Misplaced Pages

Talk:Race and intelligence

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User2004 (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 1 July 2005 (→A possible fix: one response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:05, 1 July 2005 by User2004 (talk | contribs) (→A possible fix: one response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page was suggested for deletion in June 2005, and consensus was a clear keep. You can still read the discussion, though it is no longer live.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

To-do list for Race and intelligence: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-11-03

  1. Describe every little change on the talk page
  2. argue about it
  3. repeat

a note for Ultramarine

What was wrong with the bold part of this sentence? --Rikurzhen 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Several published consensus statements agree that the large differences between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites cannot be attributed to biases in test construction, nor do they "simply reflect differences in socio-economic status" (Neisser et al., 1996).
This statement seems exclude any kind of influence of SES which is certainly debated today. Ultramarine 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think they merely mean to exclude simple influences of SES. Can we say that instead? By simple, I think they mean in a model w/o a race X SES interaction factor, it doesn't seem like SES; but that's not easy to summarize... which is why I was going for a quotation. --Rikurzhen 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
How about, nor can they be explained only by differences in SES. Ultramarine 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
done... just by simple differences --Rikurzhen 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

We need to be careful with this sentence: --Rikurzhen 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Black-White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.

I don't doubt that the data exists, merely that we can be certain of the interpretation presented on this blog. I suggest is --> may be unless we can find a published secondary source to make that interpretation certain. alternatively, we can do the some reports indicate that... form.

"Some reports indicate" is fine. Ultramarine 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hybrid vigor

I've started doing a little research on hybrid vigor and my first Google hit produced an interesting illustration of what hybridizing previously isolated lineages can do. People are not maize, but maize may be food for thought. I just thought I'd pass it along: http://maizeandgenetics.tamu.edu/hybridvigor.htm P0M 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Figures

What software was used to draw the figures? Dd2 11:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excel. Powerpoint to color the top figure. Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator for touch-up. --Rikurzhen 14:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions ex machina?

I have noticed 4 (?) cases of deletions, all since Misplaced Pages came back with new software or whatever it was they changed. That kind of thing has never happened before in the history of this discussion over the last 2-3 months. It seems always to be the po sting that follows newly inserted material that gets wiped. So I suggest that we just watch it for a while and not assume that anybody is maliciously or carelessly wiping stuff out.

It is possible that the page has grown to such lengths that some software is choking on the memory burden. P0M 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)

No, there is a bug in the new upgrade software. It has been discussed on the wikien-l@wikipedia.org email list. Check after each edit to see if something has been deleted that was unintended.--Silverback June 29, 2005 05:30 (UTC)
SB is right. rant removed as requested -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 15:25 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Yes, developers are people too. ;) -Willmcw June 29, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
Deletions ex machina indeed! -Willmcw June 29, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
Uhhh. What I meant was that the deletions may well have been coming "out of the machine" rather than being attributable to any specific person. (I was seeing postings starting with, "XYZ please do not delete my postings." If you see one such deletion it may well be that somebody did it by mistake somehow, but four or five in a row makes that possibility very unlikely, and it appeared very unlikely to me that there was any malicious intent involved. Two possibilities occurred to me, one, that "there is a bug in the new upgrade software," and the other was that since some computers in the past have had trouble with large blocks of text something odd might be happening with what an individual's computer sent back to Misplaced Pages as the result of doing an edit. P0M 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Unanswered questions on apparent racist method of presentation

Why did someone archive discussions that were active as of a few hours ago? The archiving is rather surprising considering some people kept repeating that I never provide citations but when I do they archive, damage the quality of the text or misdirect away in a myriad of different ways. Anyway, here are some unanswered questions and citations that prove there is no consensus to frame this issue exclusively in terms of race.

  • The following article goes into some detail about my similar point that the issue is framed entirely in terms of race so everyone is constantly thinking about it exclusively in terms of race, which is exactly how a racist would want us to think. "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of... 'race'"
  • The above URL is from a larger series of articles with tons of info "The current attack on black people using phony science"
  • "Intellectual tricks can always fool those receptive to racism"
  • "Bad Science makes for Bad Conclusions"
  • "How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race" zen master T 29 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Zenmaster, I did the archiving. It was a pretty large task, but I am sorry if I missed something that was still "live". Thank you for bringing back your considerations; I will try to be more careful in the future.Arbor 29 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

