - that is to say, is there a categorical distinction between criticism that occurs only in general journals and not in specialist journals. Nobody was debating whether or not there is a distinction that could be made between general and specific journals, but what the nature of that distinction was. I've asserted that the nature of that distinction does not include making criticisms any less important or notable for not being published in a specialist journal. --JereKrischel 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So you claim there is a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals, but that there's no categorical distinction between general opinion and specialist opinion? OK. Lulu provided a reference in his Martin quote that there is such a distinction and that distinction is important.--Nectar 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a categorical difference between specialty and non-specialty science journals is one thing, but whether one may use this distinction, if it exists, to discount opinion found in non-specialty science journals is the real question. Please don't confuse the issue. And I'd like to see how you can construe the quote from Gardner to vindicate your point that "there is a difference and that the difference is important"?--Ramdrake 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm sure your aware non-specialist opinion was never "discounted" or stated in the article to be "less important." However, stating the facts about the literature is allowed, and you regularly argue we should state the facts and let readers make up their minds. Censoring such facts because an editor feels they imply a favored argument is "less important" is not an option.

(2) Martin: "As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field." We can be certain that specialist opinion and non-specialist opinion are not treated the same in academia, and simply noting specialist opinion is certainly permissible.--Nectar 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(1)If non-specialist opinion wasn't discounted, why was the reference that the Pioneer Fund had been criticized in science journals removed about 5 times? So, who was censoring whom?

(2)The only thing I see there is the mention of in the field. Those words can have several interpretations: the "field" could be R&I research, psychometrics, psychology, etc. It contains no definite level of specialization. This certainly does not advocate a distinction between "specialist" and "non-specialist" journals.--Ramdrake 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

have you read the PF criticism papers?

if not, read them. most appear to be book reviews, historical narratives, etc. in fact, there appear to be only 2 or 3 (including Tucker) straightward critical pieces aimed primarily at PF. what is still not clear to me is that these criticisms have anything but a tangential relation relationship to this article. if that relationship cannot be made more explicit (without violating NOR) then this debate may be moot. --Rikurzhen 08:50, 18 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, for media image, policy implications, and so on.Ultramarine 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And also, without a clear indication of how frequent or how rare such criticism of a funding source is in science in general, "only" 2 or 3 may indeed be very significant.--Ramdrake 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this search shows numerous critical articles, certainly not "2 or 3".Ultramarine 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked "have you read the PF criticism papers?" is that I skimmed them and found little to support a connection with this article. At various times, I've asked for an argument to be outlined as to how these sources relate to this aritcle, if only for our consideration on the talk page. The point of my comment is not to say that 2 or 3 isn't enough (one reliable, important and relevant source is a good enough) but to say that their importance appear tenuous. A reply that consists of short quotes with precise references in a logical framework is what I'm looking for. --Rikurzhen 20:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the critiques expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research, I think it has a direct rel ation to this article - R&I research, as funded by the Pioneer Fund is criticized as possibly being biased and inaccurate. How much more of a direct relation can you get, than a direct criticism of any findings made because of bias possibly introduced by your funding source? Would you consider criticism of tobacco industry funded research only "tangential" to the research they conducted? What would be a direct relation in your POV? --JereKrischel 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the critiques expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research -- where does this come from? who would you cite to support this claim? --Rikurzhen 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about American Behavioral Scientist, 1995? Google scholar lists several others as well. --JereKrischel 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary from that article of the author's view: This article documents the central role played by the Pioneer Fund in the propagation of academic racist ideology. It shows that the Pioneer Fund is embedded in a network of fascist-oriented foundations, think tanks, publishers, global anti-Communist political coalitions, religious fundamentalists, and paramilitary organizations. The Bell Curve thus comes out of a complex fascist movement whose pedigree is clearly linked to World War II era fascism. This fascist movement is closely tied to and part of capitalist-controlled American political institutions. Fascism therefore is best understood not as a spontaneous "populist" working-class or middle-class movement, but as a politically orchestrated and well-funded instrument of the capitalist ruling class. I'm not sure that the anti-anti-Communist POV of anti-PF/TBC constitutes even a significant minority under WP:NPOV. --Rikurzhen 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As per above, I'm aware that there are articles about PF in the lit. What I don't see in them is a connection to "bias" or a challenge to the "validity" of the science which PF has supported on the basis of it being PF supported. (It's a rather precise argument. The mere juxtaposition of criticism of R&I as bad with the criticism of PF as bad would not be support.) In fact, I would find it strange that anyone would attempt to make such an argument given that it would essentially suggest fraud on the part of PF-supported researchers. Per above, what's needed is the outline of the argument with supporting quotes and references. If this can't be provided, I would take this as evidence that there's no support for the existence of critiques expose potential bias and challenge the validity of Pioneer Fund funded research. --Rikurzhen 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you've read the abstract and completely missed the point. Asserting that the Pioneer Fund propagates academic racist ideology is a direct challenge to the validity of the research it funds, and a clear assertion of bias (whether causal or coincidental). "The Bell Curve" is particularly vilified, with the assertion that it comes out of...facism. Note that in the context here, "facism" is not compatible with "valid" or "unbiased". I understand that a dry reading, considering "facism" as simply another form of government without any other negative context, can make it seem like nothing is particularly being said, but I think that the argument is fairly clear from the quote...although I'm more than happy to outline it more deliberately if you wish. --JereKrischel 08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A political and moral condemnation is not equivalent to a scientific one. Evil <> wrong. That's why we have separate subsections to discuss each. I believe the R&I/PF "is evil" POV is sufficiently covered. --Rikurzhen 08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's exactly your misunderstanding - let me see if I can be more clear stepwise: Valid and unbiased research == good. Invalid and biased research == bad. Fasicm/facist == bad. Pioneer Fund == facism. -> Pioneer Fund research == facist. Therefore, Pioneer Fund research == invalid and biased. The abstract you quoted does not say, "Pioneer Fund is evil but funds unbiased and valid research." The political and moral condemnation is directly challenging the validity of their scientific results and inherent bias - even though it is primarily an ad hominem attack, that is the charge that is being made. They are not criticizing Pioneer Fund grantees for being evil in regards to things like abusing their children, or stealing from babies - they are criticizing Pioneer Fund grantees for being evil in regards to the invalidity and bias in their research and conclusions. --JereKrischel 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument you present is not valid. They are arguing that PF research is the product of Fascism and that it's bad, but bad <> wrong. They are criticizing them for what they regard as the political aims of the organization. A political criticism is not identical to a factual criticism. Again, evil <> wrong. A similar line of reasoning wrt Hitler and Darwinism has recently made news. That Hitler used Darwinism to justify evil doesn't mean that Darwinism is wrong. Factual claims are not made true or false by their political or moral implications. Read the "Utility of research and racism" section, where we've covered this topic in detail. --Rikurzhen 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're making a false analogy - the fact that Hitler used Darwinism doesn't mean that Darwinism is wrong...but, the fact that Hitler concluded that other races were inferior, and supported research that would "validate" his POV, certainly is an attack on research conclusions regarding inferiority. Nobody is saying that because the Pioneer Fund supports researchers that use genetics, that genetics are wrong - they're saying that because the Pioneer Fund supports researchers who use genetics to come to "facist" conclusions, the conclusions are invalid and biased. In this case, it is clear that by "fascist" they mean "invalid and biased". Regardless if their published arugment can be shown to be a logical fallacy (ad hominem), that is the argument they are making. We're just stating their argument, not judging its correctness. --JereKrischel 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think that the formulation you've given is actually their argument. If it was, they should have made it clearer. Merely making a political/moral criticism, which is what they do, is not sufficient for a scientific criticism -- you've done nothing to show how it would (other than to make arbitrary distictions between evolution and genetics on one hand and R&I on the other, begging the question). --Rikurzhen 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're again, conflating their method of criticism with what they are criticizing. You are correct that they are not criticizing their conclusions based on scientific means (that is to say, they aren't illustrating how they have miscalculated, or misunderstood data - though others make those arguments), but the *are* criticizing their conclusions, and the *are* asserting that their conclusions are incorrect, and they *are* asserting that their conclusions are biased. I know it may be difficult to understand the concept of criticizing one's research and results by criticizing the funding source (and nothing else), but just try and imagine it in parallel to critics of tobacco industry scientists - the research conclusions are being challenged, even if on an ad hominem basis. I think if you can grasp the concept that it is a political/moral criticism of research results (rather than a political/moral criticism of how they treat their chilren), you'll understand clearly that regardless of the method they use to challenge the validity and bias of their research, they are in fact challenging it. --JereKrischel 06:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, again, I strongly suspect you are misreading. The best solution is (per above) to read them carefully, write summaries of the most notable ones that make use of a few inline quotations to show what argument they acutally make. From what I've read, they say that they are wrong and they say that they are evil, but they don't acutally say that they are wrong because of bias. (For example, the word "bias" doesn't appear in the A.B.S. article linked above. It does say that TBC is a fascist declaration of war providing "anti-working-class ideological cover for the 'Contract on America' and for the systematic dismantling of the welfare state" -- referring to the "Contract with America" and the Welfare reform bill that's recently been in the news because of its anniversary.) --Rikurzhen 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, let me ask you: what do you consider must a paper critical of R&I research (whether it be the PF, the Bell Curve or anything else) contain for you to consider it contains criticism of R&I research or science? I've heard a lot of why you consider the paper under discussion is not scientific criticism (as opposed to social/ethical criticism), but not about what it must contain to qualify as scientifc criticism. I think that would help turning up the right papers.--Ramdrake 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, but it's partly my fault. My intended emphasis is on what these papers don't say -- they don't seem to say that PF funding causes bias, or a variety of other proposed formulations around "bias" -- not on what they do. Coincidently, what I've read from them seems to be political/moral condemnation, largely directed at the poltical implications sections of TBC. We can only use them to cite support for the arguments they do make. Maybe someone can point out the text I'm missing where they comment on bias. --Rikurzhen 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've read several of those criticisms extensively, and can point to where the accusations of bad science (bad in the sense of scientifically misconstrued, not morally bad), are, and it's actually a bit larger and different than your definition of "bias" (which is incidentally narrower than mine, but that's somewhat beside the point). However, I would absolutely need from you a definition of what you would accept as an argument that the research, or its results, or its conclusions (or any combination of these, as the case maybe) are scientifically wrong. Please note that I'm redirecting the concept of "bias" (on which we have diferent definitions) to the more general concept of "bad science" (on which I'm hoping we can more readily agree).--Ramdrake 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just re-read your comment there, and maybe you have a point that the point most of those articles make is that PF-funded research contains a lot of bad/biased science, whether it be the research itself, the results, their interpretation or any combination thereof. The affirmation PF thus biases research is actually an inference, but a totally warranted one under the circumstances. --Ramdrake 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, then perhaps you want to point out some relevant excerpts and explain exactly what you think they are saying. Thus far, I've only seen arguments of the form R&I is bad and thus is wrong. Re: inference -- Ultramarine once argued that a similar inference could be made on the basis of Tucker's work. We have since resolved that it cannot.

Rikurzhen, I still need you to define what you would accept as an argument that the research (or its results or it conclusions) is scientifically wrong. Please humor me: it's the third time I'm asking this question.--Ramdrake 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the Pioneer Fund does not do the science directly, as it funds researchers, we must turn to criticism of Pioneer grantees to see solid accusations of what I call is bad science.

This is a criticism of the poor science and misrepresentation of data of a prominent Pioneer Fund grantee, Richard Lynn. The criticism is by Leon Kamin.

Lynn's 1991 paper describes a 1989 publication by Ken Owen as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence." The study compared white, Indian and black pupils on the Junior Aptitude Tests; no coloured pupils were included. The mean "Negroid" IQ in that study, according to Lynn, was 69. But Owen did not in fact assign IQs to any of the groups he tested; he merely reported test-score differences between groups, expressed in terms of standard deviation units. The IQ figure was concocted by Lynn out of those data. There is, as Owen made clear, no reason to suppose that low scores of blacks had much to do with genetics: "the knowledge of English of the majority of black testees was so poor that certain tests...proved to be virtually unusable." Further, the tests assumed that Zulu pupils were familiar with electrical appliances, microscopes and "Western type of ladies' accessories."

In 1992 Owen reported on a sample of coloured students that had been added to the groups he had tested earlier. The footnote in "The Bell Curve" seems to credit this report as proving that South African coloured students have an IQ "similar to that of American blacks," that is, about 85 (the actual reference does not appear in the book's bibliography). That statement does not correctly characterize Owen's work. The test used by Owen in 1992 was the "nonverbal" Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is thought to be less culturally biased than other IQ tests. He was able to compare the performance of coloured students with that of the whites, blacks and Indians in his 1989 study because the earlier set of pupils had taken the Progressive Matrices in addition to the Junior Aptitude Tests. The black pupils, recall, had poor knowledge of English, but Owen felt that the instructions for the Matrices "are so easy that they can be explained with gestures." Owen's 1992 paper again does not assign IQs to the pupils. Rather he gives the mean number of correct responses on the Progressive Matrices (out of a possible 60) for each group: 45 for whites, 42 for Indians, 37 for coloureds and 28 for blacks. The test's developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs. Matrices scores, unlike IQs, are not symmetrical around their mean (no "bell curve" here). There is thus no meaningful way to convert an average of raw Matrices scores into an IQ, and no comparison with American black IQs is possible.

