Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Varoon Arya (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 16 November 2009 (→Statement on mediator - request for experienced mediator: response and clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Initiation of Mediation

Welcome to the mediation for Race and Intelligence. I have reviewed the case and the preliminary discussion to the point where I feel comfortable with this case proceeding; further, all 3 "main" parties have indicated acceptance along with ALL of the others who are currently online. After many years of disputes, it is finally time this is put to rest. Using the issues presented and the policies of Misplaced Pages as my guide, I hope to guide all of you to a resolution that is fair and reasonable. I feel like the process the Mediation Committee uses for these matters is a good standard to follow. Below is a series of Ground Rules that I would like all parties to sign on to in the same edit that they add their opening statement. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions.

Proposed Groundrules:

1. Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal attacks will be removed by the mediator, substituting the following template: (Personal attack removed)
2. Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
3. Seek consensus rather than continually repeating the same point.
4. Always work to find common ground rather than ways to support your, and only your point.
5. Do not make edits to the page that would contravene these discussions. Essentially, any issue in dispute, once resolved, may then be changed on the article page. Trying to argue on the page during this discussion would contravene these proceedings.

Acceptance of Groundrules

Please signify your agreement to the above groundrules by typing * '''Agree''' ~~~~ below.

• Agree Ramdrake (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Captain Occam (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Fences&Windows 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Aryaman (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree DJ (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree T34CH (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Wapondaponda (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening Statements

Rules and Content of Statements

1. Your statement will only be accepted if you soon thereafter add your acceptance of the groundrules posted above.

2. Your statement should address 1) the construction of the dispute in your opinion, 2) the nature of the dispute as it has progressed, 3) the outcome you originally seek coming into this mediation , 4) Misplaced Pages Policies that come into play in your opinion, 5) proposed ways to resolve the issue or points of mutual agreement that could begin an objective process to a resolution

3. Follow groundrules in not attacking other participants and acting in Good Faith

4. Seperate your statement by a ===

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's Statement

The fact that there has been an ongoing dispute for over three years, with a changing cast of characters, proves one thing: this is not a "personal behavior" problem involving a breakdown of communication or trolling. I point this out because I know this is how most disputes at WP are viewed by the community, and most of our conflict resolution mechanisms are meant to resolve these kinds of disputes. I obviously have no clue about how to resolve this dispute, I tried at least twice (in 2006 and in 2008) to mediate conflicts between especially active editors and achieved nothing. All I know is, the root of this problem is not really a conflict between specific individual editors, that is just the form it takes. At stake here is not resolving a specific dispute among names parties; at stake is creating a relatively stable article that is organized in a way to sustain fruitful edits and not - as has always happened in the past - fall back into dissention. This is in my view the desired outcome: a stable article future editors can contribute to without getting mired in the same debates that have overwhelmed it almost since its inception

I think there are two key issues here. The first is the charge of racist science. No one is questioning that one component accounting for human intelligence is genetic - genes account of an amount of variance among members of the same group (which could conceivably be humanity as a whole). There is some debate over what the percentage is, but this debate is not controvercial because race is not an issue. The problem is when someone says that half of the diference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is genetic is tantamount to saying, Blacks are inherently inferior. There is a documented history of beliefs like this being used in social policy and in politics to discriminate against Blacks, for example, denying them the right to vote at certain times in certain places. The reason that many scientists now view this as "racist science" is because it is now clear that the methods used to establish the claim that Blacks are inherently inferior were deeply flawed if not fraudulent. This is a simple matter of history and the article on race and intelligence needs to include it - so far I do not think I have said anything controversial.

The controvery begins when we discuss whether Jensen Rushton, and Murray and Hernstein be included in the section on racist science. I repeat that this charge rests on two thigs, first on the fact that the claim that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites is racist, and second, that the claim is based on bad science. There is no doubt that many scholars have accused them of racist science, but other scientists have defended them. The charge of "bad science" rests heavily on the fact that Rushton and others have at times misused the concept (which comes from a different academic discipline) of "heritability." I think this is a controversy the article needs to cover in a dispassionate way: some accuse them of racist science, some have defended them. I think editors have found it difficult to come to a consensus way to cover this debate in the article.

The second is the question of majority, minority, or fringe view and here I think people editing the page need real guidance as to Misplaced Pages's criteria for "fringe." The problem is that these words (majority versus fringe) are essentially relative. We are obviously not talking about "popular views" - most Americans or Canadians may believe Blacks are inherently inferior, or may believe Blacks and Whites are inherently equal, and these facts might be relevant to a section on "popular beliefs." When we talk about fringe science versus majority or mainstream science, obviously we mean among a group of scientists. And one place where we need help is in determining which group. We could say, "among the group of scientists research race, heredity and IQ." The problem is, this really is the group that is accused of being fringe. We do not want to end up with a tautology "All researchers who agree with Rushton agree with Rushton" - that does not help us sort out this mainstream versus ringe problem. Of course all researchers who believe Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites, at least to some degree, are going to agreee with one another. This is what is at issue with the Wall Street Journal advertisement. This was a statement of 50+ scientists posted as a paid editorial in The Wall Street Journal attesting that Blacks are - to some degree - intellectually inferior to Whites. One major dispute is: do the signatories of this ad prove that this view is "majority" or "mainstream?" Or, is this the very question: are the signatories to this ad fringe or mainstream? Some editors seem to think that the signatories to the ad represent all or most experts on the question, therefore the ad necessarily represents the mainstream view. Other editors believe this group is fringe (which is one reason why they had to express their views through a paid ad, or by citing one another, or by publishing in journals supported by the Pioneer fund or edited by one another).