To actually answer your questions, thank you so much for providing this material. On the face of it, these things seem to be (as Rik put it) tertiary sources that discuss secondary sources (for example, The Bell Curve). Note that the latter work is not the cornerstone of our little article here, in fact very few citations use material from Hernstein and Murray. Instead, most of the material in the article is based on primary sources, i.e., studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals. It would be apt if your counterpoints exhibited a similar degree of reliability. But I will be happy to go through all of them in detail, maybe there is an observation or two that we can put in the introductory section. (You can do that yourself, if you want.) Arbor 29 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Your point about "peer reviewed journals" ignores criticisms of the method of presentation and the media's complicity in errantly framing this issue. The first two URLs are from 2004 and cover the entire "race" vs "IQ" scheme so your point about it only being applicable against the bell curve or "secondary sources" is also invalid. The first thing this article needs is a title change, to IQ test controversy or something better. zen master T 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)
The sources ZM has provided are all media sources. I cannot find a single study among them. Moreover, the sources are rather shrill and suffer from their own factual deficits. As just one example, the page referenced by ZM's first bullet point, in criticizing a genetic argument, says,
"First of all, it is false that 'evolution has turned out Ashkenazi Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay Sachs.'"
The author's argument is that Tay Sachs is deleterious, thus it couldn't have evolved. The author clearly hasn't the first clue about genetics. Heterozygosity for a particular gene confers malaria resistance, but homozygosity causes sickle-cell anemia; the gene persists because of its heterozygous benefit. The analogy to Tay Sachs is essentially perfect, as Tay Sachs also involves a homozygous-lethal allele whose heterozygous form has recently (and quite topically) been implicated in Ashkenazim IQ advantages (Cochran 2005).
The above simply underscores the importance of reliance on peer-reviewed science rather than credulous online media screeds. Kindly provide some peer-reviewed science comparable to the material already in the article. I'd be impressed even by some factual online media screeds, at this point. --DAD 29 June 2005 20:34 (UTC)


I created IQ test controversy a couple of days ago. Please expand it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Mediator's role

Hey, is this mediation over? Everyone on speaking terms again? Can I comment on the article as an ordinary mortal? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

From my vantage point, yeah, please! --DAD 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)
Okay, here goes nothing! -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:47 (UTC)
I do not consider you a mediator or neutral as far as this subject goes, nice try though. Did you just appoint yourself "mediator"? You guys are masters at deception and misdirecting away from the core of the issue. zen master T 30 June 2005 02:56 (UTC)
As explained previously, Uncle Ed is an administrator who's presence was requested by one of the users here because a user was making accusations and name-calling in a way that some users felt to be inappropriate.--Nectarflowed 30 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Now that the name-calling has stopped, I have resumed ordinary participation in the crafting of this article - and related articles. In case you haven't noticed, I started: *IQ test controversy, and also

You should be flattered, Z! Both articles were inspired by something you said. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Problems with this topic

  1. Terms are unclear / in dispute
    • "race" means skin color but also has cultural & historical connotations
    • "intelligence" has never been defined well
  2. Some racial/ethnic groups score measurably lower on average than others on IQ tests and college entrance exams
    • Some people positively GLOAT over this
    • Some people want to pretend it's not happening
    • Some people say the tests are biased
    • There's a long running social and legal battle over remedies for this "problem", e.g., affirmative action

All of the above complicate the (purely scientific) task of objectively determining what the relationship has been, is, or could be - between "race" and "intelligence".

That's my two cents. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Re: "'race' means skin color..." Race is not as poorly defined as it's often made out to be, and does accurately refer to genetic groups (Tang 2005).--Nectarflowed 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Ed, I think you are right about the diagnosis. The question now, I think, is whether it is sufficient to simply hyperlink the words "race" and "intelligence" to other articles, expect general readers to inform themselves, expect them to carry a correct understanding back to this article, and so forth. If we were dealing with a less momentous topic we might take the attitude that it is the readers' fault when they fail to figure out what is really going on. But I believe that we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence. The way that people ordinarily see things, unfortunately, makes them replace the word "some" with the word "all" without being consciously aware that they're doing it. "Some men are stronger than any woman" becomes "(All) men are stronger than women." The same kind of reasoning, especially at an emotional level, also applies to questions of and . Do we try to deal with this kind of thing in the way we write the article, or not? P0M 29 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)
You claim that we have a "social responsibility", but is the point of an encyclopedia to provide information, or is it to shape a reader's mind and lead him or her to socially desirable thoughts and actions? I believe it is the former. Dd2 29 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)
So do I. The meaning of information is dependent on context. (And I don't "claim," I just "believe.") P0M 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)
I agree with the general claim (belief) that readers should not be misled. However, the "reader error" here has been taken to what I feel are unreasonable extremes. "Race and intelligence" does not mention any races, specify the nature or direction of the relationship, or make value judgments. The only statements that the title makes are that there is something called Race worthy of discussion, something called Intelligence, and some relationship between them. The day that Race or Intelligence (trait) adopts scare-quotes/qualifications, so should we. Until such a day, the title says no more or less than those two titles plus a conjunction. That conjunction is justified by the article's content on all sides of the issue. (That is, the views of pure debunkers like Gould fall neatly under "race and intelligence".)
There exists an enormous literature on race and intelligence, from scientific studies to popular treatments like Gould's work. Across almost all of those works, intelligence appears to be the most widely used term for measures of cognitive ability, and race appears to fill the same role for group ancestry. Given the area of inquiry's existence and importance, we should have an encyclopedia article on it, and we should not get hung up on what people might improperly infer from the use of the most common words in the title. We should start the article with some disclaimers, and to my mind, the whole front-end is practically dripping with everyone's cumulative caveats. Enough, already. --DAD 29 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Patrick wrote:

we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence

Well, why don't we say in the introductory paragraphs that the article examines the question of how race and intelligence may or may not be related? I would suggest:

  • Researchers have long sought to define the relationship between "race" (i.e. skin color) and intelligence. Some, such as Prof. Q of University #1, assert that race correlates strongly with IQ test scores. Others, such as Prof. R and Politician S, dispute the accuracy of Q's assertion.

We might even go so far as to say:

  • Q argues from this correlation that there exists a "racial disparity" which he explains with the hypothesis that:
    the darker you are, the dumber you are (Journal of Irreproducible Results, Volume -6, page 4F)
  • R and S loudly contend than Q is just a racist who:
    deliberately ignores other factors such as wealth and educational attainments of the test taker's parents; cultural bias in the tests themselves; the lingering effects of centuries of slavery and segregation; and the parodoxical attraction of under-educated sports heroes.

Okay, we can leave out the sports heroes, but that's how i would like to start things off. Nobody could possibly misconstrue it, anyway. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

In addition to its flippancy, this proposal has numerous problems which suggest only passing familiarity with the subject.
Most importantly, your statements misrepresent the debate as it exists in the literature and even on this site. That some racial groups in the U.S. have different average scores on cognitive tests is beyond dispute. What people are disputing, here, is whether there is anything meaningfully called a "racial group", whether cognitive tests have anything to do with the common-sense concept of intelligence, and whether any meaningful relationship exists (or, in extreme cases, whether the two subjects can even be placed in conjunction).
No scientist I'm aware of has "asserted" a correlation between race and IQ test scores ("assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof"). Correlations have been reported, and explanatory relationships have been both reported and hypothesized. Moreover, I don't know of anyone in this discussion who would equate race with skin color as you have ("i.e." means "that is"). I'm strenuously opposed to the use of labels like "racist" in the article, and hopefully do not need to belabor the reasons.
All these distinctions matter, and it is precisely this kind of fine-toothed comb that the present article has been subjected to over many months. I would urge great care in suggesting changes. All that said, I welcome your input. --DAD 30 June 2005 01:58 (UTC)
IMHO, the current article covers the appropriate distinctions sufficiently; or rather as best as we can w/o violating policy. Re-read the article and I think you'll see it's very carefully written. If this were a personal essay, I would emphasize the distinction between thinking about races/intellligence in terms of Platonic typologies/categories versus statistical populations/distributions. But I don't know of any good references to support making that kind of distinction matter-of-factly in the intro of this article, so we are left with more basic (citation supportable) claims like the distributions of IQ scores overlap. --Rikurzhen June 30, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Rationale for recent changes

  • There is no nothing approaching consensus on whether IQ is an objective measure of intelligence, so that is why I changed the title to Race and IQ. Though my other title criticisms as far as the issue errantly being framed only one way still apply (see above and in the archive).
  • I cleaned up suspicious, repeated out of place emphasis in the "Background information" section. Can someone explain that, what use did it serve?
  • I cleaned up the wording of the intro for the sake of clarity. The pro "correlation equals a conclusion" people can add to it or dispute my changes if they want. I am still trying to figure out what the correlation study authors have come up with, seems to me they have only, repeatedly, described a correlation, and have not, and don't seem to be working toward, trying to find an actual cause for the correlation (description of a correlation does not equal causation for that correlation).

Comments? zen master T 30 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)

Zen, you cannot do this. We have debated the title at length over the last few weeks. The article has been through a VfD. There was nothing even approaching consensus for renaming, changing, or moving this article to Race and IQ. You are POV-pushing and violating WP etiquette. It is difficult to view this as an act of good faith, and I will revert you.