The remaining studies cited by Lynn, and accepted as valid by Herrnstein and Murray, tell us little about African intelligence but do tell us something about Lynn's scholarship. One of the 11 entries in Lynn's table of the intelligence of "pure Negroids" indicates that 1,011 Zambians who were given the Progressive Matrices had a lamentably low average IQ of 75. The source for this quantitative claim is given as "Pons 1974; Crawford-Nutt 1976." A. L. Pons did test 1,011 Zambian copper miners, whose average number of correct responses was 34. Pons reported on this work orally; his data were summarized in tabular form in a paper by D. H. Crawford-Nutt. Lynn took the Pons data from Crawford-Nutt's paper and converted the number of correct responses into a bogus average "IQ" of 75. Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils. Seven of the 11 studies selected by Lynn for inclusion in his "Negroid" table reported only average Matrices scores, not IQs; the other studies used tests clearly dependent on cultural content. Lynn had earlier, in a 1978 paper, summarized six studies of African pupils, most using the Matrices. The arbitrary IQs concocted by Lynn for those studies ranged between 75 and 88, with a median of 84. Five of those six studies were omitted from Lynn's 1991 summary, by which time African IQ had, in his judgment, plummeted to 69. Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund. It is a matter of shame and disgrace that two eminent social scientists, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research.

That's just one. I can find many more. So, to recap, there are accusations of a moral nature against the Pioneer Fund and the research it funds, but also there are scientific objections of bad science, which you will find associated principally with the researchers whose work has been funded by the Pioneer Fund, rather than associated with criticism of the Pioneer Fund by name. Put together, and you can link the Pioneer Fund with accusations of funding bad science.--Ramdrake 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Journals criticizing funding

Re:these journals don't contain any criticism of any funding agency Journals do discuss any relevant issues. For example, the PF was discussed in Intelligence, but only in Weyher's editorial criticizing media presentation of the fund. Funding biasing researchers would certainly be relevant.--Nectar 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many other journals have criticized the fund. Regarding Intelligence, it has several Pioneer Fund grantees on its editorial board.Ultramarine 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

too much space in intro is spent on PF

there's no mention of PF in the best reviews:

• the APA statement
• the WSJ statement
• the 2005 PPPL articles

There's Tucker, Lombardo, and a variety of reviews of The Bell Curve which mention PF. There's the Gottfredson incident, and the SPLC classifcation as a hate group. Anything else? Which of these relate directly to this article? I'm afraid that too much is currently being made in the intro out of very little published substance. --Rikurzhen 08:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, it started with just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field. Then, a tangible quote was requested as to how and why it could bias the results, and that was added. Then,a whole lot of explanations were added saying the Fund wasn't so bad, that fundees had to defend themselves from media opinion, etc. So yes, it kind of spiraled out. I think what's impotant to mention is that the fund has been criticized for a number of reasons. The rest is only counterarguments trying to say the fund isn't that criticized (in a very restricted sample of journals), that most of those criticizing it aren't specialists in the field, etc. Do we really need all that wording to try to compensate for stating a fact (that the Fund has been criticized)?--Ramdrake 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

just the mention that the funding from the Pioneer Fund somehow biased the field or some of the scientific results in the field -- But the quote doesn't seem to say that at all. To cause "bias" is to cause "bias" in interpretation. To fund a line of research is not "bias". However, the main question I raised is whether the PF criticism deserves the prominent treatment it receives given that we're scarping far-flung individual sources to piece together a criticism -- we're not simply getting it from a review article. --Rikurzhen 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For the critical side of the edit, I used a total of two citations. I wouldn't call that "scraping together far-flung individual sources". What may look more like the expression you used is the amalgamation of sources used to try demonstrate that the Pioneer Fund criticism is restricted to some circles, and/or does not exist in the journals of the field, and that overall its influence can be considered a "weak plus". And I'm using the word bias in the largest sense possible, so feel free to substitute another more appropriate word if you feel that it differs from your definition of "bias".--Ramdrake 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Lovely quote

I read a lovely quote from Martin Gardner yesterday:

are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article — well-written and impressively learned.... ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.... The modern pseudo-scientist... stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field..... The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and — until recently — publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.

FWIW, I encountered it in this review of Wolfram's New Kind of Science. Seems like a pretty good description of the PF gang to me. LotLE×talk 14:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a denial of all intelligence researchers, represented as a criticism of the Pioneer Fund. Less than 1/5 of the members of the editorial board of Intelligence have received grants from the PF (5 out of 26, including the journals' editors, who have not received grants). Staunch environmentalists like Sternberg and Flynn are also on the board. Less than 1/10 of the editorial board of Personality and Individual Differences have received grants (3 out of 40). The Pioneer Fund has seized the imagination of Misplaced Pages editors like nothing else. To put to rest any claims that the statements in Gardner's quote apply here, these researchers' highly cited articles have been published in too many journals to list, but include APA journals like Journal of Consulting Psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychological Bulletin and American Psychologist (ask for citations). Gardner's quote ("almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field") states what Misplaced Pages editors have neglected to acknowledge, that the opinion of researchers in a field (e.g. Sternberg) are in standard academic practice given preferential treatment to the opinion of researchers who don't have experience in a field. (What this does not mean is that opinion outside of a field is necessarily given little or no importance.) --Nectar 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, you asked for a comment, you've got a comment... What else can I say? To me, Lulu's comment seemed more like a specific denunciation of the Pioneer Fund than something flung at the intelligence research community in general. At least, that's how I see it.--Ramdrake 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I have no idea what the point is supposed to be about the board of Intelligence; certainly there are researchers interested in intelligence as a concept who do not have the whole racialist agenda and cliquish self-reference of the PF folks. When someone like Lynn simply cannot be published outside of white supremecist vanity presses for his latest book, it's probably pretty telling of the fact he's a crank.

In truth, if this were really an encyclopic article rather than an advocacy piece, the first sentence would be something along the lines of "Race and intelligence is a pseudo-scientific movement to advance racialist thinking, and to justify a social policies of racial discrimination". But I know it's hopeless to dream of this article ever resembling something an NPOV encyclopedia would contain. LotLE×talk 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay dokay... the quote is from a view of Wolfram's New Kind of Science -- about mathematics, not R&I. I strongly recommend this totally OT thread stop here and move swiftly to the archives. --Rikurzhen 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Gardner's comment was not itself directed at Wolfram. The reviewer, Cosma Shalizi, merely felt it happened to fit Wolfram's work; just as I happen to feel the description happens to fit PF's work (and therefore most of what is in this article, which is mostly just advocacy of the PF grantees' agenda). I haven't looked up Gardner's original context... he may have had someone specific in mind, but he obviously wrote it in a way to be more generally applicable. LotLE×talk 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering this is the first comment generated from Nectarflowed's RfC, I would strongly suggest the whole thing be kept here at least until the end of the RfC. Sounds only logical to me.--Ramdrake 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is all we can expect from a RfC, then why bother? Lulu's comment is entirely useless, offering no insight to the question of the RfC. It cites his personal (and fringe) view of the subject, making suggestions that are obviously unactionable. --Rikurzhen 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think it offers an insight on the question of the RfC, just a very different one than was expected.--Ramdrake 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not my comments "offer insight" (I had no idea there was an RfC... if so, why is the discussion here rather than there?), it would be extremely unseemly and insulting to selectively delete my comments but not others. Obviously, I would expect my comments to be archived at the same time as other contemporaneous ones, but not on one editor's judgement of the lack of worth of their content. There are quite a few pro-PF comments in this thread, and generally in this discussion page, that I think fail to "offer insight"... but I'm certainly not going to selectively delete all those comments I unilaterally judge to lack worth. LotLE×talk 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an RfC is always a good thing, if only because it offers us a chance to see a subject from a different perspective. Whatever that perspective is, even if that perspective is diametrally opposed to ours, I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand as "fringe" or "without insight". Lulu's comment reiterates what I felt as a first impression when I first came to the article, that in some respects, this looks more like glorified pseudoscience than real, debatable and improvable science. It reminds me of "creation science", which starts from a preordained conclusion, and looks for "evidence" that fits and/or supports the conclusion.--Ramdrake 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Until someone can demonstrate what I'm supposed to take away from the exchange that has to do with writing the article, rather than trashing its subject and its editors, I'm finished with this thread. If anyone feels like being productive, there's an unanswered thread here that's on topic. --Rikurzhen 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe and simply, that people don't have to agree as to what an article ideally should look like to agree to work together on improving it little by little?--Ramdrake 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The (only?) way to improve this article is to read the literature, stick to summarizing what's been published in reliable sources, and maintain adherence to WP:NPOV in the strongest possible way. As per the thread I highlighted, I don't believe the literature is being properly consulted on the PF topic. I suspect that I understand the series of events which led to this situation, and the only recourse I see is to read the literature and stick to summarizing what it actually says. --Rikurzhen 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that the determination of what sources are considered "reliable" is the subject of POV. The assertion that criticism of the Pioneer Fund is inherently unreliable is just as POV as asserting that any research that they fund is inherently unreliable. Let's just clearly state that the criticisms have been made, by reliable sources which are not definitive but merely representative, and make sure we clearly state that the Pioneer Fund funded research is also generally reliable sources which are not definitive, but merely representative of a certain POV. So long as we don't assert that anything is definitive (especially in the context of such a contentious subject), we abide by NPOV. The problem I see is when people want to arbitrarily define their POV as both reliable and definitive, rather than merely reliable and representative of a given opinion. --JereKrischel 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant reliable in terms of WP:RS to exclude partisan web sites, etc. Professional publications are certainly reliable. Notable of course is another matter. What matters most is that the actual content of these papers has been examined carefully. They shouldn't be glossed over and then used to support a claim that they might actually not. --Rikurzhen 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Professional publications are not "certainly" reliable - I think in fact, the argument being had is over which professional publications count as "reliable". Although perhaps we should agree on terminology first. "Reliable", if it is to include both Pioneer Fund researchers, certainly should include their detractors. "Notable", I would argue clearly includes Pioneer Fund critics. And insofar as carefully examining papers, I think you run into several issues here - part of the argument against folk like Rushton, for example, is that they have taken others' works (Cavalli-Sforza), and glossed over them and used them to support claims they actually don't. One might argue that since Rushton did the glossing, and not a WP editor, his gloss is allowed...but then the same would be true of anti-hereditarian folk who glossed over things as well. I am strongly supportive of the idea of making note of the glosses made by pro-hereditarian folk, and making clear their contradiction with their original sources - I think much of the concern over this article is regarding "glossy" support of pro-hereditarian positions. --JereKrischel 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this thread has made progress towards communication. Consider the problem as I've described it in the thread I linked. --Rikurzhen 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

moved from accusations of bias section

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund (which according to the Southern Poverty Law Center "has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve") supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another The Pioneer Fund has been strongly criticized by anti-racist groups and some scientists and journalists. Also, prominent critic Ulric Neisser states that the fund's contribution has overall been "a weak plus". On the other side, it is asserted that misguided political correctness has led to large-scale denial of recent developments in the human sciences.

based on the discussion above, it appears that this text should not be part of the "accusations of bias" section. i've moved it here to preserve it. i believe most of the data is contained in the subsequent "pioneer fund" section, without the attempt to link PF to bias. --Rikurzhen 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Based on the discussion so far, it seems that this text is highly relevant to the accusations of bias section. Particularly the recent cite of Lynn's poor science and link to the Pioneer Fund shown by Ramdrake. Reverted back to inclusion. --JereKrischel 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For the record, same objections as JereKrischel. The accusations against the PF-funded science range from ideological/moral to purely scientific, and may have been made against the fundees more prominently than against the fund per se, especially the accusations of bad science. That would be normal and one certainly can't disconnect the two, or pretend there is no connection. I believe at this point the connection has been more than amply demonstrated. I'll ask again: what more do you need?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we're back to square 1. I see nothing in Kamin's text that Lynn is wrong b/c he is a PF grantee. It is a WP:NOR violation to build such an argument. We're also treading on WP:LIVING if we construe these various authors statements as such. --Rikurzhen 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. The resoning goes: The PF is wrong because it funds bad/biased/racist science (bad in the sense of scientifically bad). How can it be demonstrated that it funds bad science? By looking at the detailed comments of a critic of such science. So, instead of trying to turn this on its head and say that you don,t see how Lynn is wrong because he is a PF fundee, try to see it this way: PF funding is bad because it funds people whose results (and I'm quoting from above) tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another by using methodologically unsound science.--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The text in from this section that is most problematic is:

This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund ... supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races... by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another"

That says:

"accuation" ... "Pioneer Fund" ... "research" ... coincidence ... racialism/segregation ... justify racism.