Those who consider the ad to be a fringe view, and the signatories to be espousers of a fringe view, have to demonstrate that (1) there are other scientists who have expertise on the topic and (2) they hold other views. Many of the signatories ar psychologists, and some people have forwarded the APA statement. This is an official statement of the American Psychological Association, but those who consider the WSJ ad to be mainstream claim that this statemnt represents the views only of those who wrote it (which is fewer than 50) which makes the statement fringe. We are having a similar debate over the AAA (American Anthropological Association; anthropology is the principal discipline that studies "race") and AAPA (American Association of Physical Anthropologists; this is a field of anthropology that specializes on human genetic variation) statements - do the officials of these organizations represent their disciplines, or only themselves?

Finally, Rushton and Jensen are psychologists. Psychology is not the academic discipline that specializes in the study of heredity. Two academic disciplines are relevant: Physical Anthropologists who study population genetics are principal experts on human hereditary. Evolutionary Biologists are also experts on heredity. Have any of these scientists established the degree to which intellectual diferences between Blacks and Whites is genetic? Some editors argue that these views are essential to deciding if Rushton and the WSJ ad is fringe or mainstream.

To be clear: Rather than taking an a priori position that there are "two sides" to this issue (e.g. hereditarian vs. non-hereditarian), we should begin by looking at multiple approaches to the question - biology, cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc. and find out how they view the question, how many significant views are there and how they understand the differences among these views. It is my sense that some scientists see this as a debate with two sides. I am not sure all scientists view it this way.

I think these are the core issues that need mediation.

From one perspective, these disputes should be resolvable based on strict adherance to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. However, when it comes to identifying wha is a fringe view, you need to know what fields of science are involved in the claim that "Blacks are to some degree inherently inferior to Whites, intellectually." Rushton and Jensen are psychologists, but anthropologists and sociologists who study race, and biologists and anthropologists who study human genetics, also claim expertise. I think having a clear sense of which academic discipline has how much expertise over what is also essential. This question is at the heart of the dispute, and in my experience no mediation can be successful unless it can find criteria all parties agree are objective and neutral for answering this question.

David.Kane's Statement

The dispute centers on how much space in the article should be devoted to the "genetic hypothesis," i.e., the belief that a non-zero portion of the observed racial difference in IQ is due to genetic differences. Some of the editors view this as "fringe" hypothesis, suggesting via WP:FRINGE that very little if any space should be devoted to it in this article. The other editors view it as a "minority" hypothesis, arguing that the numerous articles in the peer-reviewed literature which support it make it more than "fringe" and that, therefore, via WP:UNDUE a discussion of the "genetic hypothesis" belongs in the article.

The outcomes I seek are a) A ruling about whether or not the "genetic hypothesis" meets the definition of WP:FRINGE and b) A suggestion about the percentage (5%, 30%, 50%, whatever) of the article that should be devoted to the "genetic hypothesis." I recommend that the mediator conclude that the "genetic hypothesis" does not meet the standards of WP:FRINGE and that, therefore, a significant percentage (25%) of the article should be devoted to explaining it via references to the peer-reviewed literature. I do not think that the editors of this article would fight over content. We agree (I hope!) about what Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson, Hernstein, Murray et al believe. We just disagree about how much weight these views should be given in the article. I thank all the editors for participating in this moderation. I apologize if I have mischaracterized the dispute. David.Kane (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Varoon Arya's Opening Statement

§1. Description of the dispute: Fundamentally, this dispute revolves around whether or not the so-called "hereditarian" view, which claims that the differences between the IQ scores of Whites and Blacks is due, in some part, to genetics, deserves adequate representation in the article Race and intelligence. Another way this has been put is: Is the hereditarian position "fringe" science, or is it a minority view? This is important, for it determines how much coverage the hereditarian position should receive in the article.

§2. Progession of the dispute: Several editors raised the point that the hereditarian position was inadequately represented in the article. Other editors countered by claiming that the hereditarian position was adequately represented. In the view of some, most of the coverage of the hereditarian position in the article is in the form of criticism, and there is very little which attempts to explain the hereditarian position itself. Others respond to this claim by arguing that the hereditarian position is "fringe", and thus only deserves to be criticized. They further argue that to explain the hereditarian position would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

§3. Outcome sought: I believe that the hereditarian position falls safely within the definition of a "minority" view. As such, I would like to see the hereditarian position receive adequate representation. By "adequate", I mean a presentation which allows the reader to understand why the proponents of the hereditarian position support that position. This goes above and beyond any question of the proportion of said representation. I am interested in neither the public popularity of these views nor in haggling over the percentage of coverage they receive. My primary interest resides in seeing that both sides of the academic dispute are presented in a coherent and understandable fashion. What comes after that is, in my opinion, the result of a popularity contest, and I do not plan to participate past the point of seeing that both sides are fairly and coherently represented.

§4. Misplaced Pages Policies: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, WP:ASG (which I personally extend to experts as well as to editors), WP:MNA, WP:RS.