To reiterate the main reason to oppose the name change: the article is not only about IQ. It is also about SAT, g, brain size, and reaction time. Race and IQ is a misleading title. Arbor 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Huh? All the other correlations are even more dubious. "IQ" is less misleading as a title than an unscientifically conclusive correlation with "intelligence". How can certain "races" have good "reaction time" in sports yet not when it comes to intelligence? That does not make sense, this article is one giant racist propaganda machine. There is no consensus for what you are saying, the title and article should reflect where the lack of consensus begins which is exactly the changes I made. How do you explain the emphasis all over the history section? Can you please restore exactly the changes that you do consider "good"? If you don't explain the full revert then I will revert. zen master T 30 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zen, but you are breaking Wikiquette, not me. We have discussed this article at length here, and in the VfD. To make a substantial change (like moving the article's title and making it be only about IQ, not about other measures of intelligence) you need consensus among Misplaced Pages editors. You don't have that. Quite the contrary, actually. So you are out of line, from an administrative point of view. Lacking consensus for a major change, the status quo is to be maintained. That's how we do it here.

You are also wrong about your repeated allegations of us being unscientific. There is a scientific journal (peer-reviewed) called Intelligence. It is not called “Intelligence” (in quotes) not IQ nor Intelligence measures nor anything like that. It's called Intelligence. That is the term used by the scientific community to discuss the topics pertaining to this article. (Studies of Race and IQ are a subfield of this line of inquiry.) You may not like that. You may think it's misguided, racist, stupid, inflammatory, and whatnot. But it is strictly scientific. (Again, I urge you to have a look at Mainstream science on intelligence or the APA report.) So please stop labelling our endeavors as unscientific. Indeed, it would be welcome if you yourself increased the level of scientific reliability in your contributions. So far, you have posted web pages. Stop doing that, and refer us to peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict what is said in this article, preferably some that are not already mentioned here. Your scientific method so far has been google. The rest of the editors use peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.

As to your changes, some of them I quite liked and I will be happy to put them back (you write good prose, and some of the bumpier passages improved from your attention). But the majority were either heavily POV, or simply bad Misplaced Pages style. For example, you removed a lot of wikilinks and boldface on title terms. You also boldly removed a few paragraphs whose removal you must have assumed were controversial. You need to take these things up in talk first. Arbor 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Amen. ZM, build consensus. We're literally in the middle of discussing possible changes to the intro here; your etiquette violation is quite astonishing. Propose the changes here, and let's discuss. You will not be able to remake a relatively stable community-edited article in your own image overnight. Arbor's reaction is perfectly justified. --DAD 30 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)
If it is your own, personal POV that race and intelligence are unrelated then:
  1. You are welcome to say so, here, on the talk page. We will all take note of your opinion.
  2. You may not mention your opinion in the article, either as I Zen-master believe this or Misplaced Pages says so
  3. You might be able to find a published source which sees the matter from the same POV. In which case, please make sure that this POV is in the article, properly sourced. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:08 (UTC)
But you may not change an article title to make it seem as if Misplaced Pages endorses or condemns a particular point of view. You said something like race and intelligince are unrelated and so you changed the title of the article to race and IQ. Is that correct? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:11 (UTC)
I am not saying what you claim. The issue isn't about my "POV" of thinking that "race" and "IQ" are "unrelated" as you misdirect, the issue is the non neutral and unscientific presentation of this subject. The problems with this article are beyond POV, only one way of describing the issue is being allowed, why? That does not follow the scientific method. If your or the article's goal is to prove some "races" are inherently less "intelligent" you have failed miserably given the fact that the language trickery and lack of scientific method employed by you and the article taints any conclusions or assumed conclusions. "Peer reviewed journals" doesn't mean much if "researchers" and people such as yourself ignore valid criticisms, especially when the criticisms are pointing out how the issue is unscientifically framed. zen master T 30 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)
That's not my goal at all. If you'll check out my contribs you'll see what I've been doing. The three main POVs are (1) race determines intelligence, (2) environment determines intelligence, (3) no one knows what determines intelligence. If you think I'm pushing one of these, I couldn't begin to think why. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Ed, I need to cut in here. That's simply not what the main POVs are. No paper I have ever seen on this topic even comes close to claiming (1). I understand that your description above is well-intentioned, but you are simply wrong. If you want to give a simplified explanation at all, there are 2 POVs: (1) this topic is a non-topic (e.g., because it's taboo, or a linguistic trick, or dangerous, or neither of the terms race or intelligence is meaningful) (2) the question is meaningful, and there is a corellation between race and intelligence. The first POV is seen in the public debate (for example, The Mismeasure of Man is the best-known exposition). The second POV is consensus in the scientific community (for example, see the APA report or Mainstream science on intelligence, both of which attempt to give laymen an overview of what "science thinks"). The 2nd POV can be subdivided into two: (2a) the correlation is caused entirely by environmental factors, and (2b) the correlation is not entirely caused by environmental factors. I hope this helps. To repeat: absolutely nobody in the scholarly debate would ever postulate the completely ridiculous idea that race determines intelligence. (But there may be a correlation.) Arbor 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)