An alternative reading is simply that PF supports R&I research, which the author thinks is evil It doesn't say: the influence of PF is to bias researchers and hence their research results are compromised --Rikurzhen 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you suggest we rephrase a direct quote to avoid offending your sensibilities? Also, it's already been discussed and established that the Pioneer Fund has funded the majority of R&I researchers. So, I don't think I'd dare call it a coincidence anymore.?--Ramdrake 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to rephrase, as a question this time: is systematically funding ideologically and scientifically biased science the same as imparting a bias on a given field of science? I say emphatically, yes.--Ramdrake 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You begged the question. Nonetheless, the answer to the question of whether these authors are accusing researchers of scientific bias is "no". --Rikurzhen 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the section reads "accusations of bias" rather than "accusations of scientific bias". So ANY type of bias forces a "yes" to the answer, not just scientific bias. Which does remind me that I still need you to define "scientific bias" by opposition to "bias" in general. I'd like to know the definition I'm expected to work with, as like any other guy, I just hate battling windmills.--Ramdrake 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but I mean functionally. "Is a researcher's scientific judgment compromised?" None of the sources I have seen make such a claim. They make a variety of other claims, which are not sufficient us to conclude that this is what they really mean. --Rikurzhen 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, can you concede that asnwering yes to another question: "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is also a case of bias, not the same kind of bias as what you're referring to above, granted, but certainly bias nevertheless.--Ramdrake 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that has nothing to do with "accusations of bias". None of these papers, including the quote used in the text, appear to make an argument for PF causing bias. The word "coincidence" is as strong as this quote appears to draw the connection (it doesn't say "cause"). You could substitute "association" if you prefer, I mean them interchangably. --Rikurzhen 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this sure sounds like an accusation of ideological bias, at the very least unless you can prove to me otherwise.--Ramdrake 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I can prove that you're misreading...? Set the material aside for a while, clear your mind as best as possible, and then reread the source(s). --Rikurzhen 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original text from which the quotation is taken:

While acknowledging a need to respect the two professors' academic freedom, Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that "this research is being done in the name of white supremacy." He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."

This is a very strong and very specific claim, which is different from the implication of an "accusation of bias". It also comes from a source who is not in a position to be able to make judgements about the science. --Rikurzhen 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So "Is a researcher's ideological views compromising the correct interpretation of the data?" is a question germane to bias, but the affirmation: the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another." is not germane to bias (when we know the systematic "results" and interpretations of people like Lynn and Rushton, just to name a couple). I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PF tends to support research that produces result X does not mean that PF causes the research to always produce result X. If that's what was meant, it could have be said. The speaker did not go so far as to make that claim, and it would be inapproriate for us to conclude that he did. --Rikurzhen 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're using a false straw-man here, Rikurzhen - PF only supports research that tends to produces result X is what is stated, not PF tends to support research that only produces result X. The two cases are very different if you think about it for a minute. Furthermore, nobody has ever stated that PF causes the research to always produce result X, what has been stated is that the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers - the cause of the researcher's bias is unknown, but it seems the Pioneer Fund selectively supports those with bias. Bias does not always force a specific result, but it can make the results invalid. --JereKrischel 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did misspeak, but it doesn't make a difference. However, you have begged the question here: the Pioneer Fund supports only biased researchers. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the quote: He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another.". I think you're assuming that I'm defending the validity of the criticism - on the contrary, I'm merely stating that the criticism has been made, and that others have made a link between Pioneer Fund supported research, and invalid and biased results. We can argue all day about whether or not the criticism is valid, true and accurate - but it is beyond argument that the criticism is made, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In the argument, you substituted results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. with biased researchers. This, of course, begs the question of whether that's what's meant. The original source appears to be talking about racism, not "biased researchers". --- There's a discussion on the talk page of WP:NOR which may address the heart of the problem. Primary sources, not secondary sources, are the only ones being used. This tends to lead to WP:NOR violations. In this case, I don't see anything about "bias" in the quotes being offered. All I see is discussion of "racism". Without a secondary source, this question of differeing interpretation of primary sources suggests a WP:NOR problem. --Rikurzhen 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages offers this as part of its definition of Bias: A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for (sic) having a preference to (sic)one particular point of view or ideological perspective. So, saying that the PF supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races... really fits the definition of bias. Most people will agree that racism is a form of ideological/social bias. And I would like to warn you against going down that alley about using mostly primary sources: a massive part of the scientific argumentation in this article is based primarily if not almost exclusively on primary sources as well, and it's been contended many times that several key arguments look like original research.--Ramdrake 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's sufficient strength to the claim to see a charge of "racism", but not "bias" in what's written. That is, the NAACP president appears to be saying that the research is motivated by racism. The article cites primary source, but is written primarily from consultation secondary sources (see the external links section). Are there secondary sources which discuss PF in connection with bias? --Rikurzhen 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough. I think it can be said that the comment we've been citing back and forth is tantamount to an accusation of bias, either directly or through it being an accusation of racism (which itself is an ideological/social bias). This doesn't need yet another quote, yet another source to show the PF has been accused of supporting only research with a specific agenda in mind, science which has been described with a number of epithets: "bad", "lousy", "misrepresenting the data", "misconstrued" and I'm missing more than a few tastier ones. In clear, what I'm saying is that whether you call it racism and I call it bias makes no difference, as racism is a type of bias (or is it your contention racism isn't a bias?) We could put it to a straw poll, if you wish?--Ramdrake 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this debate has gone on long enough, and I doubt that merely continuing this debate would resolve the problem. If you read the entire "controversy" super-section and sub-articles, you will see that comments about racism and comments about bias are fundamentally different. The racism charge is reflected, for example, when Sternberg (2005) accuses Rushton of making poor choices of research projects. The charge of bias is leveled by Pinker, Whitney, et al that the debate is being suppressed by a bias towards environmental determinism. Do you see the difference? Ramdrake, as far as I can see, the only possible resolution is to present a secondary source to make the argument for you. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The only difference I see is that racism is a particular type of bias (belonging in the family of ingroup biases. At this point, I think the demonstration has been done that the PF has indeed been accused of bias (whether this bias is a general one or specifically racism is beyond the point). I'd say let's call a straw poll on this: Should racism be considered a type of bias?--Ramdrake 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

policy implications

quote #1 is about abolishing welfare. quote #2 and #3 are predictions about forseen negative outcomes. some more description about what exactly is being criticized about what H&M said might help tighten this up. remember to put page numbers on quotes. --Rikurzhen 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the summary of the chapter from which quotes #2 and #3 come:

we speculate about the impact of cognitive stratification on American life and government. ... Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. towards something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired even more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. Among the other casualities of this process would be American civil society as we have known it.

Not so sure this chapter is relevant to this article. Perhaps the affirmative action chapters would be more relevant. --Rikurzhen 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

UL, your latest change has it backwards. The fear is that infantilizing low IQ people will then lead to limitations being placed on their liberty. Still not sure this is on target for this article. p.s. They're not recommending "reservations", they're warning against them. --Rikurzhen 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They are warning that this will happen if their policies are not implemented.Ultramarine 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

you wrote: they fear that as hostility toward the welfare-dependent increases, a "custodial state" will be created. On my reading that should be a custodial state will lead to hostility toward a welfare-dependent population, or something like that. Still not sure if this is on target w/ race and IQ. --Rikurzhen 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's cool, but just b/c this is discussed in TBC doesn't make it about R&I. it is about IQ, which makes it about race and IQ, but not in the specific. Is there a more direct link? --Rikurzhen

Archiving

Err... Archive, anyone?--Ramdrake 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

archive at will. if we want something, we'll fish it out. --Rikurzhen 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 24 all done. Jokestress 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quantifying validity

There seems to be a move afoot to suggest to the casual reader that some scholarship is more valuable or relevant in this debate. This brings me back to something I have been saying since last year about Gottfredson's Mainstream Science on Intelligence collective statement vs. the APA's Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns consensus statement. The former is one-tenth as influential as the latter if one goes for these citation quantifications, and the oft-cited (here, anyway) Snyderman & Rothman survey is only slightly more notable than the Gottfredson piece, relative to the APA. So if we are going to heirarchize everything, we should point out the relative lack of influence of Gottfredon et al. and S&R compared to the APA piece. Thoughts? Jokestress 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, which probably means this would have an WP:NOR problem. One could argue that S&R surveys 500+ scholars, WSJ surveys 50+ and APA surveys ~10. --Rikurzhen 08:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article has taken into account the hierarchy in influence between these collective statements implied by this citation analysis and by that one of the statements largely represents the official opinion of the APA; I don't see any citations that give it undue prominence. Citation analysis is a valuable quantifying tool in gauging influence, but of course isn't the only consideration, per Rikurzhen's point. Also, the APA statement probably has increased weight in the sense that the journal it was published in has a very large readership, but on the other hand MSoI probably has increased weight from it being published in one of the foremost specialist journals in its area. (This discussion was partially started by the discussion at Talk:Institute_for_the_Study_of_Academic_Racism.)--Nectar 12:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting statistic is that (according to LG), nobody has ever said that MSoI does not represent the mainstream consensus. On the other hand, there are several reactions to the APA report that criticised it for being biased. So (if we want to play this game) the score is 0-several. But I think it would be much more useful to identify the issues where APA and MSoI agree (e.g., measurability of intelligence, observable gap between test scores between populations), and then present these points in this article in the same way we write about the shape of the Earth. Arbor 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, they only "disagree" on one point -- the cause of group differences -- and here each is conspicuously indirect (employing careful spin). MSoI reports that Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. Of courese this allows signers to agree that most experts agree w/o agreeing themselves. APA says It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. As Murray points out, the term "direct" before "evidence" here makes the claim so specific as to have no bite. So, materially they don't actually disagree, but they both spin the causation question differently. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy implications - 17 August 2006

Policy implications is now messy. There are several problems, large and small:

1. what's wrong with "argue"? i find it commonly used in the scientific literature.
2. the quotes from TBC take up a lot of room, but don't seem to have any specific implications for "race", only "intelligence"
   1. besides In Our Hands, which calls for a direct cash-transfer program, has Murray debated Welfare since the 1996 reform?
   2. affirmative action seems to be the most direct thing to discuss

--Rikurzhen 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bell Curve in general is about races. We should certainly point out that any policy affecting those with low IQ will affect memebers of all races.Ultramarine 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But maybe we should move the Bell Curve material to a footnote, it is quite long? Ultramarine 18:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine. So long as we move beyond the current state: footnoting, summarizing, etc. --Rikurzhen 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

size and detail are better. --Rikurzhen 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

do the IQ curves completely overlap each other?

The IQ curves completely overlap each other. "Substantial" would indicate that *some* part of the IQ curve of some races lies outside of the IQ curve of others, which is false.

actually, we don't know if they "completely overlap each other". the formulation often used is to talk about IQ "levels" (which implies there are small, finite number of levels). thus, in the U.S. individuals of every race can be found at all IQ levels. it's quite possible that there are some small groups which might be called "races" which have no individuals with 200+ IQ scores. because of birth defects, there are certainly people at the lowest levels from each group, which was a safe formulation. there are many public policies that target low IQ (few/none that target high IQ), so this is probably the right way to formulate it. --Rikurzhen 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fist of all, the IQ curves are Gaussians. By definition, Gaussians extend from (minus infinite) to (plus infinite). However, because of probability considerations, most specialists consider them to extend from 0 to 200 or from 4 to 196. Second, the graph we are using and our entire discussion or that matter only shows the "four largest" racial groups (hispanic isn't really a race, but the point is irrelevant here). Due to their extremely large membership, it is basically assured that all four racial groups do have members at all levels of the curve. And lastly, even if there did exist some minor racial group which wasn't large enough to have representatives at all levels (and that's a hypothetical), there at most could be one point of non-overlap somewhere. Saying there is "substantial" overlap means there exist definite regions of non-overlap. These regions are hypothetical and not one is proven up to now. Thus, the word complete is adequate until we have found at least one region of non-overlap of one racial curve versus another. You're right that we don't know or a fact that they completely overlap each other. But theoretically they do overlap completely and experimentally we haven't found a single counter-example. So, complete is the better term until we know more.--Ramdrake 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are probably no Khoisan or Australian natives with IQs of 200. Moreover, the highest IQ person in the world puts their race at an IQ that is unique. These are the things that concern me. Better to talk about all "levels" rather than overlaps. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an objection about using the formulation "all levels", and actually it may be more appropriate than trying to qualify the overlap. I've modified the sentence accordingly. Hope it's more to your liking.--Ramdrake 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. "Complete overlap" would mean the curves cover the identical space, one placed precisely on top of the other. That would be true for any groups that have identical average IQs and IQ distributions.--Admissions 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite what "complete overlap" means, but that's alright. "Complete overlap" would mean the two curves have exactly the same range in abscissa. It doesn't say anything about the comparison of ordinate values for the same abscissa value. But your comment, at the very least, is a good indication of what the wording might be interpreted as.