§5. Proposal: I think that we could begin the process of resolution if all the involved editors could agree on several key points:

• There is a real academic dispute concerning the contributing factors to the observed difference in IQ scores between Whites and Blacks.
• This academic dispute is maintained by qualified scholars who advance conflicting research results and/or theories.
• The research findings and/or theories advanced by the involved scholars appear in respected academic journals and other reliable sources.
• The proportion of scholars who currently favor one position over the other cannot be objectively determined.
• The public statements issued either by groups of scholars or by bodies such as the APA are important for orientation, but do not make any final proclamations regarding the outcome of the academic dispute.
• Both sides in the academic dispute advance claims serious enough in import to require an adequate presentation of the reasoning behind their claims, as well as qualified criticism which has been leveled against those claims.
• The social implications of this issue, though very important, should not be allowed to preclude the discussion of any part of the academic dispute.
• The work of experts on both sides of the dispute should be taken in good faith and discussed on its own merits. --Aryaman (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement by Mathsci

I by and large agree with Slrubenstein's statement, particularly that the focus of the article should become stable and that the article talk page should not become a forum for open-ended debate. The article at present does not cover all of the recent major academic contributions to this debate and should make every attempt to do so in an even-handed way. The hereditarian point of view should be carefully outlined, but without giving a false impression of its degree of acceptance. As Slr has written the "open letter" in the WSJ by a self-selected and like-minded group of academics should not receive WP:UNDUE weight, if other distinguished academics have expressed disagreement (as is the case). At present there has not been a systematic attempt to ensure that the broad spectrum of mainstream academic opinion has been properly represented. One problem is that the very narrow topic of a possible correlation between race, whatever that means, and intelligence, whatever that means, has not been widely studied in academia. This makes it hard to write an article on it for an encyclopedia, since many aspects will remain inconclusive because they either have not been sufficiently studied or have not been deemed worthy to be studied. Scrupulous attention should be paid to not ignoring or dismissing important sources, particularly those by eminent academics. Perhaps the most important point is that all key sources should first be carefully identified. These should be carefully summarised in the article, without prejudice. If only a handful of academics favour a particular viewpoint, i.e. it is a minoritarian viewpoint, that should be made clear. There does not seem to be any evidence that "Race and Intelligence" is a major topic of research, discussion or debate in the majority of academic departments specializing in psychometrics or related disciplines. We should be extremely cautious not to approach the writing of this article with that viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake's opening statement

The debate over "race and intelligence" stems from the incontrovertible observation that self-defined "Blacks" score lower on average than self-defined "Whites" on many standard performance and/or aptitude tests. Many interpretations have been made of this puzzling observation.

• Some people have questioned whether "IQ tests" really measure intelligence, and if so how fairly does it do so across cultures. Existing consensus is that these measurements are good predictors of life outcomes (across cultures?), and that they are not subject to any simple form of bias, although certain complex forms of bias (such as stereotype threat) have been suggested.
• Some people have dismissed the question by arguing that race as it is commonly conceived is a social construct and that comparing IQ test results (a psychometric/biological measurement) across social categories is like comparing apples and oranges.
• Some people have acknowledged that the IQ gap does measure something (an achievement gap), but there are two main explanations as to the source of the IQ gap:
  • Some believe it is the result of environmental causes, such as those behind the Flynn effect which has seen a worldwide rise in IQ test scores of about 15 point over the last half-century or so. Factors such as nutrition, schooling and hygiene have been suggested, but no one factor has been definitely demonstrated to be the driving cause between the gap.
  • Others believe that in addition to possible environmental causes, genetic factors cause a difference in scoring ability between Blacks and Whites (and most ethnic groups for that matter). The evidence behind this claim is entirely indirect at this point, as (among other things) no genes have been found that regulate intelligence in humans. Also, different proponents of this position advance different proportions for the genetic/environmental effect ratio.

I believe that it is possible, using available literature, to demonstrate that this last position (often dubbed the "hereditarian position") is in fact the purview of a minority of very vocal scientists, and that mainstream opinion can safely be attributed to the "environmental position".

However, help is needed in arriving at a consensus on determining exactly how strong this vocal minority holding the hereditarian position is, and what would be due weight in presenting their position within the article. My concern is the distinct possibilty that in trying to properly explain the minority hereditarian position, undue weight may be given to it space-wise within the article. But, as I said, I'm aiming for fair and due representation of this position, after we've arrived at a consensus on exactly how to qualify this minority position (fringe, small minority, significant minority, full-blown alternative explanation?)--Ramdrake (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Some review papers that could help in this discussion:

• APA statement report on Race and Intelligence:
• AAA statement on Race and Intelligence:
• AAA statement on Race:
• AAPA statement on Race:
• Review of Rushton's hereditarian hypothesis by Leonard Lieberman, eminent anthropologist:
• Race and Intelligence research from the viewpoint of neurology (a review):
• Another criticism of Rushton's hypotheses from a fellow psychologist (Zack Cernovsky):
• Review from the field of philosophy of science criticizing the science funded by the Pioneer Fund:

Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's opening statement

I agree with statments of Slrubenstein and Ramdrake. Talk:Race and intelligence has 74 archives, which means the material related to the current dispute has been debated several times in the past. The main controversy is how much weight should be given to the hereditarian viewpoint. The hereditarian position is indeed supported by a group of like minded scientists who for the most part are connected to the Pioneer Fund. There are not many, if any, mainstream publications that support the hereditarian position that are not in some way associated with pioneer fund publications. The hereditarian position therefore qualifies as a minority position. According to WP:UNDUE

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views"

Wapondaponda (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DJ's statement

1) the construction of the dispute in your opinion

There are three points of serious (scholarly) dispute on this topic which raise policy issues for editors:

1. "whether or not races exist"
2. "whether it is either important or proper to study racial... differences in intelligence"
3. "the conclusions that have been drawn about environmental and genetic causes as determinants of these differences"

The third issue has caused the most difficulty recently. The issue is whether the "hereditarian" or "genetic" hypothesis is a fringe view.

2) the nature of the dispute as it has progressed

1. "whether or not races exist" --> So far, this has been handled by WP:MNA and pointing to other articles.
2. "whether it is either important or proper to study racial... differences in intelligence" --> So far, this is included in this article by describing the disagreement and moving on to other topics. In describing those topic, we applied WP:MNA in assuming it is important and ethical. Else, it would be impossible to describe other views.
3. "the conclusions that have been drawn about environmental and genetic causes as determinants of these differences" --> David.Kane and Varoon Arya have covered this (above).

3) the outcome you originally seek coming into this mediation

In my opinion, it's incorrect to treat the "hereditarian" or "genetic" hypothesis as a fringe view. We have no way of knowing how many people actually ascribe to that view affirmatively (the survey from the 1980s not withstanding), but a great many scholars who hold a variety of views on the question nonetheless treat it seriously as a matter for empirical debate. We should do the same. For example, I see no reason that the views in shouldn't be prominently summarized.

Secondarily, I do not see any way to account for how many hold which views. Most apex sources arrive at the conclusion that: "past research on both racial and gender differences in intelligence has been marked by methodological errors and overgeneralizations by researchers on all sides of the issue" and that no one knows what causes the differences. They explicitly do not conclude that environmental causes are known to be the explanation and that genetic causes are known not to contribute.

4) Misplaced Pages Policies that come into play in your opinion

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are the central point of content dispute.

WP:MNA, WP:RS, WP:NOR are important:

The debate was characterized by strong assertions as well as by strong feelings. Unfortunately, those assertions often revealed serious misunderstandings of what has (and has not) been demonstrated by scientific research in this field. Although a great deal is now known, the issues remain complex and in many cases still unresolved.

WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:ASG:

Another unfortunate aspect of the debate was that many participants made little effort to distinguish scientific issues from political ones. Research findings were often assessed not so much on their merits or their scientific standing as on their supposed political implications. In such a climate, individuals who wish to make their own judgments find it hard to know what to believe.

5) proposed ways to resolve the issue or points of mutual agreement that could begin an objective process to a resolution

In addition to the proposals by Varoon Arya, I would add:

• Recognize that simply counting the number of people who affirmatively hold the "hereditarian" hypothesis to be definitely true does not capture the importance of the various arguments that are offered in favor that hypothesis and against its alternatives.
• Treat the arguments made by pro-hereditarian scholars with the same care that James Flynn does when summarizing them (Flynn does not hold the hereditarian hypothesis to be true, but values the contributions of its supporters to the topic.)
• Recognize that disagreements exist about the interpretation of the data outside of the hereditarian/environmentalist dichotomy. For example, evidence against an environmental cause isn't inappropriate merely because it may be seen as in effect pro-hereditarian. (In other words, there is a real diversity of views.)
• We are not obliged to make the hereditarian view look unreasonable or unethical. That should not be a metric of acceptability. Many distinguished scholars (most IQ experts?) believe that the hereditarian view is ethical and empirically possible (albeit unproven).

references:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x Mainstream Science on Intelligence Jensen (1998) Rushton and Jensen (2005) APA's 1996 report

--DJ (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Captain Occam's opening statement

For a Misplaced Pages article on any topic about which there is a scientific controversy, one of the most important characteristics the article needs to have is that a person can come to it with little or no knowledge of the topic, and come away from it having a general understanding of the controversy that exists about it, along with the viewpoints and arguments expressed by both sides. There are several policies that relate to this principle, but WP:NPOV is probably the most important. In accordance with NPOV policy, all significant points of view which have been published by reliable sources should be included in the article, in rough proportion to their prominence in the source material.

I don’t think it’s difficult to demonstrate that a legitimate scientific controversy exists about race and intelligence. Two collective statements about this which have been discussed here so far are Mainstream Science on Intelligence and Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. The first of these was originally published in The Wall Street Journal with the signatures of 52 experts in the relevant fields, and later republished in the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence. Since it has passed peer review for this professional journal, which is the same criterion used to judge accuracy for everything else published in it, the fact that this article began as a newspaper editorial should not be important, although I agree that it cannot be assumed to represent more than the viewpoints of the 52 experts who signed it. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns is a report written by an 11-member task force appointed by the American Psychological Association. Both of these reports state that the cause of the 15-point gap between the average IQ of Black and White people in the United States remains an open question, and the “Mainstream Science” statement presents the hereditarian hypothesis (that genetics contribute to it) and the environmental hypothesis (that it’s caused exclusively by environmental factors) on approximately equal terms. The APA statement is slightly more critical of the hereditarian hypothesis than of the view that it is caused only by environmental factors, but also emphasizes that neither viewpoint can be known with certainty to be correct or incorrect.