On the IQ vs. other measures point, what's your (ZM) citation for "dubious" correlations between other measures? In particular, I'm thinking of g, where work on Spearman's hypothesis has quite reliably shown a positive correlation between g loading of a test and the degree of black-white score disparity. This work is treated (and cited) on Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation). This work is crucial as g is the most widely accepted measure of cognitive ability (see the APA report) and would be discounted by the title "Race and IQ". Moreover, "... coincides well with lay perceptions of intelligence. The g factor is especially important in just the kind of behaviors that people usually associate with 'smarts'..." "The g factor is also the one attribute that best distinguishes among persons considered gifted, average or retarded." (Gottfredson 1998). To summarize the dominant scholarly view, g measures what people seem to mean by intelligence, and measures it well.
Finally, given your preoccupation with language abuses, please don't use "dubious" to describe correlations. Do you mean "statistically insignificant"? If so, please re-read the literature. Do you mean "small"? If so, please provide examples (preferably from the literature) to help the reader calibrate. Do you mean "unreliable"? Then report the conflicting results. --DAD 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)
The fact that correlation "researchers" have repeatedly focused on just one way of looking at the issue taints the analysis and all inferred conclusions and is therefore dubious. G theory seems like a way of further misdirecting the issue. The controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why only focus on one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why isn't nutrition/environment given a scientific chance at being presented neutrally? zen master T 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Correlation between race and "IQ"

I found this after only a few seconds of googling:

The research on IQ and race by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve) and others have not found any significant correlations between race and intelligence. They have found correlations between race and IQ, which has been used to support the notion that some races are inferior to others.

Is this what you're referring to, Zen-master? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

I think most of the editors here know the skepdic passage by heart. I am personally a member of the Skeptic society, and find the entry completely unacceptable. It was, however, among the first things I learned about the subject, so it has been very influential. Afterwards, I started to read less biased accounts, actually examining the data, and had to change my mind. So please read at least the "reader comments" section after the skepdic entry; to see that this is a hotly debated issue even among skeptics, and this entry is subject to a lot of scorn. Also, one of the editors of the Skeptic society's magazine (Frank Miele) has written at length about this subject, including a very good and lengthy interview with Jensen in book form. I repeat that google really isn't the most powerful form of scientific inquiry known to mankind, and if you want to read up about the subject (which I would heartily invite you to), start with Rushton and Jensen (2005), which you can download. There you can find a very comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed, scholarly works that establish a correlation between Race and XYZ for lots of XYZ other than IQ, all related to whatever fuzzy concept of intelligence one might subscribe to. (Of course, instead of going to Rushton and Jensen, you could also just trust your own Misplaced Pages editors and read the current article instead. It's less convincing, because we aim for NPOV, but it's very well referenced.) Arbor 30 June 2005 15:36 (UTC)
I'll go a bit further. The statement you have found by Googling is false; see above and, in particular, the Spearman's hypothesis work on race and g referenced in Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation). Another poster child for why we need primary sources, not Web opinions. --DAD 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

I didn't say the statement was true. But I mention it because it seems to resonate with a repeated comment by ZM.

Nor did I imply that you believed the statement. Only saying that it's demonstrably false. As such, given that several of us continue to agitate for primary sources, it adds little. We have N references from websites supporting ZM, but precious few primary research articles. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a considerable controversy over the correlation between skin color or race, and scores on IQ tests. So I have started a new article on race and IQ.

I hope Misplaced Pages's series of articles on human intelligence will cover the broad scope of academic and social views.