Duh-on me! If one were to say the "curves completely overlap", then your interpretation is right. My interpretation would correspond to the wording that the "curves' ranges completely overlap". My boo... so glad Rikurzhen prodded me to change it.--Ramdrake 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are there any sources for this overlap? As Rikurzhen pointed out there may not be any Australian natives with IQs in the 180+ range. African Americans have white admixture which complicates the issue. While at it, are the means correctly shown in the bellcurve picture? I believe they differ for the various races. --Zero g 12:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By definition, the IQ curves are population distribution curves, so any population should have representatives at all levels of the curve. And it is clear that if you parcel out the population in small enough groups (racial or otherwise), gaps may appear in the curves for the smaller groups. But the construct of the curve is such that the basic assumption is that there are no gaps, thus you are very unlikely to find a source to affirm the absence of gap (or complete range overlap). Conversely, so far, I haven't seen a single report of a population where any gap in the IQ curve was measured. And as far as anybody has been able to ascertain, the means are shown correctly on the current graph, and may even be very slightly overstated (it depends on one's POV).--Ramdrake 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Using that reasoning there'd be 200+ IQ dogs. Asuming some intelligence genes are unique to specific populations, like the genes for a black skin color is unique among Africans, there logically is a boundary for each race if you exclude members of mixed race. Next it would be rather easy to determine the existance of 180+ IQ native Africans and Australians, and if such data is available it would be nice to include to make the point. As far as I can tell the means are all the same in the graph. --Zero g 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

there are several cites for the "levels" formulation. the bell curve "levels" there are: <75, 75-90, 90-110, 110-125, >125. --Rikurzhen 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier on this thread, the highest level of intelligence attainable by humans is (according to my readings) either 196+ or 200+ (depending on where you want to set the limit of what's measurable in IQs). This is for the entire human population, and has not been shown to differ for any subpopulation so far. Your assumption that "some intelligence genes are unique to specific populations" has not been demonstrated yet, and is just that. Also, BTW, the polygene responsible for dark skin is not unique to Africans (Aboriginal Australians and a few other Pacific peoples also have dark skin). And no, it wouldn't be easy to determine 180+ IQs in these populations, no more than it is anywhere else in the world: first of all, such a high IQ is exceedingly rare (I'll let someone else calculate the odds) and second, the vast majority of IQ tests just can't test that high (or at least become unreliable in this high IQ range). Lastly, just out of curiousity, how do you read the bell curve graph to get the impression the means are all the same?--Ramdrake 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since many IQ tests use multiple choice it's well possible for a retard to score 200 which contributes to a bellcurve shape. Possibly this deserves mentioning. Regarding skin color, you're correct, but it's a sharply contrasted genetic difference among races. Purely theoretical it could apply to intelligence genes as well. Unless there's valid research proving different it might be wise to not make such bold statements. Regarding the curve, I was using the wrong term, I'm refering to the standard deviation, which according to the article is 14.7 for whites and 13.0 for blacks. I don't believe this is shown correctly in the graph. If so it should be adjusted, because it implies there are more whites with very low IQs than currently shown. --Zero g 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Showing a variable SD is aesthetically very unappealing. It also matters very little except at the extremes, where a normal fails to describe the true distribution anyway. --Rikurzhen 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So the article is showing an incorrect graph because it's more aesthetically appealing? I find that odd to say the least. I strongly suggest using the unappealing but correct graph. --Zero g 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The graph is modeled on a publication by Gottfredson. The further complication is that we do not have reliable SDs for groups other than Blacks and Whites. Keeping SD=15 is the best solution for that graph. The latter graph (IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png) uses more precise SDs. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ramdrake, although that's how IQ works in theory, in practice it does not work that way. the gaussian assumption operates only at the level of setting the scoring criteria based on a standardization sample. after that, anyone is free to score as high as the test might actually go. at least in the U.S., the population tends to have many more people w/ high/low IQ than would occur if the distrubtion were gaussian (normal). --Rikurzhen 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And you, Rikurzhen, are absolutely right that the Gaussian curve is just an approximation; the high/low end statistical weights are higher than a Gaussian would predict, not only in the States but pretty much everywhere IQ tests are being widely used. However, each test is usually made to target a specific range (depending on which test one looks at), so may not all be appropriate to measure the high range. But I digress; the fact that the high and low ends have larger weight distribution than a Gaussian would predict is what makes me believe it is very likely that the ranges of the IQ curves overlap completely.--Ramdrake 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This SD graph is only really showing two things, mean value and a visual representation that IQ's vary amongst the races (though inaccurate at how much). To be honest, I don't really understand the purpose of showing a normal curve. These equal standard deviations suggest that Asians are unequivically the superior race, in terms of intelligence, along with their deserved highest mean IQ. However, though Asians do have the highest mean IQ standard deviation amongst caucasians SD is greater meaning the graph should show a higher amount of caucasians in the ~140 range albeit a higher amount in the 50's. Therefore Asians are not clearly more intelligent in all aspects since caucasians produce more geniuses. If you don't agree with my facts imagine any other scenario or that guys issue with blacks being misrepresented. So, reminding you of the name of the article, this graph seems to be more of a misrepresentation of the facts than a simple table showing the mean data. It's more harmful than it is useful. I'd like to see it deleted or changed. 207.216.213.121 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)RoosterCogburn

the difference between an SD of 13 (circles) and an SD of 15 (lines) isn't big enough at the tails to bother with the effect it has at the median. --Rikurzhen 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on RFC

"Is there a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals?"

On the face of it, no there is no distinction. To classify The American Journal of Psychology, American Behavioral Scientist, and Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences as "generalist journals" makes no sense when compared to journals such as Science and Nature (less extreme examples make sense also). I can imagine being able to identify the more generalist and more specialist of any pairwise comparison of two journals, but I can't imagine any classification rule existing for classifying journals as either "generalist" or "specialist".

That being said, the real question is whether:

1. "Criticism of the Pioneer Fund (PF) has been limited to some general journals, and hasn't been raised in the specialist journals that deal with intelligence research regularly" is a fact, and
2. (if this is true) what does that say about the status of the PF, and PF funded scientists, within the community of scientists.

Part of the methods for supporting this statement are described by one editor thusly: Journals deemed "specialist" in the field were validated using a citation analysis technique comparing the relative frequency of two words in their abstracts: target word "IQ" and control word "influence". There was no cross-check using another pair of words (such as "intelligence" and a known common word like "results"). Using "IQ" vs. "g" vs. "intelligence" deserves defending, and an explanation of this whole endevour probably ought to have a methods section, and a results section, and an introduction and a discussion, in short I think it qualifies as Original Research.

As for what this statement would mean about the status of the FP within "science", I disagree with the unstated assumption (?) that "specialist" journals are more authoritative about their research areas than are "generalist" journals. Journals which focus on a narrow research topic may be described as minor journals. The most prestigious journals are also the most generalist. This is no accident. A paper on a specialized topic, if sufficiently important and well-done, will appear in a more "generalist" journal than a less generally relevant, or less conclusive or elegant paper on the same topic.

The second question version is:

"Can editors decide which journals are "specialist" enough and use such decisions to assert that opinions (such as criticism) published in journals other than these is somehow less important or notable - even if the topic in question is a "meta" topic that is not ever directly addressed by any specialist journals."

Many of the same comments apply. I just don't see how to resolve editorial debates about how to address the role of PF funding in this article. But neither do I think that resolving this issue of what's a "generalist" or "specialist" journal holds the key to progress on the issue. Hope this helps. Pete.Hurd 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bogus arguments

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

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

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.

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

Problems with classification

I don't understand why is it that African American get to represent all people of african descent and all black people. I think this is a very americocentric view to look at race and intelligence. Perhaps the article can be revised to reflect this. I know the article says black mean people of african descent lving in america, but african americans make up less than 5% of the entire black population so it is a very poor sample and highly inaccurate to say any stat regarding IQ in regards to the black race by using a small sample cluster group who live as a minority under white oppression. Now I'm not going to talk about my suspicons of why this article seems to pick very specfic clusters in its sample, but the artic;le needs to be revised. Having American Chinese represent all Chinese as IQ is also bias. What about all the Chinese who don't get into America because they are illeterate or have no education etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.31.232.210 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected. Please discuss in talk how to resolve content disputes. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit this article, but note that it currently reads as facts rather than opinions. For this article to be compliant with WP:NPOV, POVs have to be attributed rather than asserted. The article as it stands now, deserves the {{POV}} tag and a lot of work from dedicated editors to fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

jossi, "the Earth is round" doesn't require attribution. unquestioned facts, such as the existence of group IQ differences, are presented as such. opinions, such as the various theories to explain the differences, are attributed. see the external links section for a collection of review articles which will make the consensus/controversy breakdown clear. --Rikurzhen 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason for that. The sample size in the study of the roundness of the earth was 1. This corresponds with the number of recorded earths: 1. So the sample was in fact 100% of the population in question leading to a Standard deviation of zero. For this article to have the 'fact' equally well grounded we could I suppose remove the problem of the definition of group and sample size by restating it thus: "It is an unquestioned fact that there exist group IQ differences. A study of groups A, B, C, and D showed that group A scored X points over group C. Group A consisted of U.S. 12 individuals who labelled themselves as Asian-Americans. etc" The problem would seem to come from labelling a tiny group - as pointed out below the only group well represented in the study shown in the graph were whites. I agree with Rikurzhen here, and so I'm sure he'll agree that the diagram should more clearly represent this fact, and thus we should relabel the diagram to correspond with it: remove the labels White, Black, Asian and Hispanic (in order of sample size, and label them A, B, C, D). In the footnotes, explain what A, B, C, and D mean. (e.g. 12 individuals who labelled themselves Hispanic, and took IQ test Z in 1981). This would be totally NPOV. Macgruder 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

fyi - the pov tag was being added by Zen-master, who has a problem with this topic to the extent that it keeps him from being able to behave within the bounds of WP policy. his opinions should not be construed as reasonable or informed. --Rikurzhen 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Group IQ differences" is an incomplete and misleading description, there exists an abstract IQ test result disparity, the cause or causes for the disparity are unknown/disputed. Words such as "race" and "group" that emphasize just one among many possible data correlation possibilities should not be used to describe the abstract disparity, "Nutritional IQ differences" describes the exact same abstract disparity. I (Zen-master) was not the one adding the pov tag. Wait a Second 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a big problem with much of the article is the idea that there are "unquestioned facts" - on our own time, with our own opinions, I think there is common ground between people like myself and Rikurzhen in regards to what the data shows and could possibly mean. However, "the existence of group IQ differences" is not an "unquestioned fact" - it is begging the question as to what groups we're talking about. Certainly, one could consider the specific results of specific groups actually tested as an example of "group IQ differences", but extrapolating that to represent a larger group is more problematic, and not so unquestionable. And regardless of Zen-master's behavior issues, such personal problems of his do not necessarily mean we should discount his opinions as unreasonable or ill-informed - his method of expressing hiimself may be crude and in need of improvement, but I certainly must agree that there is a problem with the article presenting things as "unquestioned facts", when in actuality the context of these "facts" is highly questionable. --JereKrischel 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, come now. The APA and WSJ statements present a firm grounding of "unquestioned facts" at their intersection. I don't see where your point about extrapolation is aimed, but certainly not at this article, which is well qualifed with clauses about which populations are being described. --Rikurzhen 09:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The question as to whether the populations being described from the studies accurately represents the populations being asserted is an open question, don't you think? --JereKrischel 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the same token then, the AAA statement should be considered "unquestionable fact", and its statement that races are really nothing more than social constructs should make the point of this article moot. Or is it more reasonable to considered all such statements as no more than the informed opinion of a large consensus of people rather than incontrovertible fact (in which case Jossi is right and this article needs some rewriting to make in compliant)?--Ramdrake 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you can't write an article by pre-fixing "the mainstream scientific view is" before every non-controversial claim. Compare to evolution or global warming. If you or anyone else has specific criticisms, you should outline them on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Jossi used a fraction of the time you or I have used to look at this article. Still, currently jossi is preventing us from rewriting the article. Let's make him remove the ban. Apart from that, I am all for (and so is everybody else here) finding out what is fact and what is opinion. That's my only reason for hanging out here. We are doing a very good job, better than on any other WP article I can think of. Arbor 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, no offense, but we should not be trying to find out what is fact here - we should be reporting on opinions of both sides of the issue to leave the matter in an NPOV state. From the standpoint of searching for truth, I agree with your motivation, and exercise that in my own life, but as odd as it may seem, that doesn't seem to be the point of Misplaced Pages. If it isn't already clearly agreed to as fact, we should simply report the claim and its source - and certainly there is a lot of "fact" stated in the article that is highly contested given the misleading context into which it is stated. We should be here not to determine what is fact and what is opinion, but to report on opinions here clearly, with attribution, and in proper context. I think we are currently failing a bit on all three counts. --JereKrischel 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, my comment to Ramdrake applies here too. you can't write an article by pre-fixing "the mainstream scientific view is" before every non-controversial claim. Compare to evolution or global warming. If you or anyone else has specific criticisms, you should outline them on the talk page. FYI - WP:NPOV requires editors to make distinctions between mainstream, minority, and fringe views. Thus far, we have treated most causal theories as if they were each mainstream. The personal views of Zen-master/anonIP, even when backed by primary source citations, are obviously fringe/singular. --Rikurzhen 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the causal theories are not mainstream - consider this, can you name a pro-hereditarian published that wasn't funded by the Pioneer Fund? On the other hand, how many organizations on the anti-hereditarian view exist? I would suggest you look at it like global warming - skeptics may in fact be doing the better science, but their views are considered fringe. Similarly, although you may believe pro-hereditarians are doing the better science, their views are not mainstream in the scientific community at all. Perhaps unjustifiably so, but true nonetheless. --JereKrischel 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, I'm not simply reporting my personal opinion -- which would be worthless to building this WP article. See Snyderman and Rothman (1987) -- described in the "expert opinion" section. According to these authors, the majority view among people knowledgable about IQ is that BW IQ differences are caused by both genes and environment. As described in that section of the article, several researchers who hold the "entirely environmental" view have acknowledged that they hold a "minority" view. Correction above: I should have used the term "majority" rather than "mainstream", which is what WP:NPOV says. --Rikurzhen 05:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what WSJ says: There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. ... Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. I should be, and I hope is, what we report also. --Rikurzhen 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psychol/Psychology/Skeptic.htm, Rikurzhen. Herrnstein and Murray present what they consider to be the consensus of scholars working in the field of intelligence. Snyderman and Rothman (The IQ Controversy) present similar data... You can hardly expect anyone to agree that such a particular sample yields a "fact" - it is clearly opinion of the authors, and should be represented as such. Not to mention the fact that science is not done by consensus (note, I do recognize that point is cross-purpose of my original assertion) :). Here's an extended quote from the article I mentioned:

Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ.