Another source of information about the views of scientists on this topic is the Snydernan and Rothman study, a study from 1988 which examined the views of intelligence researchers about the cause of the IQ difference, and found that a majority of them held the opinion that both genetics and environment contributed to it. (Although the proportion would have no doubt been lower if the study had also included anthropologists and geneticists.) A few editors have claimed that the results of this study are inaccurate due to problems such as sampling bias, but because these criticisms have not appeared in any reliable sources, they need to be considered original research; I think most of the people involved in this article agree on this point. And lastly, the most recent examination of the conflicting views on this issue is the June 2005 issue of the peer-reviewed APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law, which was devoted to this controversy. For this issue of their journal, the APA chose to publish a collection of six different papers representing the various viewpoints on this topic. The issue’s featured paper, Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability, is a detailed argument for the hereditarian position by Jensen and Rushton. In addition to the featured paper, the APA chose to publish two other papers that take a pro-hereditarian stance in this issue, as well as two which favor the environmental position, and one which takes an intermediate viewpoint, arguing for an interaction between biological and environmental factors. The last of these, by Suzuki & Aronson, ascribes less importance to heredity than is done by Rushton and Jensen, but more than is done most of their critics. The respective weight that the APA gave to each of the viewpoints expressed in this issue demonstrates the way that they decided these viewpoints should be balanced against one another in a neutral publication.

As far as I know, these are the only sources which have attempted to neutrally present the nature of the dispute itself. Although numerous sources exist which describe the hereditarian viewpoint as “fringe”, or which describe the environmental view as being guilty of the moralistic fallacy, all of these are sources which themselves are explicitly arguing for one viewpoint or the other. Since this issue is presented as a legitimate scientific controversy by all of the sources which are not attempting to prove or disprove one viewpoint about it, I believe that NPOV policy requires Misplaced Pages’s article to present this topic in a similar manner.

In my opinion, some of the earlier versions of the article did a fairly good job with this. Several times I’ve mentioned the version from December of 2006 as accurately presenting both sides of the controversy, as well as including several pieces of relevant information which are missing from the current article, such as the social and practical significance of the IQ difference, which is important regardless of whether or not genetic factors contribute to this difference. (Not to say that this version of the article is perfect, of course.) However, over the past three years, more and more information about the hereditarian perspective has gradually been removed from the article, until at this point it presents virtually no information about the hereditarian perspective except to criticize it, and most of the arguments used in favor of this viewpoint are not mentioned anywhere. For an article on a topic about which a significant scientific controversy exists, I am of the opinion that presenting the arguments used by one side but not the other is a violation of NPOV policy.

There are many reasons this has happened, but all of them seem to relate to one basic trend in this article’s history, which is that most of the time editors who favored the environmental viewpoint have been more numerous and more active than those who favor the hereditarian viewpoint. In theory this should not make a difference, because NPOV policy is that each viewpoint’s respective weight in the article should be determined by that viewpoint’s prevalence in the source material, not by its prevalence among the editors involved in the article. In practice, however, consensus to remove information about the hereditarian hypothesis from the article has generally been quite easy to obtain, while obtaining consensus to add back any such information has been nearly impossible. This trend has had in a long-term effect on the article’s overall balance.

What I would like to result from this mediation is an overall, long-term guideline on the degree of representation that each viewpoint on this topic should receive in the article. I agree with Varoon Arya that the most important point which can be determined here is whether the hereditarian hypothesis deserves enough space to be presented coherently and understandably; I am of the opinion that in the current article it is not given enough space even for this, and that the fact that it isn't is a violation of NPOV policy. However, in the interest in avoiding similar disputes in the future, I would also like this mediation to suggest an approximate percentage of coverage that this view should receive, as suggested by David.Kane.

Perhaps one way to begin this discussion would be if each of us were to suggest the proportions / percentages of representation that should be given to each of these views, assuming other editors here agree that the arguments used in favor of the hereditarian view should be included in any form. I think the sources I’ve mentioned about the nature of this controversy make it fairly clear that the hereditarian hypothesis is a significant-minority view, and as such deserves inclusion in the article, but other editors may disagree. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

T34CH's opening statement

There are several issues at play which have made reaching consensus difficult in this article. The foremost in my opinion is the title of the article. There is no such thing as "race-and-intelligence", but rather a debate over the connection between these two constructs. The current title sets an a-priori assumption that such a connection exists and is significant, introducing a bias not supported by the literature. I feel the article could be edited more productively if it had a less ambiguous (and IMO less POV) title. This point is echoed by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) in this thread. If this cannot be solved by changing the title, the lead should be adjusted to reflect some agreed upon focus. In the past, the lead has gone through many drastic changes; stabilizing the lead would help to focus editors and build consensus.

An important secondary issue is disagreement over interpretation of NPOV, and in particular wp:UNDUE. There is agreement that the "hereditarian" hypothesis (50/50 genes-to-environment according to Rushton and Jensen) is a minority hypothesis, but disagreement over how best to exhibit this status. Straightforward percentages of content seem restrictive and difficult to quantify. WP:VALID is also very important policy to consider in this issue.