No argument here. I hope that the reader will not be confused as to which is which. As a population geneticist, I'm (obviously) appalled at the degree to which unsubstantiated claims and ludicrous mudslinging (e.g. the quote comparing Jensen's goals to those of Hitler), counterfactual statements (e.g. "The research...has found no significant correlation between race and intelligence"), and outright falsehoods (e.g., that the APA denounced The Bell Curve as fraudulent) are mixed together with data from top journals. My view is that there should be a clear distinction between the science, the academic criticism, and the lay debate, which bears almost no relation to the expert debate. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

And I'd still like to hear from Z. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Brain size info moved to craniometry page

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


Three POVs

On standardized intelligence tests, black Americans score an average of 10-15 IQ points lower than white Americans. There is no debate on this point. The controversy revolves around the interpretation of this difference. Some experts believe that the two groups differ in inherited abilities. Others argue that the difference in average IQ can be caused entirely by environmental differences between the two groups. A third view holds that genetic and environmental differences are so entwined that we cannot adequately resolve the controversy now.

Why can't we put it this way? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The presentation's fine. Given the centrality of these data to the entire page, I urge citations. I prefer the APA's language: "the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites (Loehlin et al, 1975; Jensen, 1980; Reynolds et al, 1987)" as it a) is the standard way of reporting the data, b) gives both magnitude and basis for comparison, and c) is followed by several citations. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)
You both have jumped to conclusions again, the controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why repeatedly correlate with just one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why repeatedly frame an abstract issue just one way? You don't seem to allow for the possibility that nutrition/environment is 100% the cause? Your propaganda is slipping, it's only a matter of time now. Instead of "POVs" why don't we use the scientific method to frame this issue? zen master T 30 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)
The debate over whether IQ measures intelligence is treated on that page. The debate over what creates intelligence differences has never been framed solely or even largely in terms of race. However, the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations.
Editorial comment: ZM, you're teetering precipitously on the edge of being ignored (by at least me) for lack of productive/coherent contributions now, and not for lack of rather heroic attempts to accomodate your views. --DAD 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
Here is how your language propaganda works, since you fortunately encapsulated it into just one sentence, you say "the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations" -- the fact is non "race" related explanations don't get a fair or scientific presentation if they are forced within your exclusive "race" descriptive framework. Why can't the nutrition cause possibility be described within the framework of a "nutrition disparity"? Please explain the scientific necessity that requires framing the abstract issue excluisvely in terms of race? Even a random racist would want to present this issue scientifically to achieve objective conclusions rather than use psychologically tricky language games, which is orders of magnitude more evil, I hope you enjoy your jail cell soon enough. zen master T 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
ZM, I'm afraid your conduct has just crossed the line. We're done. For the more level-headed contributors who share ZM's concern, the question, "Why do races differ in measured intelligence?" is necessarily framed (i.e., stated) in terms of race because otherwise that question would not have a first noun. That's all. At no point in the article is race claimed to be the sole or even the dominant cause of intelligence differences. --DAD 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

If you only state or describe an issue one way it makes it too easy for a propagandist to come along latter and confuse description with cause (repetition is used to do this), alternative causes can't get a fair or neutral presentation of the issue if it is only ever stated in terms of "race". From the way you and the article carefully construct sentences it seems you never want to allow for the thought or the possibility that race is not a cause at all? zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Suspicious bolding

I have re-reverted Zen's changes again. Zen, I said it further up already: the "suspicious emphasis" you are claiming to remove is the common boldfacing of terms that appear in the title. That is standard Misplaced Pages style, see our Style Guide. The article on Race and intelligence is forced to boldface the first appearance of the terms (as it does). Since both terms are known to be controversial, the present article takes them up again in the Background section and gives a somewhat more elaborate definition of both nouns. That has nothing to do with emphasis. You also continue to remove a lot of italic Wikilinks. For example, you haved changed "people labeled Blacks" into "people labeled blacks". First, please don't destroy Wiki infrastructure by removing hyperlinks. Second, the italics in Blacks here is because the word appears "as a word". Again, the style guide forces us to set it in italic type. (Read section 4.2 of WP:MOS, the section called Words as words.) Your energy might be spent on better things than removing markup that follows typographical conventions in this encyclopedia, instead of assuming what you call "suspicious emphasis". Arbor 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

The style guide suggestions are only applicable to the intro section. The emphases is obviously playing games. zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)
Some key terms or concepts are bolded when they first appear in order to assist in readability, as the topic is unusually complex and the page unusually long. Best, Nectarflowed 30 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)
I don't think it's a game, but I don't see any point in bolding the title terms later in the article. "Intelligence" is used dozens of times thorughout the article. Why is that particular use of the term bolded, for example? How does it help the reader? -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:57 (UTC)