I think the rest of it is very interesting as well, and hope you read it. Considering the significant challenge to the claims of "mainstream" by pro-hereditarians who believe in racial differences, I find it hard to consider such work as even "majority" - unless we have a neutral party do the survey, and identify the population and formulate the questions to eliminate bias, you have a self-fullfilling prophecy, I think. --JereKrischel 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, I can't understand what you hope to accomplish with the argument you just presented. I'm quite certain that the article currently follows NPOV in describing the results of S&Rs survey as what it is. But I'm also certain that your expression of skepticism about their result is unsupportable with regard to building a WP article. If we could directly substitute our own judgments for those of experts (when such judgments are available to us) then that would set us on a very slippery slope. I don't believe the IPCC report is unbiased, so I'll not take it into account when writing an article on global warming. --Rikurzhen 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rephrase that as, the IPCC report is the opinion of the IPCC, so I'll not refer to it as "fact" when writing an article on global warming...does that make my point clearer? The skepticism I have is not a reason to categorize any argument as unsupportable - but it is important to assert who has what opinion, rather than try to assert what is fact and what isn't. That's the heart of NPOV, I think. --JereKrischel 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sternberg is only part right. There is an quantative relationship between within group and between group heritabilities (Jensen 1998). ... Rather than answering my reply, let focus on specific discussions about the article. I can understand if you and Ramdrake would like to poke holes in the article, but please think about WP policy while you do it. --Rikurzhen 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe my comment stands. Specific discussions? See global warming as a model. You can't prefix every textbook-type "fact" with a prefix about it being uncontested. The material in WSJ are top candidates. --Rikurzhen 06:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand you regarding the WSJ - it seems that Skeptic magazine clearly makes the point that the "facts" you wish to state are in fact contested, and should be expressed as cited opinions. Added the disputed tag to other sections as well, following your example, Rikurzhen - good find on that tag. --JereKrischel 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's not useful if it's not spelled out. (2) Sternberg doesn't support their claim, but rather makes a case against vote-counting in science. (3) We'll get no where talking in generalities, but if we must -- you're generally wrong. (4) Discuss specifics, because generalities aren't getting us anywhere. --Rikurzhen 08:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I think I see a source of confusion. Caveatting something as a "fringe" view is very different than the extreme degree of mischaracterization and exclusion of those alternative views that is happening in the current version of this article. And how should we go about trying to prove to you these alternative views are in fact not "fringe"? Science is completely intertwined, "race and intelligence research" does not exist in a vacuum, criticism should be allowed to come from related fields. The word "fringe" seems like it has the errant effect of discouraging a serious mental consideration of an alternative viewpoint. It seems contradictory for you to claim that Zen-master's views are "personal" while at the same time stating "even when backed by primary source citations"? My views (Zen-master) come from an interpretation of those contradictory primary sources. Wait a Second 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also probably time to remind people that Zen master's thesis consistently fails the test of WP:NOR. The primary vs. secondary sources discussion above only reinforces the ease with which WP:NOR can be violated when we don't take care to mind the distinction between an original vs published synthesis of primary data. For example, none of us has the technical sophistication of a psychometrican, and yet that would be required to fully/critically comprehend most of the primary-source IQ data. --Rikurzhen 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I think you might be confused about Misplaced Pages's "No original research" policy, that only applies to not creating your own sources, interpreting an article to be violating the principle of neutral presentation is an entirely different issue. The concepts of neutral presentation and the scientific method are much higher standards than any source. Science generally is presented as a "working hypothesis" which can be refuted, but for some reason "race and intelligence research" is presented as an induced or absolute conclusion, this subtly but massively violates the principle of neutrality. Neutral presentation requires us to report on what researchers are investigating from the standpoint that the cause or causes for an issue are unknown, only then can possible working hypotheses be proposed. When this issue is incompletely framed around "race" it jumps the gun and errantly puts the conclusion cart before the presentation neutrality horse. Please try to understand there are valid alternative and abstract ways of thinking about and mentally framing this issue, escape the dichotomy. Wait a Second 13:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one am very taken aback at jossi's protection. I have placed a message on his talk page to get him to clarify his reasons. An edit war with an anon vandal shouldn't be the reason for such heavy-handed measures, there are much better ways to handle that on WP. I suggest the sensible editors quickly agree that there is not reason that this pages is protected from us, right? We would like to keep the vandals out, but the rest of us are doing an exemplary job at using the WP infrastructure to construct what I think is a model WP article, and protection at this stage is just disruptive. No matter our disputes, I suggest we all agree to move to unprotection or semiprotection and then proceed as usual. If one of "us" disagrees, please let us hear the reason. Arbor 12:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to read up on the rules a bit more. Jossi asks us to resolve "the content dispute". With whom? (1) I assume he means "our" content dispute with anon user (who may or not be Zen-master, who is blocked from this page). By nature of anonymity, there is no way for us to resolve such a dispute and we are screwed. I seriously have no idea what steps he wants us to take before we can humbly request unprotection. (2) Does he mean the content dispute among the contributing editors? He cannot. We are behaving extremely well (it's a royal pleasure to edit this page sometime!), and if jossi is blocking that then we need to take much more complicated steps. We are discussing content all the time here, and ought to just continue doing that. We don't need protection for that. Does he want us to continue filling the talk page with another 300kB of well-reasoned discussion before we can humbly ask for unprotection again? Arbor 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, no matter how heated the debate is on the talk page, and no matter how serious the disagreement is (especially considering how serious it is), I think it speaks volumes that we don't revert each other any more often than we currently do. If this measure is based on a revert war with the anon, semiprotection is what is needed; if it is a preventive measure because on the heat of the current debates, I think we're all mature enough to keep the debate mostly on the talk page and not let the stability of the article suffer overmuch.--Ramdrake 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The "anons" are also contributors, and should be encouraged and welcome to editing Misplaced Pages. In looking at the history I see that their edits are summarily deleted without discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What you call "the anons" is User talk:70.68.206.90. The talk page is full of requests from other editors to stop vandalising the R&I page unless he wants to be banned. I would be happy if that policy were implemented, instead of you protecting the page. Arbor 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to questions about the protection, placed on my talk page) Please note that the protection was due to edit waring not because of POV. POV is not grounds for protection. NPOV does not mean just providing sources. I means writing from a neutral point of view, describing and attributing POVs rather than asserting them. A well refrenced article, as this one is, can still be in violation of NPOV, which I believe is this case here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, if there is interest in continuing with editing, without edit waring please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit warring is between us and an anonymous vandal. (My case for vandalism is based on the warnings on his talk page User_talk:70.68.206.90.) Exactly how should we phrase our request? I fail to understand the grounds for protection. The edit warring is made by two parties: (1) an anon vandal, and (2) us, who revert him. Should we pledge to stop reverting him? I don't understand what is asked of us. Arbor 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The anon and collaborating names are most likely sockpuppets of Zen master. The recommended escalation step is WP:RFCU. --Rikurzhen 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the WP:RFPP. If somebody would look over the phrasing and edit it, please do so. Jossi, if you protection was based on edit warring, not on a POV accusation, then perhaps the next time it would be a good idea not not conflate the two by starting a section about Protection by accusing us of POV in the second paragraph. I consider the protection debate over and eagerly await unprotection, If (independently from that) you want to continue debating POV, then I am eager to do so. I suggest you use anther headline for that. Arbor 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I (Zen-master) was not the anon adding the pov tag. Have you and everyone read the recently posted above massive amount of critical sources? If you want to continue debating that is a good starting point. Given contradictory sources the principle of neutral presentation prevents us from describing a subject using only one sides methods, language and paradigm. The misleading concept of "expert opinion" is not anywhere close to being enough to permit the exclusion of contradictory allegations and sources. If you truly believe something to be false you should want to refute it, rather than exclude or unchallenge it. To be neutral you have to mentally risk the possibility your "conclusions" are wrong. Wait a Second 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Arbor 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chart, the curves, the colors, the heaviness

Does it not seem obvious to anyone else that the first chart which appears mostly dark purple is, by its choice of colors, both suggestive and misleading? Whenever there are several datums, one of which overlies the next, and the next, and so on. The common practice is to present the overlying data in a light, transparent color. The reason for this, it allows the data just under it to be more easily viewed. And the next datum under the second data should be of a darker color and so on. This allows a person to more easily observe the data such a chart presents. Having dark purple as the overlying data is uncommon practice and exactly opposite to what any college class would tell you to do when you wish to present 4 curves each under the other. Terryeo 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You could offer to redraw it. The main goal was to avoid a skin-color/curve-color match, which could upset some people. Various attempts to redrawn the graph have been made. My last attempt is: File:RaceIQ-mockup-SVG 1.svg. I'm not skilled enough in SVG to get the curves filled transparently w/o nasty artifacts. --Rikurzhen 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To present an information on top of another information, make the bottom most information darkest in color and least transparent and make the top most information lightest in color and most transparent. Terryeo 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png

Not sure it's a noticeable improvement in clarity. --Rikurzhen 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why is that "colors" aren't light/dark. In the original image, each of the colors appears to be of approx. equal luminosity. But it might be possible to make the top curves more transparent and the bottom curves less. --Rikurzhen 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave it to Terryeo. Do whatever you think improves the graph. Arbor 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Points to improve

1One of the "pearls" I reacquainted myself with in this article:

The most widely accepted view among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences among individuals of the same race reflect real, functionally/socially significant, and substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor, g. It is likewise widely believed that average IQ differences among races reflect real and significant differences in the same g factor.

I had to reread this four times to figure out that the "substantially genetic" part was left out of the description of the between-races differences in IQ. This wording leads the unwary reader to think "intelligence researchers agree that differences in IQ are real, mean something functionnally and are substantially genetic, and the same goes with IQ differences between races (I especially like the "likewise")". It says nothing about the controversy, it even manages to go beyond the "expert survey" which says that they favored a "partially genetic" explanation (reading this, one might think the most generally accepted view is one of "substantially genetic" causes). This needs to be rephrased to ensure it is clear the "substantially genetic" explanation does NOT apply to between-races variations.--Ramdrake 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The next paragraph begins: However, it is a matter of debate whether the causes of IQ differences among races are entirely environmental or partly genetic.

Ramdrake, is the parallelism not appropriate? The original formulation included numbers in parentheses to show the parallel explicitly. An extra paragraph break has also been added. Previously, the controversy was described directly after this sentence describing the consensus. Individual differences are substiantially genetic (80%), where the hypothesis about group differences is that they are "partly" genetic (to an unknown extent). --Rikurzhen 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

is the parallelism not appropriate? i guess the answer is no? --Rikurzhen 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2 If the purpose of this article is to show that there are IQ differences between races and that there may be some genetic component to it, can we lose the pat of the discussion about relative brain size? I don't see that it adds anything to the article except maybe to try to demonstrate that Blacks are inferior (which I think is really not the point of this article and racist to boot). If it contributes anything, let's discuss it here.--Ramdrake 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brain size is one of the most carefully studied biological correlates of g. If there were IQ diffs w/o brain size diffs, then that would be noteworthy. The point is that race diffs in g between races has a biological basis. I can't imagine a legitimate claim that it's not relevant. --Rikurzhen 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but you blunt affirmation The point is that race diffs in g between races has a biological basis is not backed up by evidence or by the expert opinion. At most, the expert opinion agrees that race diffs in g between races may have some biological basis.--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jensen (1998). You need to keep the term genetic and biologial distinct. BW differences in hypertension are biological, but the degree to which they are due to genetics is a different empirical matter. --Rikurzhen 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, what about sociological, educational, psychological bases? Everybody seems to agree they have something to do with this as well, but your statement (has a biolgical basis) amounts to denying they have anything to do with the observed effect.--Ramdrake 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neisser 1997 suggests that education/experience affects brain growth.--Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the prime cause is educational. The biological part is the mechanism by which education may affect IQ (through brain growth).--Ramdrake 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the heritability of brain size is 90% and the brain-size/IQ correlation of .4 is mediated entirely by genetic factors, so education would have to a "Factor X" in the language of Jensen (1998) in order to explain BW brain size differences. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