A related issue which would greatly aid in consensus building is the need to agree on which literature reviews should be considered the most authoritative and neutral. By establishing the basic sources which should inform our understanding of academic consensus, many peripheral arguments will be solved. I believe the APA statement is an important starting point. It reads:

Reviewing the intelligence debate at its meeting of November 1994, the Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) of the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that there was urgent need for an authoritative report on these issues--one that all sides could use as a basis for discussion. Acting by unanimous vote, BSA established a Task Force charged with preparing such a report. Ulric Neisser, Professor of Psychology at Emory University and a member of BSA, was appointed Chair. The APA Board on the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest, which was consulted extensively during this process, nominated one member of the Task Force," the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment nominated another," a third was nominated by the Council of Representatives. Other members were chosen by an extended consultative process, with the aim of representing a broad range of expertise and opinion.

I believe that controversial figures such as Rushton and Jensen should be approached as suggested in Misplaced Pages:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. Only RS secondary sources which discuss their research should be used.

Finally, there have been many instances of editors describing or referring to the actions of other editors on the talk page rather than the content. For the most part, these claims come across as accusations rather than constructive criticism, and serve only to poison the editing atmosphere. Per wp:NPA and wp:TALK, there should be restrictions on what kind of discussions are allowed to stay on the talk page. (those policies allow for refactoring comments not related to content) Any genuine issues should be brought to wp:ANI or a similar noticeboard. T34CH (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues to be Discussed & Agenda

Agenda

• Determination of Issues to be Discussed
• Mediator statement of potential objective procedures to find resolution
• Timeline set of each discussion, going independant of each other possibly
• Mediator proposed several "solutions" (i.e. resolution may be a better word)
• Discussion of proposals, counterproposals by mediation participants
• 2nd phase of Mediator proposals
• Discussion
• Reaching final Framework of Consensus
• Implementation of Framework & putting it into motion on the article page itself
  • Closure of Mediation

Reubzz (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement of the Mediator

Please note participants, that I am not a Judge or Arbitor in this matter. WP policy is split between user issues and content issues. There is no "ruling body" on content issues, as the Mediation Committee still makes no rulings and the ArbCom only gets invovled in serious matters of disputes between users and/or administrators.

Simply put, this is a process for me to help guide you to a solution, not hear evidence and make a ruling. I wish I could just issue a non-binding ruling/guideline but process precludes me from doing so. Reubzz (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention All Parties: It will take some time for me to compile the statements and ALL the information I have gathered into a series of issues to be discussed and an objective process for determing the question's resolution. Please note this if it appears I am not taking immediate action. Reubzz (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement on mediator - request for experienced mediator

User:Reubzz has edited WP for 10 days with less than 500 edits. He did not bother to reveal his astonishing lack of experience. I have reported him for disruption at WP:ANI. I will not participate in mediation under such an inexperienced editor of WP. Please could we initiate moves to find someone better suited to the task? Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already raised the issue at the talkpage of WP:MEDCAB, looking for either an explanation (returning user who has changed names?) or a remedy (another mediator, more experienced). I'd say let's stay put for now, as this mediator has initiated mediation correctly according to rules, so there's no point in trashing the work (opening statements, etc.) done so far.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not happy having a novice fooling around like this. They can explain themselves on WP:ANI. I do not like having my time wasted when there are complex issues at stake. I have no confidence at all in this completely inexperienced editor and consider their behaviour quite inappropriate and disingenuous. Sorry. We can continue the process with another mediator if possible (I will reinstate my statement then). You can make that suggestion on ANI if you like. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I help coordinate this project, and I'm on MedCom. Mind if I help? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Help is always welcome! I think we have a real chance to work this out, so I would like to see Ramdrake and Mathsci's concerns addressed. David.Kane (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also agreed to help advise Reubzz, and step in directly if necessary. I am not outright adding myself to the co-mediator list, but I will be watching and monitoring the discussion. If anyone has any questions about the process or anything else, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. The Wordsmith 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to The Wordsmith and Xavexgoem for their kind offer to assist Reubzz in guiding this mediation process; and many thanks also to Reubzz for his willingness to help and learn. I will now reinstate myself in the mediation process, Mathsci (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad Mathsci is on board. I appreciate his concerns. I do think it is possible for a relative newcomer to Misplaced Pages to be an effective mediator (in part because I have seen very experienced Wikipedians fail completely at facilitating mediation) - it takes skills that are not associated with being a Wikipedian (patience, skill at identifying the underlying issues and main stumbling bloicks, skill at communication). It is true, that no one can mediate this conflict without a thorough understanding of our core policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Perhaps Reubuzz has studied these; perhaps Wordsmith is tutoring him on them; perhaps he has been reading Misplaced Pages for years, following discussions, and already knows them.