ZM's concerns

  1. ZM believes the comparison race and intelligence presupposes a biologically causal relationship.
    Not exactly, the presentation of the issue must accept the possibility that "race" is not a factor. The first issue is the way language is used to present this subject (propaganda-esque). The second issue is facts are in disagreement on this issue yet the issue is only presented one way, why?
  2. It hasn't been made clear to the editors of this article why it would imply more than correlation when other normal comparisons don't, such as 'race and senate representation' or 'South East Asian countries and monsoons.'
    The other possible correlations should not include "race" at all.
  3. RyanFreisling and Kizzle have responded on ZM's talk page that it implies causation because of the unjust history of race and intelligence research, and implies superiority between groups.
  4. Is there a solution? "Intelligence" is culturally deeply valued, so intelligence research may give the appearance of ranking the value of people, based on their performance on cognitive tests. This is a problem whenever intelligence research is brought up. Consensus among editors of this article is that some disclaimers are needed in the intro in order to limit readers' interpretations.--Nectarflowed

As I've said repeatedly, the article and title should reflect where the lack of consensus begins, which in this case is the "IQ" and other tests. Repeated emphasis on a dubious correlation to only one bit of information about the test taker ("race") is the next level of error as far as this alleged scientific research goes. zen master T 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

A possible fix

I propose the following language to properly contextualize the information about test scores and so-called races.

Even though there is a correspondence between racial groups as commonly defined in American society and intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests and similar instruments, that correspondence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that race determines intelligence. Presumably there are genetic factors that are responsible for some of the characteristics categorized as racial traits. Presumably there are other genetic factors that are responsible for native intelligence and that serve as a foundation for achieved scores on intelligence test instruments. There is, however, no necessary connection between groups of genetic traits, and in fact the exact recipes of genetic characteristics that determine all individuals are different (except in the case of identical twins). Furthermore, successful expression of genetic potentials for traits such as intelligence may depend on contingent factors pertinent to individuals or related groups of individuals. just as some kinds of vegetation thrive in one environment that another kind of vegetation may find unsuitable.

Please help me polish the language. P0M 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

I agree with the this edit: . -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Don't blame me! I stole most of it from one of the other guys. Shhh. ;-) P0M 1 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue? Instead of "presumably" how about something like "no scientific basis/consensus"? The "thrive/environment" point probably should mention nutrition and other possible environmental causes? The paragraph still suffers from the same problem of framing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics" which is not right, all possible causes should describe the issue using their own descriptive terms. Why does the proposed paragraph also try to sneakily describe "intelligence" only in terms of "genetic potential"? Is the author of the paragraph arguing that "genetic potential" is the only valid way of describing "intelligence" now too? What is the scientific basis for such an argument? The above paragraph is much more subtle (nice try) but is still riddled with the same errant exclusive framing of the issue around "race" or "genetics". zen master T 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)
The (continued, belabored) claim that there is no scientific basis for relating race and intelligence is false. Take the Ashkenazi example: in Cochran 2005, we have a hypothesis (Ashkenazim were selected for high intelligence) which generates several testable predictions: inheritance patterns for genes in particular clusters should happen with far higher frequency than chance; some of these alleles should confer higher cognitive function; the biological function of these genes should relate to known correlates of intelligence such as neuron density and arborization. Evidence, statistical and otherwise, supporting these predictions are reported, and additional predictions are outlined. Not only is there a scientific basis, there are scientific results, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. --DAD 1 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Zen-master: As long as you repeat what you have said before and do not respond to attempts to get a point by point clarification going, we will get nowhere. Look at what you just said:

What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue?

Every time you state your objections you should avoid "virtual blank" expressions like "the issue", "the discrepancy", etc. In a series of articles that would take the possible influences on intelligence one by one for examination there would be a place for examining whether there is any correlation between genetic heritage and intelligence. I think that must be what you mean by "the issue" -- either that or you have ignored my attempts to fill in some of these virtual blanks above. Assuming that I've got that part right, then your question becomes:

What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the question whether there is a link between race and intelligence?

So you want a "non-race" way of examining whether there is a correlation between race and intelligence?

Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe you're assuming that it does? You maybe want to deny that determines by refusing to look at the fact that correlates with . But even if you can prove that malnutrition limits intelligence, that brain trauma limits intelligence, etc., etc. (which shouldn't be any problem to do at all), that will not change the fact that is correlated to if (after you've qualified things as carefully as I did above -- and I checked with a university biology professor to make sure I was making no beginner's mistakes) you get that kind of test results. Sure, your opponent says, all these things limit intelligence.