3 The fact that there are differences in the brain sizes and brain structures of different racial and ethnic groups was well known and widely studied during the 19th century and early 20th century. This fails to take into account that several of those studies were found biased and that to this day, there isn't one good comparative racial study of brain sizes. Thus, presenting it as a well-known "fact" is a misrepresentation.--Ramdrake 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

presenting it as a well-known "fact" is a misrepresentation. Do you have a reference for that? I know SJ Gould tried to make this point in the MMoM, but it wasn't taken up. The ref for brain size differences between races is the APA report . --Rikurzhen 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SJ Gould did make the point. That it wasn't taken up is your POV, not mine. Also, looking at the APA report (I have it in front of my eyes and read it three times ), it says something about a relationship of brain size to IQ, but nothing about race oriented differences in brain sizes. Could you highlight for me the passage where it says there is a difference in brain size between races? Otherwise, I'd rather stick with Gould's debunking, or at least state that racial differences in brain size is an opinion rather than a fact.--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Neisser's reponse to comments: "Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe." The predicted BW brain size gap is only .4 SD (so it's no surpise that it should less than within group differences, just like IQ). SJ Gould is not a reliable 2ndary source for this topic. That should be perfectly obvious from the scholarly responses to MMoM. --Rikurzhen 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And that pale statement makes the "fact of a Black-White brain size difference widely known since the 19th century"? And since nearly all the scholarly responses for MMoM came from Pioneer Fundees, I should take their word over Gould's? To me, it's a he-said-she-said. These are all opinions since we can come up with someone to contest it.--Ramdrake 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You should take Neisser's opinion over Gould's. Your obsession of PF is clouding your ability to work on this article. Per Sternberg's discussion with Skeptic magazine, science is right or wrong regardless of who did it or how it was funded. Gould's claims in MMoM are roundly criticized, and more important to us are out of the mainstream of scientific opinion. --Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not very NPOV, Rikurzhen - you're making value judgements inappropriately here. Both Gould and Pioneer Fund grantees are criticized - it, as he points out, becomes a he-said-she-said. We should neutrally report on their opinions, and not elevate one or the other to "fact" basd on our own biases. --JereKrischel 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gould is criticized for being wrong across the board on this topic. MMoM is not a scholarly work, as per below. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel is right: you'd rather take the opinion of Neisser over Gould. I would rather take Gould's over Neisser. We both have our biases, so be it, I can live with mine if you can loive with yours. :) The only way out of this that's NPOV is to report that both statements are opinions.--Ramdrake 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is the basis for making such judgments. Gould is not an authority on IQ research, and his statements in MMoM have been roundly and consistently criticized as uninformed/wrong. If we cannot make that ascertainment then we are surely helpless here. Gould is not a reliable source. His opinions are of the third class WRT NPOV -- tiny minority -- as documented by the respones to MMoM and the survey data of S&R 1987. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your desire to exclude Gould as wrong based on criticism of him can just as easily apply to any Pioneer Fund grantees - declaring him a non-reliable source based on your characterization of him being fringe, we should be able to do the same regarding Pioneer Fund folks like Lynn who fake IQ scores based on tests which don't map to the same distribution...and so on and so forth. Would you care to exclude anyone who has been accused by anyone else of being "fringe"? I'm sure we can both find multiple references on both sides for those accusations. --JereKrischel 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gould's MMoM is not a schoarly work on the basis of scholarly criticism of it. Again, this is something that everyone who has previously been a major contributor has agreed on, notably Ultramarine. Your counter point is moot. The only cases where Rushton is referenced in the main text is (1) when he is a co-author with Jensen and (2) to cite him as a supporter of the hereditarian view. --Rikurzhen 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine does not represent my POV, and his agreement does not make the point moot. Your assertion that Gould's MMoM is not a scholarly work can certainly be echoed by folk who have made clear that any Pioneer Fund grantee lives under a cloud of suspicion because of the infamous history of that organization. You really can't have it both ways - if citations of criticism are enough to exclude Gould, there is no reason why citations of criticisms cannot exclude Pioneer Fund grantees. Let's face it, Rikurzhen, this is a controversial topic, and you saying you're right, and me saying I'm right about a particular thing being "fact" or not isn't constructive. NPOV can help us through by guiding us to state the opinions people have, rather than trying to demand that some opinions are "fact" and others are not. It is not unreasonable, in a field of such controversey, to give that sort of soft touch, even if you believe in your "facts" without a doubt. --JereKrischel 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JK and Ramdrake, if you begin treating Gould as a scholarly source then we can have no debate here. That's simply ludicrous, and you are losing any trust I previously had in you two trying to engage in a scientifically sound debate here. The idea hat Gould should be even comparable in trustworthiness in this issue to Neisser is beyond the pale. Your comments upthread make you look like well-meaning but stubborn amateurs who are trying to make sense of a complex subject using only an extremely skewed understanding of the literature. Like trying to edit Evolution after having read only creationist texts. (It goes without saying that I strongly support the idea of presenting Gould's POV in this article because it is significant and widely publicized. But I thought we all had read up on how Gould's book was received by experts.) Arbor 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, I don't think we should be having a debate here, do you? It is not up to the editors to determine what is true and what is not - after all, I could spend pages and pages describing the poor science and shabby methods of luminaries such as Rushton and Lynn (and by association anyone who has cited them), but that really isn't the point, is it? I understand your frustration in not being able to convince me or Ramdrake of 1) the accuracy of your POV, and more importantly 2) that the highest aspiration we should have here is to present the definitive POV. I know it can be terribly frustrating to know in your heart of hearts that you are right - but this isn't about being right. We should not be trying to assert which POV is the most accepted (we certainly couldn't agree on a metric for that), nor should we be trying to denigrate and marginalize people promoting oppositve POV (although mentioning their reception by "experts", or the checkered past of their funding source does seem fair game, so long as it is stated in a neutral manner). This is a controversial topic, and I think the fair, middle ground it to accept that both sides believe they have the "facts", and to represent their beliefs as opinions, not as being right or wrong. It is not an insult to your POV to present the opinions of the experts as their opinions, not as established fact. And as a well-meaning amateur, I must say that I wouldn't dare try to assert my judgement (or make a judgement) between the "trustworthiness" of Gould and Neisser - and I don't think even experts in the field should either. --JereKrischel 08:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i think also you might not realize that Neisser (1997) is an extension of the APA report. Neisser was the chairman of the committee which wrote the report, and this reference is his response to critics of the report. Amongst the critics were Lynn and Rushton who criticized him for leaving out brain size measurements from the report. Neisser's reponse was to say, yes I see there are brain size measurements, but I don't think they mean what Lynn and Rushton think they mean. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, my point was only extending to Gould's opinion on brain size differences (that there isn't a significant racial difference). Regarding this point and this point only, I am comparing the opinion of a paleontologist and evolutionariy biologist (Gould) with that of a psychologist (Neisser). Of the two, who has the most expertise to address this specific point? I would say Gould, hands down. Please also notice this has nothing to do with what Gould thinks of intelligence testing, whether criticized or not. Do you have any example of a criticism of Gould's book leveled specifically at his opinion of brain size studies?--Ramdrake 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gould's emprical research expertise is on the evolution "land snails", not human evolution (i.e. physical anthropology). If you dig you'll find discussion of Gould's claim to have correctly recalculated brain size measurements from a historical researcher (Morton), but more importantly, no one regards Gould as having summarized the mainstream opinion (his is criticized for this -- e.g., he makes no mention of MRI in MMoM, and his references are mostly historical), only of having presented his own opinion. This is discussed below. --Rikurzhen 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

4 Snyderman and Rothman (1998) studied both media opinion and media portrayal. --Rikurzhen 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, where does it say the media "misrepresented" the expert "opinion"?--Ramdrake 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) --Rikurzhen 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean your source for this, of course, complete with actual quote, please.--Ramdrake 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The source if Snyderman and Rothman 1988, per the page I linked. I don't own the book. --Rikurzhen 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but the statement got there somehow. Until it can be verified, I'd keep the call of "misrepresentation" out of the article. For now, it could be just the opinion of whoever read the book, for all we know.--Ramdrake 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How are we miscommunicating? I've read and summarized S&R 1988, which is what you can read here. The thesis of the book is that media portrayal is misleading wrt intelligence research. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, are you saying that you haven't read the book? But you feel in a position where you must edit a sourced statement? Do you have other reasons (like, another reference to a contrary opinion)? Arbor 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be misreading this, but isn't the issue that we simply don't trust Rikurzhen's summary? Having a direct quote would probably help things - no offense Rikurzhen, this isn't to say you don't have the best intentions, but we all have our biases, and they can creep in no matter how vigilant we are. I know Rikurzhen said he didn't own the book, but I assume he has access to it still - or should someone else head to the library and look for the reference? --JereKrischel 08:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

tags

you'll need to point out what specifically is being disputed in the tagged sections. tags aren't useful unless backed up by material from the talk page. i believe my objections to the PF claim (and especially the presentation of the NAACP office quotation) in the "accusations of bias" section are clearly spelled out in a section above. --Rikurzhen 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, JereKrischel, WP:POINT. Improving the factual accuracy is an admirable enterprise. Throwing tags around isn't. Arbor 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, maybe the foofewopinions tag is a bit overlooked. I see a lot of use and abuse of disputed, which claims factual inaccuracy, which (given the super-careful formulations used in this article) often comes off as ludicrous. What many of the editors here seems to be critical of is a perceived skewedness in reporting. Consider using toofewopinions, if that's what you mean—we might become more productive! Here is how it looks. Arbor 13:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

.

Thanks Arbor, that looks like it may be useful in a place or two. :)--Ramdrake 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to make clearer the disputed facts in my comments, and I'll follow up on details as time permits - I'm not trying to throw them around carelessly, but I believe Rikurzhen served as a good example, and wanted to follow his lead in clearly identifying the areas which are factually disputed (primarly because opinion is presented as fact, both in and out of references). I'll add more later, please see my check-in comments for my initial basis and concerns. --JereKrischel 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

facts and opinions - the opinions that people hold are facts

From WP:RS

• A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can feel free to assert them.

• An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Misplaced Pages if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

• that certain psychological traits have been found to differ by race is a fact about what has been reported. (the person who's opinion it is is described in the footnote; there's not enough room to always say who the authors are inline).
• that IQ differences vary by race is a fact that scholar seriously disputes.

--Rikurzhen 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that certain psychologial traits "have been found to differ by race" is not a fact - the context required for that statement (what is your definition of "race", for example, were the test subjects representative of this "race"), is a critical bit of information, without which the "fact" being presented is patently disputed. And we can always say that "authors" assert something about results without specifically identifying them by name. --JereKrischel 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead block of the article and subsequent section purposefully set out working defintions of race. This is not just background, but setting out the working assumptions of how the article will be described. Per WP:NPOV, it's necessary to make certain assumptions when writing article (about science). (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions) That races refer to groups that people are generally concordant about is one of those assumptions.

I'm not sure what you mean by we can always say that "authors" assert something about results without specifically identifying them by name, but it sounds as if you want to rewrite each sentence to cast doubt on all conclusions. As per below, the assumption that a published finding is suspect is implausible for the healthy writing of an encyclopedia article. --Rikurzhen 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe you're finally understanding NPOV - we should not be asserting disputed "facts" with certainty - there should very well be doubt. Especially considering the contradictory published findings, it certainly does not belong to us to determine what should be portrayed as having no doubt at all. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The nature of race is disputed. The existence of various race differences (which you are calling disputed) are not. The dispute over the nature of race does not make the uncontested findings about race differences not "facts". This was a topic of debate long ago and this was the conclusion we reached. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of various race differences are disputed, if the very utility of race is disputed (Cavalli-Sforza). I'm sorry I wasn't around to join in on your debate a long time ago, but I frankly disagree vehemently with your conclusion, and I think you can hardly expect me to agree to a conclusion I was not a part of simply because it predates my editing on the R&I page. Again, I think we do ourselves the best favor, and honor NPOV, if we simply avoid trying to assert that disputed "facts" are undisputed fact. Let's simply present the opinions of those giving them, with the appropriate citations, and leave the decision of what is "fact" and what is not to the reader. --JereKrischel 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The logic that gets you to saying that conclusions about IQ, etc. differences between races is disputed on the basis of "race" being disputed is not appropriate. It's exactly what "making necessary assumptions" is about. I'm sorry that we're the only once left to have this conversion, but I can't stress enough that your recommendation goes beyond what's reasonable or appropriate. --Rikurzhen 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, since we are so far apart on what "necessary assumptions" should be made, I think it behooves us to abide by NPOV by simply stating what opinions are out there and who has them, rather than trying to make a decision as to what is "fact" and what is not. The entire construction of presenting opinions as opinions, rather than converting them into "facts" is what allows people with wildly divergent viewpoints on a topic to work together - try for a moment to write for the "enemy", and see if you can put yourself into the other set of shoes for a while. I think you are so convinced of being "right" that it is very difficult for you to understand the other point of view. I know I fall victim to this kind of myopia as well at times, so it isn't meant as a slight - we all get stuck once in a while. --JereKrischel 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i can't even remember where this conversation started, so i simply recommend that we stick to specifics. but what i am certain on in the specific is that debate about the nature of race does not impinge upon our descriptions of the existence of race differences in IQ, etc. like creationism and the evolution of horses (the example from NPOV), the race debate is background about which a necessary assumption must be made in order to describe this topic. --Rikurzhen 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate about the nature, or the utility of race is a huge caveat that must not be glossed over. It would be like talking about acts of divine intervention reported by the news without addressing the issue of whether or not there is a god or gods or goddesses. Without presenting the appropriate context (which I believe is absent from much of the article), we are simply asking the witness, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?". --JereKrischel 05:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have a whole section titled "race" that describes the background. It's the very first thing after the lead block. --Rikurzhen 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems indeed to be an text-book example of what WP policy advocates. Arbor 08:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Question - how far should our assumptions go? For example, should we simply assume that we're only talking about U.S. blacks, or should we make that context obvious in every example? (I would argue we should specify U.S. blacks when that is the case, but I also understand some of the research does not do a good job of making things clear.) What about laying out in the intro the other caveat of "not every bit of research has used the same working definition of "race", and so therefore may not be applicable in combination?" I'm not entirely averse to listing our assumptions in the intro, and sparing the text, but as it stands I think there are many unwritten assumptions being made (for example, when the APA said it found no "obvious" bias, the assumption that that meant it found that there was no bias of any kind). --JereKrischel 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

test bias

there is no detectable racial bias in IQ tests (textbook fact).

that's what the APA meant by "obvious" bias. they don't mean that non-obvious bias is also known. --Rikurzhen 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You should use the quote from the APA, rather than replacing the word "no detectable" for "obvious". The two are very different. --JereKrischel 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think this is exactly the major problem I have with most of the references - they are subtly asserted as facts with different wording which changes the meaning. Rikurzhen has taken, The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, and turned it into there is no detectable racial bias in IQ tests, which clearly isn't what the quote stated. In fact, the APA did not say anything about there being no detectable bias - they only said that there were no obvious bias - they clearly leave room for closer examination to detect racial bias. --JereKrischel 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know the literature well enough to reach these conclusions from reason alone. Which is not to say that I might not be ignorant of some vital criticial source. However, a position of default skepticism against the conclusions of (now rather old) scholarly publications is not justified. --Rikurzhen 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly avoid the issue by sticking to quotes instead of doing personal paraphrasing - regardless of experience in the field, I can certainly tell the difference between an original quote and a paraphrase which changes its meaning in a subtle way. It will take time to go through all of the subtle bias that has crept into some of the statements of "fact", but I'm sure together we'll be able to remedy the current state of dispute into something much more NPOV. --JereKrischel 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Excecpt you're misreading the APA report, as per below. We certainly can't write an article that consists only of quotations, citations, and linking phrases. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misreading the APA report at all - claiming that there are no "obvious" biases does not preclude the existence of subtle biases. Conflating their report with others who claim categorically that there are no biases at all is inappropriate, and POV. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You will fail to find a reliable/recent secondary source which claims that there is any evidence for test bias. They will claim that the question of test bias has been long ago resolved. --Rikurzhen 01:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.),The black-white test score gap(pp. 1-51). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. . Jencks and Phillips conclude that: ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap." (p. 20) Now that I have illustrated to you that there are reliable and recent sources which contest your assertion that the issue is one-sided, are you more amicable to including a healthy dose of skepticism for both sides? --JereKrischel 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Be a bit more careful! That's talking about the hereditarian causal theory, not test bias. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inerrant, but I'm not clueless either. As per the material from Sternberg's handbooks (below), there's no doubt about the test bias question. --Rikurzhen 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From Jencks & Phillips: Labeling bias. Labeling bias occurs when tests claim to measure one thing but really measure another. Jencks and Phillips say that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability. Because developed ability depends heavily on environmental characteristics, groups that live in disadvantaged environments will score lower. . I think you're right that we should be careful - "test administration bias" is not the only type of bias that can affect scoring. --JereKrischel 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See below. --Rikurzhen 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The APA is not the only source. The WSJ report says "Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class." The conclusion of no bias is also reported in S&R 1987. The consensus of the consensus reports is no bias, as described by Jensen (1980). --Rikurzhen 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then Dickens and Flynn (in press B) reaffirmed the conclusion by pointing out against Rushton and Jensen (in press) that the BW gap is in fact "measurement invariant" which means no bias. --Rikurzhen 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original: Several published consensus statements agree that the large difference between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites in the U.S. cannot be attributed to biases in test construction,. Seeing as the APA mentioned does not make that assertion, we should make clear that Gottfredson comes to a particularly different conclusion than the APA - conflating the two very different statements is what makes this statement factually disputed. --JereKrischel 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that your interpretation of "obvious" is mistaken. They mean "obvious" in that people have looked in all the "obvious" places and found nothing. But this is also a case where new results have outdated both statements. The BW gap is measurement invariant, as measured by MGCFA, which is a sophisticated technique not used in the mid 90s. This finding is cited, approvingly, by Dickens and Flynn. We have no good reason to strech out the discussion as you have or to try to drawn distinctions between APA and WSJ. --Rikurzhen 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware of what the word "obvious" means, and I think your statement indicates you do as well - they have looked in all the "obvious" places - which is not the entire universe of places, as I'm sure you'll agree. That leaves room for the existence of bias, as per the APA, in "non-obvious" places, which is different than the categorical claims of other groups which have stated that there are no biases, obvious or subtle. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of obvious isn't "subtle". ... This game of semantics isn't progressing. The fact remains that all secondary sources which discuss test bias say (in one way or another) that test bias has been examined and never found. They conclude that there is no test bias. You are establishing a false conflict between the APA and WSJ report by suggesting that they reach different conclusions (or essentially by suggesting that the APA reaches a conclusion different than all other reports). Another problem: the way "factor invarance" is being described -- again, unjustified skepticism. Published conclusions are tenatively taken as true facts, unless someone else rebutts them. Having a otherwise critical source acknowledge them is about as established as you can get. --Rikurzhen 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Use whatever opposite you like..."inconspicuous" or "obscure" will suit me just fine as well. Your categorical assertion that no secondary source has concluded that there is *no* test bias is patently false: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm - they particularly talk about labelling bias, even though they disclaim any content bias or methodological bias. Again, you've taken a true statement (there is no content bias), and warped it into a false statement (there is no bias whatsoever). This is really the critical problem I see scattered all throughout this article - important context is missing, and fine, narrow points are expanded to include situtations they did not address at all. --JereKrischel 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reflecting on the title of this section: facts and opinions - the opinions that people hold are facts. If that were true, because Samuel Rowbotham thought the Earth was flat, and talked about it to whoever wanted to listen, that means that the Earth being flat is a fact? I don't think so. The only fact I see is that he believed the Earth is flat. That people have opinions is a fact. That their opinions are automatically facts - well, for your sake and mine, I just hope this isn't true.--Ramdrake 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought he had meant that it is a fact that someone holds an opinion, not that their opinions are also fact removed from the personalization....perhaps I misread. --JereKrischel 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also quite sure that's what he meant, but word for word, that's not what was written. I just wanted to make a point that there may be a difference between what someone means and what they say or write.

Read the the text excerpted from WP:RS. Rikurzhen 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• International Handbook of Intelligence (2004) edited by Robert J. Sternberg: "the accepted defintions of bias (Jensen, 1980)" ... a review of test bias in Israeli tests finds no evidence of bias, consistent with most reviews.
• Handbook of intelligence (2000) also edited by Sternberg: section on test bias compares WSJ and APA, finding only difference in extent of explication in APA on the various types of bias which are recognized/tested. Mentions that tests are taken to be "prima facie impartial" --Rikurzhen 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To write that APA and WSJ are reaching different conclusions is OR. There's no reason to list the various defintions of bias (in this Summary Style section, but see the main article ), but it suffices to say that all recognized defintions of bias have been tested and none has been found (other than "outcome bias" which is just that the IQ test gives different means). --Rikurzhen 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jencks and Phillips

moved from article:

Another important issue regarding the explanations of measured IQ differences is the concept of "labeling bias", described by Jencks and Phillips (1998). They insist that there exists a labelling bias in the tests, stating that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability. Their assertion is that non-cultural environmental factors cause gaps measured by the tests, rather than any possible innate difference based on genetics, and to use these tests as a measure of innate difference is misleading and improper.

someone, i hope the author of the site, is very confused. i know of no psychometric basis for ascribing a distinction to developed versus learned ability. the nearest psychometric analogy is to fluid and crystallized g, which is itself controversial. if so, that's not a kind of "test bias" in the sense that applies to BW differences, but to the design of tests in general. --Rikurzhen 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

but if by "innate" they mean hereditary, then there's something terribly wrong in this description. whether a person's abilities arose from genetic or envionrmental sources can't be ascertained on an individual level. --Rikurzhen 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

there are many definitions of test bias. most of those relevant to the BW gap are described in the sub article here: Race_and_intelligence_(Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation)#Test_bias --Rikurzhen 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is quite clear from Jencks and Phillips - the U.S. BW gap may not have content bias, or methodology bias, but labeling bias is critical to the pro-hereditarian POV. If you cannot assert that once you get rid of content bias and methodology bias, there is nothing left but genetics, their position is untenable. And considering that on the subject of heridiability, they state, ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap." (p. 20), it seems that there is a strong admonition against the belief that once content and methodology are controlled for, there is nothing but genetics left over. In any case, it is a distortion to assert that because people have not found cultural bias in tests that there is no bias whatsoever there. --JereKrischel 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JK, seriously, there's something completely odd about this description -- like 1+1=3 odd. You'll want to see the original to get the real meaning.

No one thinks that eliminating test bias means that the BW gap is genetic. The modal anti-hereditarian view can be ascribed to Flynn, who is a very respectable scholar. He does not believe there is test bias, and yet he also doesn't believe that the BW gap is caused by genetics. If there were test bias, then it would mean that the BW gap is not a gap in intelligence, but a problem with the tests. --Rikurzhen 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are pro-hereditarians who assert that once cultural and other bias is taken into account, the only thing left is genetics. Again, I think you're not addressing test bias in a specific enough fashion - Flynn may very well believe there is no cultural bias, or methodlological bias, but may understand that there is a labelling bias. Take note of the mention of labelling bias, and how that in the case of the BW gap, asserting that the results are from innate differences is not the mainstream POV - Jencks and Phillips say that most psychologists agree that IQ tests measure developed ability rather than innate ability—although the tests supposedly measure innate ability. There very well may be a problem with the tests' ability to measure innate ability, rather than developed ability. This kind of problem is critical to the discussion of R&I, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I know of no hereditarian proponents how have made such a claim. Certainly Jensen has not. Such a claim would be naive and stupid. For example, SES differences would be be next prima facie explanation. (2) "Labeling bias" is a term that's new to me, possibly a neologism of J&P, but as described it is something fundamentally different than the kind of test bias described in other secondary sources. (3) There's something fundamentally not correct about what the web page is describing. The most likely explanation is that the author has misrepresented the views of J&P. An alternative explanation is that this is a dumbed-down explanation of Gf and Gc. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

btw the definition of cultural bias is: if people from different cultures score differently despite possessing the relevant skills and abilities to the same extent, then the IQ test is culturally biased. it doesn't have to do with culture affecting skills. and it's not the same as cultural load. --Rikurzhen 07:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JK you really need to stop added the web-site material that purports to describe what Jencks calls "labeling bias" to the articles. We need to first ascertain what Jencks actually means. A scholarly secondary source which describes Jencks's views and their relationship to other views is essential. You are describing "labeling bias" as related to "cultural bias" but that is (as far as I can tell) absolutely wrong. --Rikurzhen 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous other sources discussing Jencks' "labeling bias" on google scholar. I only put it as "related" to cultural-bias due to the original section heading, which has now been changed to "Explanations". I've removed the note regarding its relation to cultural bias - hopefully that is sufficient. --JereKrischel 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through them and they appear to be book reviews. The "labeling bias" argument appears to be a kind of argument for "culture only", and so would go in that section. However, there are myriad individual arguments for the "culture only" position. We do not have the space in a summary style subsection to enumerate them. What's needed is evidence that "labeling bias" is considered important by anyone other than Jencks. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Circular Illogic/False Tautology

Ramdrake, above in #2 you posted this:

"If the purpose of this article is to show that there are IQ differences between races and that there may be some genetic component..."

You rightly go on to criticize the brain size argument but there are even more fundamental problems. That sentence fragment is a false tautology, describing the issue incompletely as "IQ differences between races" already errantly presupposes there is a "genetic component" because the words "races" and "genetic" are related and subconsciously implicate each other. A neutral encyclopedia has to describe and frame each issue using words that can't possibly induce a jumping to conclusion. Given that the words "races" and "genetic" have related meaning in this context your sentence is basically saying "If the purpose of this article is to show X then X may be a component of X" which seems like infinitely confusing and circular doublespeak.

Additionally, the word "may" is ambiguous as it also means "give permission" which would be incorrect in this context, "might" is much better. Also, the word "show" seems needlessly conclusive, wouldn't it be better to say "If the purpose of this article is to report on X..."? Awareness of Language 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

relevant policy

copied here by Rikurzhen 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I understand the policy, I simply don't believe that your vilification of Gould is any more appropriate than an automatic removal of anyone associated with the Pioneer Fund (for example, if we consider anyone associated with the Pioneer Fund as not an independent secondary source, are there any out there that agree with the pro-hereditarian stance in the same way?). The idea that there is bias in testing between "races", and that there is not any bias, is controversial, debatable, and you cannot rationally accept the arguments that denigrate one side if you're not also willing to accept the arguments that denigrate the other. The disagreement we have here is nowhere near global warming, or creationism in scope, and the analogy to such really falls flat.

That being said, I greatly appreciate your patience in discussing the issue. I believe I understand your general concern (regarding inserting doubt), but I think you will have to agree that allowing doubt to exist, and both sides to be presented in a sympathetic, and neutral manner, is the heart of NPOV. I know we can get there together, but I think the first step will be to let go of trying to marginalize the characters on either side of the debate. --JereKrischel 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

re: test bias -- I'm guessing you haven't read what I've written above. --Rikurzhen 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From the ArbCom on Global Warming

2) Misplaced Pages's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. However, this does not imply that all competing points of view deserve equal consideration in an article.

8) Since the goal of Misplaced Pages is to provide accurate content, we cannot regard all references as equally valid and give them all equal weight. Editors should exercise care in the selection and use of references. The closer a reference is to current peer reviewed work, the better. Balance must also be attained by properly labeling and attributing significant dissenting views (where they exist).

Making necessary assumptions

What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

Beware false authority

Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, college textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. High school and middle school textbooks, however, do not try to be authoritative and they are subject to political approval.

from RS

• Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• A particular source which aims to have credibility beyond a particular POV is generally regarded as more reliable than one whose audience is narrow in terms of its ideology, partisan agenda or point of view.
• Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus
• In science, avoid citing the popular press

What is an independent secondary source?

Independent secondary sources:

• Have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes;
• Have not collaborated;
• May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them.

Even given the same primary sources, different analysts may come to different conclusions about the facts being reported. In practice, many secondary sources find and use different primary sources in the course of their research. Conscious biases, unconscious biases, and errors are not always self-evident. The best way to expose them is to cross-check with another secondary source.

more about PF

Do we have any independent secondary sources not associated with the Pioneer Fund that advocate the pro-hereditarian stance? --JereKrischel 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles Murray. --Rikurzhen 08:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society. - http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271. Sounds like a pretty close association - do you have others without that link? Mostly curious, of course - given the controversey in the field, I wouldn't blackball every last bit of research connected to the Pioneer Fund in the article, since otherwise we wouldn't have very much at all it seems. --JereKrischel 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PF has funded a great amount of research. The connection of PF to Murray is that he cites the work, as would anyone who is looking to summarize the field. You have no justification to "blackball" any PF researchers published scholarly work. Such a justification would need to rely on some aspect of policy described above (or elsewhere). In fact, no distinction is made in thes scholarly literature between PF funded and not-PF funded research.

This gets us back to the discussion about PF and "bias" from above. As per the long thread above, you have mischaracterized claims about the effects PF on research. The test is in how PF research is treated by the reseacher's peers -- not what outsiders and nonscientist think. The opinion is well summarized by Sternberg in the Skeptic magazine interview that was linked previous: PF doesn't matter when evaluating the science. --Rikurzhen 08:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

issues

this is what I wrote to Arbor to summarize the current debate:

Gould:

• Issue 1: Whether SJ Gould's MMoM is a reliable source for expert opinion about intelligence research.
• Issue 2: Whether the existence of Gould's criticisms is noteworth and sufficient to require the demotion of research findings that would otherwise be treated as "fact" because they are otherwise generally accepted.

• Conflict: whether Neisser's (1997) confirmation that Rushton and Lynn are right about B-W-EA diffs in brain size is sufficient to establish this difference as fact. Notably, Neisser is adversarial to Rushton in the following paragraph.

Race:

• Issue: Whether we can make a "necessary assumption" about race in order to describe research which assumes a working defintion.

--Rikurzhen 07:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue 1 - I would argue that MMoM is just as criticizable as any Pioneer Fund research;

Issue 2 - Gould is not the sole source of criticism; presenting opinion as opinion is not "demotion"; I agree that narrow constructions are "generally accepted", but without proper context they get twisted into generalized "facts" that are patently false;

Issue 3 - there is no reason to try to establish this as "fact", simply report their findings;

Issue 4 - it depends on what your "necessary assumptions" are, and your working definition, otherwise, research being cited with one particular definition, combined with research being cited with a different definition, can be combined into a reasonable conclusion that is misleading and false.

--JereKrischel 08:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arg! I wrote a long reply and lost it. Here I go again, possibly much more concise:

• Issue 1—Gould is clearly fringe. I don't even remember him making any pronouncements of the form "Experts agree that…", but even if he does, his work has been met with derision among psychologists. I have never seen any claim of the form "MMoM represents mainstream science"—quite the contrary, even form those who like the book. On the other hand, there is no published claim (by anybody) of the form "The WSJ report does not represent mainstream science", and only very narrow criticism of the APA report. So I think we are in the happy situation that it is very easy—even for amateurs—to get good and hard support for deciding that "mainstream science" accepts as fact. Gould certainly is fringe, and it's quite easy to verify that claim. Arbor 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Issue 2—As per above, Gould about intelligence should be treated as a creationist about evolution. It's a noteworthy POV that needs to be reported, but it should not change our presentation of the scholarly debate. If there was a large group of psychologists (say, 20%) who agreed with Gould that would be a different matter. Sternberg is a good example of somebody who has a notable minority POV who whould be treated as serious. Gould, on the other hand, is fringe. Arbor 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Issue 3—It's a clear fact. However, when presented in this context it needs to mention take Neisser's reservation. In fact, brain size needs to be presented since it appears in many a major surveys (including Gould's book!), so by not writing about brain size we are willfully neglecting an important issue, and we cannot do that. That being said, the current paragraph is not great. Arbor 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Race assumption—That seems to be a textbook application of WP policy. I still don't like it and never have as I have said many times now. Maybe more about that below. Arbor 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, do you have a for example case of Gould being "fringe"? I'd like to understand better whether or not it is specific claims he makes that are fringe, or if you're trying to assert that everything he has ever said about intelligence is discounted. I think we may be crossing wires on that point - what is it that is being attributed to Gould that specifically is discounted as "fringe"? I'm sure you won't be able to list everything, but one or two example would be appreciated! --JereKrischel 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mismeasure of Man includes some examples. --Rikurzhen 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I tried to move some of them to Wikiquote (which is linked from that page). The MMoM page currently is an unseemly collection of quotations pro et contra, and we should fight that. Arbor 09:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific example on The Mismeasure of Man page that you think relates to the R&I article? Most of the quotes seem fairly general and frankly, emotional in content...I don't think you're trying to say he's fringe because people have called him names. I guess if you had something like, "he believes the world is flat", or "he believes the universe was created by a spaghetti monster", rather than "he misrepresented my research and is a terrible scientist and distorts things by using old data", I could better understand what it is about Gould you think is fringe. Is it just his assertion that the genetic argument is always 100% genetic argument, and that he doesn't address the partial-genetic argument? --JereKrischel 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I am arguing he is fringe because Hans Eysenck calls the book "a paleontologist's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science." You would need to find a different quote from someone respectable that says something along the lines of "Gould gives an honest and complete presentation of intelligence research". I don't think such a quote exists, even in spirit. Instead all praise for Gould praises his opinion. None of the praise is for the way he presents the mainstream opinion. That's a big difference. Symmetrically, all the attacks on APA and WSJ is because of the opinions expressed there, but nobody says they aren't honest and complete presentations of the mainstream. That's an easy way for amateurs like you and me to find out whom you can trust in the issue of representing the mainstream. Of course, you can still chose to side with either opinion. Arbor 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken back-links

It seems that refs #1-8 don't work backwards (clicking on the "back" link from the citation at the bottom goes nowhere)...does anyone else experience this problem? --JereKrischel 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbor's issue about the Race assumption

For a long time, we have opened with an assumption about Race being biologically meaningful (or something to that effect—the bulleted assumption in the lead block). I have never liked that. (Not because I disagree. I am certain Race is biologically meaningful. I also think it is politically dangerous.) The reason is kind of subtle, and I am not sure I am able to explain it clearly enough, because there are soooo many ways to be misunderstood in this charged environment. Bear with me.

This article (according to my vision) should be about Race and intelligence. All points-of-view. Including those I disagree with, for example the viewpoint that “Race is a social construct, and all IQ differences between races are the result of environmental effects”. Environmental effects here in the broadest sense, including nutrition (which may vary among races for cultural reasons), education (which may vary among races because of discrimination or learning attitude differences among subcultures), test bias, whatnot. For example, it is a reasonable explanation to posit that “Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than other Europeans because of a thousands-years old tradition for book learning”.

I like these kinds of arguments (even though I slowly come to understand that they aren't the full picture), and they certainly are well-published. I think this article should include them. (As it does now, and always has.) In fact, I would like them to be even more visible.

Now, such explanations are explicitly not contingent on an assumption that Race is a biologically meaningful category. And therein lies the rub. The race assumption is simply wrong. It is not the fact that all scholarly discourse about why races differ in intelligence hinges on this assumption. Not even the hereditary position assumes that races are biologically meaningful. The race assumption is made only for the explanation the hereditary correlations are concordant with the social categories of race. So only a single (albeit, I am confident, the correct) POV needs that assumption.

So I say either we remove all other POVs than Rushton–Jensen from this article (which I would oppose vehemently), or we move the contended assumption down to where it belongs, namely to a presentation of the position "IQ is hereditary" + "The genes that cause this correlate with racial categories". As it stands now, the article opens by positing an assumption that is only needed for a single POV. (Even though this POV has strong scholarly support.) Arbor 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the lead block, bulleted assumption, then I agree. I disliked it previously and would welcome a correction or removal of that line. As you say, it is only required for the hereditarian hypothesis of causation. --Rikurzhen 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural, genetic, or environmental?

Seeing as we've snagged again on a Jencks/Phillips quote, can I suggest renaming the section "cultural, genetic or environmental?" Jencks, and the concept of "labeling bias", denies the genetic as primary or significant, without resorting to saying it is "cultural"...although we mention the word environmental, perhaps we should have a new sub-section regarding environmental factors not related to culture? --JereKrischel 09:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Explanations is the best headline. No reason to force a false dichotomy. Arbor 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanations is fine, but the organization into two competing sets of hypotheses is probably necessary. Re: "labeling bias" -- as far as I can tell, this is a neologism that originated with and is only used by Jencks. It's not clear what the word refers to that would have been discussed by other researchers (i.e., it may only represent an opinion held by Jencks), so developing it into a major part of this summary style article is probably inappropriate (see section above). --Rikurzhen 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Diagram needs more information.

According to the text the normal distribution is based on: "U.S. test subjects from 1981 (the most recent, large-scale, published adult IQ scores)"

I go to the reference and find this:

"The sample included 1, 880 adults stratified according to sex and age (equal numbers of males and females within nine groups), race, occupation, urban-rural residence, geographic region, and education. There were 1, 664 whites, 192 blacks, and 24 from other nonwhite groups."

Since when was a sample size of less than 24 a 'large-scale' test. How on earth does such a nice normal distribution get drawn for the Asian and Hispanic groups given that they have 24 individuals between them. The 192 blacks: how were they selected? What do other researchers say about how representational they are of the U.S. population?

192 is a small sample whatever way you cut it. 'Stratified by sex and age'. So 91 blacks of each sex, and about let's say, 20 for each decade of age/group. Surely, there must be other researchers who have commented about these tiny numbers.

This diagram is featured very prominently on the front, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that the numbers are so small. In fact where does the nice smooth normal distribution itself come from? Someone stick the figures into a calculator and extract the SD and mean and go 'hey presto, here's a normal curve'

I think a diagram of a point plot of all 192 results would be useful.

The WAIS-R test? What do researchers say about it?

"the causes and meaning of the different average scores for these groups are debated" I doubt there is much debate about the causes and meanings of the differences between the Hispanics and the Asians with a sample size of about 12 each divided in 9 groups.

It doesn't seem to make sense that this diagram represents this topic. Macgruder 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The diagram is concordant with lots and lots and lots of studies, many of them linked in the footnotes. It is our best shot at a visually appealing, honest presentation of the fact that (1) there are differences in the averages and (2) the curves overlap significantly. here are some slides from Linda G's course on intelligence that use the same idea: use a picture to present most of the facts quickly. I think that's very good exposition; I'd wish more science articles were written that way. In the footnotes, and in the later "correct" figure in the text there is more data, including a warning about the Hispanic and Asian data from the 1981 study. Arbor 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Supplementing what Arbor wrote... The Black and White IQ distributions are very well studied, and this drawing is fairly accurate by showing a 1 SD gap. The Black IQ SD is less than 15, but it would be impractical and unimportant to show that difference here. The Hispanic mean IQ is somewhere between the Black and White mean IQs, but probably closer to the Black mean IQ. The Asian mean IQ is somewhere above the White mean IQ, but nationally representative samples don't include enough people of Asian ancestry to get a precise number. The largest sample I know, from the NLSY-79, gives a mean of 106 (n=42), but because there is a verbal/non-verbal skew in the IQ scores of Asians compared to Whites, the true difference in g may be masked. --Rikurzhen 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1. RON KAUFMAN The Scientist, Vol:6, #14, July 6, 1992
2. See below. The leading critics of the fund include the SPLC, IQ critic William H. Tucker, and historian Barry Mehler and his Institute for the Study of Academic Racism.
3. Neisser, who was the chairman of the APA's 1995 taskforce on intelligence research, states race and intelligence research "turns stomach," in a review of Lynn's, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (2004). He also states, "Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: 'Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science.' . . . Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research - research that otherwise might not have been done at all. By that reckoning, I would give it a weak plus."
4. See for example Morton Hunt's The New Know-Nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature (1999; pp. 63-104) which argues that recent years "have witnessed a dramatic upsurge in efforts to impose limits on the freedom of social scientists to explore controversial research questions, particularly questions that could yield answers distasteful to those with certain sociopolitical or ideological agendas" (Template:AYref). Robert A. Gordon, criticized for accepting grants from the Pioneer Fund, replied to media criticisms of grant-recipients: "Politically correct disinformation about science appears to spread like wildfire among literary intellectuals and other nonspecialists, who have few disciplinary constraints on what they say about science and about particular scientists and on what they allow themselves to believe."(Gordon 1997, p.35)
5. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap: An introduction. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.),The black-white test score gap(pp. 1-51). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. ". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in the black-white gap."
6. PBS Jencks Interview "If we change the names of the tests, they still measure the same thing but it wouldn't convey this idea that somehow you've gotten the potential of somebody when you measured their IQ. And I think that creates a big bias, because the people who do badly on the tests are labeled as people with low potential in many people's minds and they sometimes even believe that about themselves.