But my principle concern goes to a point Reubuzz made, a point that many Wikipedians have made over the years: we do not have good principles and mechanisms for resolving content disputes. But this really is a content dispute, and I do not think anyone can mediate it without having an ability to distinguish between different kinds of debates among scientists. For example, there is a big difference between Linus Pauling and James Watson debating the structure of DNA, and Linus Pauling and Jonas Salk debating how to treat the common cold. In the first case, both participants in the debate are experts in the same field, but this is not so in the second case. For example, there is a difference between journals like Science, or the Journal of the American Medical Association, or American Journal of Physical Anthropology, i.e. the journals of major scientific associations and thus flagship journals in their fields, versus privately funded journals. It is important to distinguish between different kinds of foundations, which may have different boards and different peer-review processes that reflect different kinds of funding priorities. Without understanding (or having a willingness to learn about) these matters, I don't see how any mediator will be able to help us stay focused on the robust or profound issues and questions, and the significant points of view. Note: I do not think anything I wrote in this paragraph is biased towards any "side" in this conflict. All sides in this conflict are arguing for the inclusion of what they believe to be significant views from reliable sources. In this conflict, which touches on matters in which different academic disciplines in both the life sciences and the social sciences have expertise, what counts as a reliable source or a significant view can vary depending on the question or the kinds of data one must analyze to answer the question. An effective mediator in my view is going to have to understand eough about science, and the specific sciences involved, to sort out these issues. The point is not to favor anthropology, biology, psychology or sociology. The point is to understand the place of each within academe. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would happily agree with Slrubenstein if I had not already seen the distinction to which he refers be used in such a partisan manner. Oftentimes, editors attack an otherwise reliable source on the grounds that it is biased or unfit for inclusion. Sometimes this is done with recourse to other sources backing up such claims, sometimes it is done without such recourse, but on purely logical or moral grounds. As a matter of principle, I think editors should be encouraged to evaluate sources critically. However, there are no established principles regarding the kind of criticism which is to be applied. This is one of the weaknesses of the group of policies treating sources (WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS). What are editors to do when a fully "reliable" source makes patently incorrect and/or illogical claims? Conversely, what are editors to do when sources which have a less than exemplary pedigree make perfectly correct and logical claims? I've seen cases of both while editing this article. In our own work (e.g. articles/dissertations/books written outside Misplaced Pages), we certainly criticize our sources, and we evaluate their claims on their merits, regardless of their origin. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. I recognize that Misplaced Pages is not an academic journal, and that a line must be drawn between reporting on the work of others and original research. I do not think Misplaced Pages policy needs to be rewritten, but I do think that the mediators should consider that this topic is one which requires particular care when examining sources critically. --Aryaman (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Editors should evaluate sources critically". Unfortunately that is against the core policies of wikipedia and why, over the last few months, a futile debate (WP:OR) has been taking place on the talk page that has been reported on multiple noticeboards. We should only report on what sources say; that includes sources giving evaluations of other sources. That has always been how wikipedia has worked. We might notice that authors are academically distinguished, e.g. are fellows of the Royal Society or members of the National Academy of Sciences. Wikipedians should not make the mistake of trying to use talk pages as pseudo-academic forums. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, Arya - we never say a source is inaccurate. If there is a significant view from another reliable source that says the first view is inaccurate, we can include it. There is no debarte over NPOV's core principle, that we have to include all significant views from reliable sources. My point is that in academic debates, the significance of a view or reliability of a source for a particular view is often relative to the discipline in which the research was trained or does research. For example, just because someone has a PhD. in physics or even won the Nobel Prize does not mean that their views about Virginia Wolf are significant; similarly, a journal on Medieval French Literature may be peer-reviewed, but that does not make it a reliable source about chemistry. Do you really disagree with these points? The two examples I provided are crude. When it comes to anthropology, biology, psychology and sociology journals publishing articles on race, intelligence, or race and intelligence, determining reliability and significance is more complicated - I hope you agree with this too. And since it is more complicated, I believe a mediator needs to know something about these disciplines and what each discipline considers a reliable source for what kind of research. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: to what extent are the expressly non-hereditarian sources in opposition to hereditarian theories? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question! There are many "non-hereditarian sources" and I would hesitate to generalize. But I think that the best place to start would be with Sternberg and Nisbett (surely two of the most prominent non-hereditarians) in their articles in 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.. I think it is fair to say that non-hereditarians firmly believe that the explanation for racial differences in IQ is 100% environmental but that they are willing to seriously consider the substance of "hereditarian theories." David.Kane (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the sources I listed at the end of my opening statement are all non-hereditarian (the statements could be considered neutral). This should give you an idea.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Those papers (David's link) are about policy based on IQ measurements, not on the interpretation of between-group IQ differences. Actual lit reviews would be a better place to look. But in those papers, Sternberg says that IQ is not useful to inform policy, and Nesbitt's main point is that race is a poor construct to use when comparing blacks and whites (though he does conclude that the evidence for an actual intelligence difference is "nil"). The important distinction that I see between the "sides" is that Jensen/Rushton et al see evidence for a "true" difference (to put it in psychometric terms), while Sternberg/Nesbitt et al see too small of a signal-to-noise ratio to make that discrimination (ie, issues with race definitions, IQ interpretations, confounding variables in the environment, cultural bias in the tests, etc etc). The "non-hereditarian" view would probably be best summed up as, "if there is a between-group genetic difference, we can't measure it, and it doesn't make enough of an impact to matter given current conditions." T34CH (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate on David Kane's comment: In my experience, it largely depends upon the source. If one takes the more sober proponents of the environmentalist or non-hereditarian position, such as James R. Flynn, then there is a purely scientific opposition. That is to say, Flynn takes the arguments of hereditarians such as Arthur Jensen seriously, and evaluates them on their scientific merits. There are other environmentalist, however, who reject hereditarian arguments on what are, by and large, moral grounds. They often accuse hereditarians of "racialism" or outright "racism", and put great emphasis on the controversies surrounding the individuals supporting the hereditarian position, questioning their academic credentials, their sources of funding, their affiliations, and anything which could give the impression that hereditarians are not to be taken seriously except as proponents of "radical racist science", and typically do very little to contradict the actual arguments hereditarian use to support their claims. While hereditarians take the criticism and contrary findings of sober non-hereditarians such as Flynn seriously, they typically respond to such moral accusations as lacking any scientific value. It's a highly charged situation, and there's quite a bit of rhetoric and moral posturing involved.

As far as the positions themselves go: The "hereditarian" position posits a mixture of genetic and environmental causes. As a result, proponents are typically more open to findings which advance claims regarding particular environmental factors which could influence the development of intelligence. They directly oppose, however, any attempts to explain all of the difference between groups as due to environmental causes alone. This, they argue, is simply not possible given the widely accepted results of within-group studies (e.g. that genetics plays a considerable role in the manifestation of intelligence within groups of the same racial or ethnic background). They further argue that the non-hereditarian position is fueled more by socio-political interests than by critical scientific acumen.

The "environmentalist" position posits that only environmental causes can explain the IQ differences between groups. Most - and, typically, the most vocal - proponents categorically reject any research which shows that genetics could play any role in this difference. There are some who are compelled to admit that genetics may play some role, but that it is so small, that it's best for all involved if we just ignore it.

Granted, both positions are hard to prove given the nature of the subject and the limitations of the research methods. If we were able to ignore the moral component, I think the non-hereditarian position would reveal itself as the more scientifically radical of the two, given the nature of the position itself. In the only study conducted to determine consensus on this, 45% of polled experts reported holding views compatible with the hereditarian position, while 15% held views compatible with non-hereditarianism. The study was conducted in the late 1980s, so it's unclear how much those numbers have shifted. Several editors here reject the validity of the study entirely, and even mentioning it can cause conflict. I'm willing to grant that its results are somewhat dated, but I do not think that there has been any radical breakthrough in research in the last 20 years which would make such a large portion of the academic community change its mind. On the contrary, proponents of the hereditarian view feel that their position has been strengthened by findings which have been produced since then. With that being said, there is no shortage of claims from non-hereditarians that only a few isolated "radical mavericks" hold hereditarian views. As there has been no formal study since the 1987 Snyderman and Rothman study to determine this, I think it's obvious that such claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

These are, in my opinion, the core points anyone coming to this discussion needs to know in order to determine whether the hereditarian position deserves adequate representation in the article under discussion. --Aryaman (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask the mediator to compare my comments and Arya's closely. I think we have very different approaches not just to the article but to how to mediate the article. I am not at all questioning Arya's good faith, merely calling attention to a difference in approach. Arya is comparing the views of two views, hereditarian and non-hereditarian. The intent behind my comments in this section and above is to suggest another approach. My approach is to start with different kinds of researchers with different kinds of expertise as a basis for sorting out significance and reliability. My reason is, I fear that if we start with the two antagonistic views, we will just go in circles: supporters of the herditarian view will claim that they are the real specialists and that their view is the most significant and proponents of the non-hereditarian view will claim that they are the real experts and their view is the most significant. I think the way out of this circle is to take these views (hereditarian/non-hereditarian) as conclusions different researchers have reached. Instead of starting with the conclusions, let's see where people started out. That means looking at the different disciplines that look at these kinds of questions, and whose training gives competence in what kinds of research. I think Arya's approach is common sense, but I think it has been tried multiple times as a way to resolve the conflict and has never worked, that is why I am trying to articulate an alternate approach. I do not mean to get into a new argument with Arya, I just want to point out that our approaches to dealing with this conflict among editors involve starkly different approaches to how we decide what sources to look at and how to assess the weight of different views. All I can ask is that the mediator consider both approaches before deciding how to proceed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully accept Slrubenstein's point that we are talking about two different approaches here. And I'm happy to see he's assuming good faith. I think that, if we are here to discuss the entire article, and beyond that, how "race and intelligence" fits into the wider scheme of human knowledge, then Slrubenstein's approach is certainly superior to my own. It would also be good to put the discussion in its historical context, and I think that's something Slrubenstein and I can agree on. However, my impression is that the article needs nothing beyond a simple introduction to the topic as it fits within the larger framework of the sciences (per WP:MNA). The debate, which is the core topic the article is about, takes place between psychometricians and behavioral geneticists. I'm not convinced that gathering views from anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, etc. is going to improve our understanding of this core issue. It might relativise it - and perhaps unfairly so - but I don't see it helping to explain the arguments involved.

Further, as I understand it, this particular conflict revolves around whether or not the hereditarian position (either as one of two main positions or as simply one outcome reached by a group of scientists among many, many scientists) deserves to be adequately represented in the article. Thus, the mediation process intends to help us solve this particular problem. I don't expect this mediation to solve all the problems with this article. But I do hope that this process will help us establish whether or nor it is justified to explain the hereditarian position clearly and coherently. --Aryaman (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)