But here is what you should be looking at (and it's been pointed out by somebody before): It may be that the genetics of intelligence are fine and some intervening factor pertinent to one mucks things up. It could be that Anglo type people reduce the intelligence of their children because they deprive them of some element of nurture. Perhaps Anglo types are so moralistic and legalistic about alchohol consumption that they absolutely never give kids any alcohol before their teens. Jewish people and Chinese people are more intelligent, not because of any genetic superiority but because both cultures are cool about letting even the little kids have a thimblefull of wine every once in a while. (Crazy example, but who knows, at least the part about wine consumption is true.) Or maybe some need ten times as much of some trace mineral as other in order to let the brain develope fully. The genetic potential is there, but they need the extra chromium and it's not in their diets. Once you notice that that group is not doing well on IQ tests you poke around, make your discovery, and start advising them to take chelated chromium pills. Suddenly IQ tests go up -- but only if you face facts.

Unless you actually look at the question of whether correlates with , and then look at the question of whether different genetic characteristics cause different levels of intelligence, you cannot fight those conclusions (which, I am sure you will agree, are already out there). It's like monster man comes on the scene and Batman says, "I won't fight you. I will go off and fight the numbers runner over there." P0M 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

You say face facts yet you perpetuate and repeat presumption inducing language, why? The fact is you and others choose to present this issue only in terms of "race" or "genetics" out of some political motivation when there are many other ways of presenting it. Even a random racist would seek a true scientific basis for their beliefs but you've gone way beyond that, you and others have perverted science and language into a racist economic caste system mass propaganda tool. You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world. You must literally want people to assume "race" is the cause for the "IQ" disparity without them ever truly thinking about it -- what else explains the endless repetition and errant framing of the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics"? This repetition combined with the improper framing is trying to appeal soley to third parties' "gut reaction" thoughts about this issue so they will assume "race" is the cause without them ever truly thinking about it. It is as if you and others want the world to be controlled by an artificial racist "IQ" based economic caste system, but Truth and justice will come soon.
To be clear, since you keep misinterpreting, I have never said we should eliminate the claims by "researchers" regarding "race" and "IQ", I have merely stated it is unscientific and woefully suspicious of you and others to deny all alternative causes or ways of describing the exact same issue a fair presentation. One of my biggest points all along has been that this issue is not being presented using facts, just presumption inducing language and framing -- how is that scientific? The supposed "race" vs "IQ" correlation is just one among many ways of arranging the exact same data, it is not a fact, certainly not a fact in the scientific conclusion sense. zen master T 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a response to the above? zen master T 1 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
The article is written with a presumption that race is involved with intelligence, and it then seeks to determine the truth of that proposition. That has led to an article which is fundamentally skewed and which goes beyond simply reporting about the controversy in an NPOV manner. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 21:05 (UTC)
Very well said, P0M. Continuing your productive example, here's my revision of your paragraph:

Even though some U.S. racial groups show differences in average measured cognitive ability, racial ancestry itself may not influence cognitive ability. Genetic factors produce some racial traits; genetic factors are believed to influence measured cognitive ability. However, these two types of factors may be entirely distinct. Furthermore, genetic factors may guide but never fully determine any individual's realized ability, because other factors (such as culture, status and upbringing) pertaining to individuals or groups also influence cognitive development.

I have strengthened some of your language to reflect what is known, and aimed for simplicity and directness. --DAD 1 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

Justifying use of "IQ test"

I've attempted to address the central problem with the use of the term "IQ" in this article, which is that IQ is too specialized. The AFQT, for example, which has been endlessly mined for cognitive ability data, is not recognized as an IQ test, yet it's g-loaded and is a valid measure of cognitive ability. Generally, no cognitive ability score can be turned into an IQ score without loss. In my experience, "cognitive ability" or "general mental ability" is preferentially used in the literature. To compromise, since some people have expressed an affinity for IQ despite its shortcomings, I've indicated that IQ will be used in a general way to encompass all cognitive ability measures. --DAD 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

STOP IT

Look, you guys (especially Patrick this time), I've told you to avoid personal remarks before. And just as Zen-master had made a really good statement summing up his criticisms of the article, you went right back to talking about him. That is NOT ALLOWED.

Stop playing innocent, stop pretending it's all the other guy's fault. Get back to discussing the ARTICLE and how to improve it.

Start by apologizing (unconditionally!) to each other for your personal remarks. Not here, I've locked the page; I'll look for the diffs on the D/P/Z talk pages.

There's enough bickering and squabbling in the academic and political realms about this matter. I won't allow that to spill over into this discussion. Not as long as I have the power to squelch it.

Think about the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, Drummond and Patrick. Page unlocked. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Categories: