Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aprock (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 12 April 2013 (→Massive revert by KillerChihuahua). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept April 11, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

On Lead Restore. Again.

KillerChihuahua's reason for removal of the lead the 4th time was that the lead wasn't international enough. But the lead can only reflect what is currently in the article. WP:IMPERFECT would not be a valid reason for removal. The debate of whether the article is US centric or not is irrelevant to the issue of lead restore. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is suppose to have a summary of major components of the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, the lead should have never been removed in the first place regardless of the "US centric" debate. So I would respectfully ask, is there a reason why the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE? BlackHades (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to cite PRESERVE, I can simply restore the old longstanding consensus version of the lead, and we can work forwards from that. I have no problem with that approach, but the last time I did that you pitched a fit. Why you feel it is so necessary to keep an entire paragraph which is based on only the US that you will continually edit war to keep it in? Do you think this is a US thing, and that elsewhere intelligence has no racial issues? If so, please provide diffs. KillerChihuahua 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What would be the point of restoring back 2 years and reverting 2 years of work? I highly that you or anyone else would let me get away with such a tactic. Not to mention the IQ differences in the US is mentioned the same in the old lead as in the current one so the old lead is irrelevant here and doesn't even address your issue. The lead is suppose to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. Do you agree with this or not?

Actually you're edit warring to remove it. I'm going by WP:LEAD. I have no idea what you're going by. Remember the last time the lead was restored, several editors were contributing to fixing up the current lead including YOU yourself as seen here.

So after 20 edits to improve the lead by several editors including yourself, you come out of nowhere and just completely remove it here. . I've repeatedly requested if there's any reasons why the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD. I've yet to get a response on this from anyone. The US centric debate above is irrelevant. Per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE, the lead should be restored regardless of the outcome or conclusion of the US centric debate. There's been 20 edits to improve the lead by several editors that you reverted. The lead should be restored and improvements continued to be made. BlackHades (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, why are you creating a new section when there's an ongoing discussion two sections up? Please reply up there (where my question to you is still unanswered) rather than creating yet another duplicate section. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because as previously stated, the US centric debate is a separate debate. Whether the article is US centric or not would be irrelevant that the lead it suppose to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you repeat the same statement you made up there? Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I was responding to Atethnekos who stated that whether the article is US centric or not shouldn't have any bearing on the removal of relevant US content. But no one has responded to the issue raised by either Atethnekos or by me. That section has simply turned into whether the article as a whole is US centric without any mention of the lead or addressing any concerns raised by either Atethnekos or by me. The issue of lead restore is a separate debate. BlackHades (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We're starting to get sidetracked again. Are there any reasons that the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE? I would like a direct response to this. BlackHades (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been 11 days. Looks like there isn't any. Please no false accusations of edit warring. I'm restoring now so we can all continue improving the lead as several editors were doing before the removal. BlackHades (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hereditarian Position is Mainstream.

The argument that the hereditarian position, such as Jensen or Rushton, is "non-mainstream", "fringe", "not relevant" seems to be inserted ad nauseam by some and then used to justify removing or omitting relevant hereditarian content from the article. This is to put to rest once and for all that the hereditarian position IS a significant and mainstream view in the field. That countless independent reliable secondary sources have cited Snyderman/Rothman and affirmed the validity of the survey. That the hereditary viewpoint isn't a "small circle of social scientists" but actually very mainstream and arguably the majority according to countless secondary sources. I respectfully request editors to not beat this dead horse any further. This section should be bookmarked for future reference, for when inevitably, the next person erroneously makes the claim the hereditarian position is "fringe" and attempts to remove relevant content that meets WP:V.

“An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community, and a smaller majority express the same view about the black-white and SES differences in IQ. While the private consensus among IQ experts has shifted to meet Jensen's “controversial” views, the public impression of their views has not moved at all.”

Gottfredson, Linda S. "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud." Society 31.3 (1994): 53-59.

"It should also be mentioned that Rushton has had substantial success and influence in the discipline; he himself reported that 52% of scientists believed that the Black–White IQ difference was partly genetic (Rushton 1999: 102). He was referring to a study by Snyderman and Rothman (1987), published in one of the leading journals of the discipline (American Psychologist), in which it was reported that the majority of psychologists and educational experts in intelligence testing ‘‘feel’’ (137) that the Black–White difference in IQ is partially heritable. Although this American Psychologist study is more than 20 years old, it appears that Rushton’s work has received a certain degree of credibility in psychology based on the fact that he uses empirical methods and is quick to employ the latest technologies in his research."

Teo, Thomas. "Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence." Human Studies 34.3 (2011): 237-255.

“Many experts also think that genetic differences are at least partially to blame for existing Black -White differences in academic achievement. Snyderman and Rothman (as cited in Miller, 1995) discussed a 1984 survey that questioned 1,020 experts on intelligence, most of whom were professors and university-based researchers who study testing, psychology, and education. As Miller (1995) reported, almost half (46%) expressed the opinion that Black-White differences in intelligence are at least partially genetic. Of the others, 15% said that only environment was responsible, 24% regarded the available evidence as insufficient, and 14 did not answer the question (Miller, 1995, pp. 186-187). In other words, only 15% clearly disagreed. With expert opinion slanted so strongly in favor of the genetic hypothesis and widespread media attention to books such as The Bell Curve, there is little prospect that “rumors of inferiority” will cease or that racial differences in estimated potential will disappear.”

Ferguson, Ronald F. "Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap." Urban Education 38.4 (2003): 460-507.

“Jensen’s view, as it happens, is more mainstream than Nisbett’s. Roughly two thirds of those responding to the Snyderman survey identified themselves as liberals. Yet 53 percent agreed that the black-white gap involves genetic as well as environ­mental factors.”

Cowley, Geoffrey. "Testing the science of intelligence." Newsweek 24 (1994): 56-60.

“Some believe that there is a public agreement that genes are not appropriate for explaining ability differences between groups. A closer look reveals within science the contrary view: In an older opinion poll among N= 1020 experts (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987) 15% believed that only environment is relevant for Black-White IQ-differences, but 45% believed that environment and genes are relevant. . Of course, majority opinion is no criterion for truth. Furthermore, a recently published textbook from a researcher well known for his lack of enthusiasm for genetic explanations of group differences stressed the possibility of genetic factors: ‘‘Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett’s extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true.”

Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).

“In 1988 Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman published The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy . Using data from their survey of over 1000 scholars in fields familiar with IQ testing, such as psychology, sociology, and behavioral genetics , Rothman and Snyderman took a quantitative look at media coverage of IQ and demonstrated how this media coverage habitually diverged with

mainstream scholarly opinion. First, the popular assertion of widespread chaos within science over intelligence measurement is false. This has been demonstrated, apart from the evidence of the literature itself, by a survey of scientists showing broad scholarly consensus , by a jury of scholars organized by the American Psychological Association to summarize basic agreements in the field.”

Malloy, Jason. "James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences." Medical Hypotheses 70.6 (2008): 1081-1091.

“There is no real dispute that races differ in measured intelligence, and not much dispute among experts on intelligence that the difference is real in the sense that it is reflected in unequal school and job performance. There is more debate as to what causes it. Even in the 1980's the experts were divided three to one in favor of explaning for black/white differences in IQ by both genetic and environmental causes.”

Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: economics for the long run." Research in biopolitics 5 (1997): 391-416.

“Mario Bunge suggests that hereditarianism about racial differences in intelligence

is charlatanism, not science. He says that Jensen's hypothesis that the lower IQ of blacks is partly due to genetic factors "was unanimously rejected by the scientific community." (Bunge 1996, 106) In actuality, according to the poll of experts in the relevant fields, of all the scientists who felt qualified to express a view on that issue, 53% agreed with Jensen”

Sesardic, Neven. "Philosophy of science that ignores science: Race, IQ and heritability." Philosophy of Science (2000): 580-602.

“Now, however, the role of inheritance in behavior has become widely accepted, even for sensitive

domains such as IQ (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).”

Plomin, Robert, Gerald E. McClearn, and Grazyna Gora-Maslak. "Quantitative trait loci and psychopharmacology: response to commentaries." Journal of Psychopharmacology 5.1 (1991): 23-28.

“Many experts in the field (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988) agree with Herrnstein and Murray when they state that "it seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.”

Bouchard, T. J., and D. D. Dorfman. "Two views of the bell curve."Contemporary Psychology 40.5 (1995).

BlackHades (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. You're misuse of sources here is beyond the pale. You've got gaggle of 20 year old articles and op-eds, many of them primary sources, many of them from proponents of Rushton's theories, many don't mention the hereditarian viewpoint, some of them don't even discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously? aprock (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you pick the one source that you think is the most reliable, most independent source, which makes the most solid case that the hereditarian viewpoint is mainstream. I'm willing to wager there isn't a single meaningful source in the lot here. aprock (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. Your ignoring of sources here is beyond the pale. I've got several sources listed from major journals, many of them secondary sources, many of them from the mainstream, many that mention that Jensen's viewpoint is the majority mainstream viewpoint, a lot of them discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously? BlackHades (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You could respond by offering up the source which you think is the highest quality. Which one is it? One of the editorials? aprock (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

They're not all editorials. Several are peer reviewed studies. All of them are secondary sources for Snyderman & Rothman and all of them meets WP:V. It's also odd that you want to dismiss editorials when so much content in this article is devoted to primary source editorials, op-eds, etc for the environmental position. Such as Nisbett. Given that you want to dismiss editorials, op-eds, etc would it be okay with you if I remove all the content in the article related to the primary source of Nisbett? Who is definitely not mainstream and who's viewpoint has been labeled by Hunt & Carlson as extreme. Or are editorials, op-eds, etc only relevant if it supports the environmental view? BlackHades (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Nisbett's book is an editorial? Really? I've repeated held up Hunt/Carlson as a high quality secondary source. I've never held up Nisbett's book as such. You still haven't said which source you think makes the case the best. aprock (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about Nisbett's commentary on Rushton/Jensen in APA. There's also a lot of other environmental content other than Nisbett in this article based on editorials, op-eds, letters to editors, etc. I also have many more secondary sources of Snyderman/Rothman from books if you consider those more relevant. Asking me to name one is a pointless request as they all meet WP:V. BlackHades (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's useful to know that (as I suspected) people are using the same terms to mean different things. Since it seems to mean different things to different people, can we stop using imprecisely defined terms like "hereditarian" without qualification? Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And why do we really put so much weight on what psychologists things about the nature of gene-environment interactions? Circa 1985 you might have been able to talk about "genetic effects" without needing to prove anything, but with the rise of quantitative genetics in the 90s and genomics in the last decade, you can't any more. These days you're expected to deposit sequences in Genbank when you talk about genes. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And rightly so, too. Before modern genetics, which is a very recent development, those who spoke of race and heritability were largely guessing. We should weight sources accordingly; more recent ones which use modern genetic science far outweigh older ones which do not. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the research of Race and Intelligence are overwhelmingly done by psychologists. Whether it is from a genetic or environmental perspective. The vast majority of WP:reliable sources on this issue are by psychologists. I would say over 90%+ of the references in this article is cited to psychologists in the field. BlackHades (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that >90% of the sources in this article don't have the requisite qualifications to speak to the issue of genetics. That creates a potential problem, does it not? Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

sources do not support mainstream claim

I've reviewed each of the quotes supplied, and the body of several of the sources. What we have here is a clear case of editor synthesis. Three of the sources are editoral/polemic in nature, and cannot be used to support content outside what the authors think. The rest of the sources do not equate the hereditarian viewpoint, as espoused by Rushton/Jensen, et. al., as being mainstream. Instead, they echo the viewpoint that both environment and genetics are factors that most consider relevant. This viewpoint is more robustly supported by higher quality secondary sources, and is not an issue which is in dispute. What is in dispute is the imporper claim that "hereditarianism is mainstream". None of these sources can be used to support that claim. In fact, there are many sources which explicity identify the views of Rushton/Jensen et. al. as being far outside the mainstream.

• Gottfredson, Linda S. "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud." Society 31.3 (1994): 53-59.

This is a polemic work by one of the leading proponents of the hereditarian view. This is certainly not an independent sources, and as a polemic can only be reliably used to represent Gottfredson's own views. She also misrepresents the survy which did not equate genetic contribution, with the more extreme views of Jensen.

• Teo, Thomas. "Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence." Human

Studies 34.3 (2011): 237-255.

This source is just quoting Rushton's support for the survey without any independent synthesis from the secondary source. This source can only be used to establish that Rushton thought that the survey vindicated his view.

• Ferguson, Ronald F. "Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap."

Urban Education 38.4 (2003): 460-507.

This source does not mention the hereditarian viewpoint at all. Using this source to establish that is a clear example of WP:SYNTH.

• Cowley, Geoffrey. "Testing the science of intelligence." Newsweek 24 (1994): 56-60.

While this is a good source, it establishes that Jensen's view is more mainstream than Nisbett's. It does not say that Jensen's view is mainstream. That is again an example of WP:SYNTH

• Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and

recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).

This source likewise cannot be used to support your mainstream claims. However, it does support the fact that the 100% environmental position is not mainstream, which is a different thing.

• Malloy, Jason. "James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences." Medical

Hypotheses 70.6 (2008): 1081-1091.

This is an editoria, and cannot be used for anything beyond establishing Malloy's view.

• Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: economics for the long run." Research in biopolitics 5 (1997):

391-416.

This source does not reference the hereditarian viewpoint at all, and does not support your claim.

• Sesardic, Neven. "Philosophy of science that ignores science: Race, IQ and heritability."

Philosophy of Science (2000): 580-602.

This is an advocate of the hereditarian hypothesis using the poll to support his own views. And even he doesn't say that Jensen's view is mainstream. This footnote cannot be used to establish that the hereditarian view is mainstream.

• Plomin, Robert, Gerald E. McClearn, and Grazyna Gora-Maslak. "Quantitative trait loci and

psychopharmacology: response to commentaries." Journal of Psychopharmacology 5.1 (1991): 23-28.

Again we have a source which makes no mention of the hereditarian viewpoints of Rushton/Jensen.

• Bouchard, T. J., and D. D. Dorfman. "Two views of the bell curve."Contemporary Psychology 40.5 (1995).

Again, we have no statement that the views of Rushton/Jensen are mainstream. What we do have is a statement that both genetic and environmental factors "have something to do with racial differences."

Given that the survey is over two decades old in an area of study that has changed radically over that time, the survey is primarily of historical significance. And even then, it's role has been broadly relegated to two roles (A) establishing that both genetics and environment are relevant, something which high quality secondary sources agree upon, and (B) that hereditarians have used it to vindicate their views. aprock (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHERRY. You conveniently skip and ignore text that refutes and invalidates your points. You also previously agreed with using Nisbett as a source and called him a "well respected scientist" as shown here. Given that you have now acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett, it's axiomatic that Jensen should be given more weight than Nisbett. BlackHades (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• You conveniently skip and ignore text that refutes and invalidates your points Which text from which source was that?
• You also previously agreed with using Nisbett as a source ... I've also agreed with using Rushton/Jensen as a source
• and called him a "well respected scientist" as shown here. This is what I wrote, and I stand by it: The only arguments against Nisbett I've really seen on this talk page are based on google scholar, which cannot be used to establish due weight. Given that it's a relatively recent tertiary source by a well respected scientist published for a lay audience, it's hard to see how it is out of place here. That said, it's certainly the case that we should also incorporate other tertiary sources like Hunt and Daley, while reducing reliance on many of the primary sources in the article.
• Given that you have now acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett, it's axiomatic that Jensen should be given more weight than Nisbett. He already is.

As explained here: Nisbett's oversized footprint here is attributable in no small measure to the impact of at least one on/off again topically banned user editing under two disclosed accounts who may have earnestly believed Nisbett provided "balance". I fully support sourcing the article content to other high quality sources. Cheers. aprock (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole argument is a mess. Before we continue yelling at each other, we need to figure out what we mean by various terms. I'm no expert on the wars among schools of thought in the social sciences. The hereditarianism article says that hereditarians have explicitly abandoned the standard social science model. Is this true? If so, it seems strange that they would be considered mainstream within the social sciences. Are they considered mainstream within the life sciences? It seems rather odd that we biologists would defer to psychologists on this topic. The idea that you can assert genetic cause without genetic data would be laughed at by most biologists. So: mainstream in educational psychology? Mainstream in neurobiology? Or mainstream in some narrow subfield that calls itself "intelligence" research? The second question involves making a leap from "hereditarian" to the Rushton-Jensen-Lynn group. It's one thing to say that there's a "significant" impact of genetics on intelligence (which is, of course, not the same as saying that intelligence is heritable). It's quite another to believe that there's a difference based on race, and quite something else to believe that this difference has been demonstrated.

When we say "mainstream" we need to be careful what we're saying. When we say "hereditarian" we need to make sure that we aren't conflating a whole host of ideas. And when we're talking about race, we need to make sure that we aren't conflating different ideas. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Standard social science model appears to be a label made up by opponents of the "model", not a model social scientists positively adhere too. Steven Pinker seems to be among those who have argued against the alleged model in the The Blank Slate. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources mentioned for the extraordinary claim in the heading of this section are neither the most current nor the most authoritative on the issue, especially in light of standard Misplaced Pages policy of preferring reliable secondary sources for all articles, and especially preferring Reliable Sources on Medicine for issues that have medical implications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I tagged Snyderman and Rothman (1987) with {{fv}} as a source for Snyderman and Rothman (1988) because (a) it makes no mention of S&R (1988), and (b) because it makes no mention of "liberal bias in the media". In this edit BlackHades removes {{fv}} from Snyderman and Rothman (1987), and added Rindermann (2012). To begin with, adding Rindermann doesn't change the fact that S&R fails to support the statements attributed to it, so it was inappropriate to remove the tag. But it gets worse: Rindermann does not cite S&R 1988, they cite S&R 1987, so it's no better a source. When I reverted that edit, BlackHades AGAIN removed the {{fv}} from S&R 1987, and added Eysenck (1994). But Eysenck references S&R 1988, he doesn't say a word about the survey, and while he mentions "bias" in the media, he says nothing about "liberal media bias". In a subsequent edit s/he added a reference to Herrnstein & Murray and mentions pp. 295-296 in the edit summary. I don't have access to that source at present, but given BH's history of misusing sources just here, in these few edits, this edit also needs independent verification.

I'm shocked that anyone would engage in such blatant misuse of sources. I don't think we should have to tolerate this sort of behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me... You are edit warring to include an unnecessary tag. First, there is nothing wrong with simply citing the primary source here. This has already been explained to you earlier by The Devil's Advocate.

"What you cite is describing the policy on original research, which does permit the use of primary sources and the case page actually supports this as well. It is interpretation and analysis of those sources that is not permitted. Describing what a primary source states is well within the bounds of policy."--The Devil's Advoate

Secondly, if there's something not supported by the source, then just remove what isn't supported. Adjust the text instead of putting unnecessary tags. What specifically are you saying is unsupported? You never made this clear. The liberal bias aspect? Then just remove it. It's not that hard. If you don't have access to a source, why couldn't you just ask? Here is "The Bell Curve" pg 295-296:

This brings us to the flashpoint of intelligence as a public topic: the question of genetic differences between the races. Expert opinion, when it is expressed at all, diverges widely. In the 1980s, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively, sent a questionnaire to a broad sample of 1,020 scholars, mostly academicians, whose specialties give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ. (Snyderman & Rothman 1988) Among the other questions, they asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the black-white differences in IQ?" (emphasis in the questionnaire item). The answers were divided as follows:

-The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15 percent
-The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1 percent
-The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45 percent.
-The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24 percent
-No response: 14 percent

"Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press. pg 295-296

BlackHades (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the "liberal bias" text. If this was what you were disputing then you should have made that clear. I sincerely hope this matter is concluded now. BlackHades (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude - you're proven the kind of person you are. You're willing to make claims about sources that are OUTRIGHT falsehoods. Not once, but repeatedly. I tagged the source, and you removed the tag, which amounts to making a false claim about its content. Then you added a second source, falsely implying it supported the text. When I removed that source and restored the tag on the first source you AGAIN de-tagged the source (third misrepresentation of the source), and then added another source which did not support the claim. That's FOUR times, in one short span of editing, that you made false claims about sources. The pattern of your editing is well established...NOTHING you say can be trusted. I don't think any of use should have to deal with people like that. Guettarda (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your 2nd frivolous section on talk you've created on me now. This amounts to harassment at this point. You make assertions without even checking sources I list. For example, making a blind assumption that Herrnstein and Murray source wasn't supportive without even bothering to check. You don't even make it clear what you're asking for. If you had a problem with the "liberal bias" text, you should have specifically stated so. Unnecessary tagging is WP:Disruptive editing. Such as tagging "The review article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" by Rushton and Jensen was published in 2005." Why on Earth would you tag this? You're actually looking for a secondary source on this? To validate what? That a publication exists that was printed in 2005 called "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability"? Proper use of primary source is allowed. Note that you conveniently don't bother tagging any environmental text that is cited to primary sources. Apparently you thought all of those are perfectly okay. The better question is why should any of us have to deal with such blatant disruptive editing. BlackHades (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, correct use of tags and discussion of improper removal of same and misuse of sources is not harassment by any stretch of the imagination. Please see WP:HARASS. Given that you have recently come off a block for what amounts to a form of harassment (frivolous SPI report is what was noted in the block) it rather astonishes me that you would so casually throw the accusation at an editor for bringing up concerns which involve our core policies. Attacking Guettarda does not obviate his concerns, nor does it render the "sources" used adequate for the content. Either work with others to rewrite the content to match the sources (best), find better sources (might be problematic), or withdraw your position. Don't think that personally attacking another editor will deflect attention from the content and sourcing issues. KillerChihuahua 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion, in my opinion, has spiraled out of control away from AGF for no good reason. A perfectly reasonable interpretation: Guettarda could find no explicit mention of a "liberal" bias in the sources and rightfully tagged. BlackHades, working from a particular point of view (as everyone does), understood the "bias" being discussed in the sources as being a liberal one, and so saw no issue with that particular claim. Guettarda's tags and edit comments do not say what exactly in the paragraph is disputed, and BlackHades thought it was something other than the "liberal" bit, so kept putting on references to the survey (BTW, Eysenck 1994 does mention, on p.66, the survey discussed in S&R 1988). The solution is for those including claims to stick as closely to the sources as possible within reason and for those disputing claims to be as specific as possible within reason.

Finally, Killer, w/r/t your recent edit, the survey was given to over 1000, but had only 600 respondents.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read all those sources, and have a photocopy of the shorter Snyderman and Rothman source at hand. That source is often relied on to say things it actually doesn't see in edits of Misplaced Pages articles, and all edits that cite it should be examined very carefully. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Original synthesis

The new content just added by Dbate1 looks like original synthesis. Most or all of the sources for it are about IQ in general, but don't talk about racial IQ gaps. They also all are primary sources. If there is a secondary source that makes these points, then the points can be added to the article cited to that secondary source, but editors aren't allowed to construct their own conclusion from multiple primary sources and add it to the article. Akuri (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All good points, and ones which affect both that specific subsection, the section as a whole, and the entire article. Reviewing the specific content, it probably is better suited to Heritability of IQ. That said, that article should probably be presented in WP:SUMMARY style in this article. aprock (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have read the article, and have discussed it among researchers who are members of the Behavior Genetics Association, and the recent edits do not well represent the best considered view found in reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If we agree the content he added is original synthesis, someone should remove it. I would do it myself, but the article is set so only people registered a certain amount of time can edit it. Akuri (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

When I have time to go over the sources, I'll be happy to update the article. In the meantime, you might consider opening a dialogue on that editors user page. aprock (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem agreed this content is original synthesis, so I removed it.

Aprock: you were diligent about removing pro-hereditarian material that you thought was sub-standard when we were talking about the brain size and evolutionary theories sections, but you aren't making as much effort to remove original synthesis when it favors the opposite perspective. Why is that? If it is because you personally prefer the 100% environmental hypothesis, I should remind you that policies like "no original synthesis" apply to ANY content, whether you agree or disagree with it. Akuri (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think there has been a problem with my edits please raise them on my talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article. aprock (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1: The moderators have been contacted. The presented data was found to be in conformance with WP:SYNTH guidelines. Future alterations should be addressed to the appropriate moderators of the page to avoid banning or suspension. Dbate1 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The moderators have not been contacted. (I assume you mean arbitrators, Misplaced Pages does not have people called moderators.) The place to request their intervention or ask them to ban someone is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and anyone who looks can see you didn't post anything there. If you think this matter requires their intervention, I encourage you to raise it there. I also think these articles would benefit from arbitration, although probably not for the same reason you do.

If you don't want to request arbitration, you must explain why the content you added does not violate WP:SYNTH. No one else agrees with you that it doesn't. Akuri (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The moderators (excuse me if arbitrators is the more formal term) can and were contacted via arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Thus, there were no modifications listed on the linked page. However, I will submit them there as well. You will notice that there are very few arbitrations posted on that page, yet wikipedia itself is rather massive.

If you look back through the history of the page, you will see that I made a number of modifications in order to conform to the issues addressed by the earlier individuals. The first stated challenges were against the information I originally added, and not to the latter material after the modifications. Therefore I modified the section to only include direct information stated in the sources relevant to IQ change. If you found these modifications insufficient, I apologize. When I saw the changes you made it appeared to eliminate them based on the presented challenges to the prior modifications. Thus, I contacted moderators (or formally arbitrators) because it appeared to be vandalism without justification (as the requested edits had already been made). Additionally, original synthesis requires the imposition of ones own opinion incorporated into source content. No where did the added information include any thing but objective details from the studies. (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As Aprock have stated, the content appears to be more suited for Heritability of IQ. I would recommend moving this there. You appear to be misinterpreting the studies as well. The studies do not imply that group to group differences in IQ over time is environmental..or genetic. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1: It appears that another user has eliminated the section. Specifically, i would like individuals to point out the objections they hold to the section in detail. The aforementioned applied to the section before I made the edits. When my original additions were challenged, I edited them to conform to those objections. However, I have not seen what challenges exist in the current format, thus I can not modify them to address concerns. If users will provide the objections, then I will correct them or address them.

I have submitted the issue for arbitration, but if they can be resolved here it would eliminate the need.

Specifically, the recent user Looie496 eliminated the section without offering reason to do so. This therefore precludes me from addressing the concerns. Moreover, the frequent elimination (in the face of modification to conform) appears to be a use of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool.

If further modifications are made without justification, I will submit those users names disciplinary action.

Dbate1 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:To respond to to aprock, even if the material is more suited for another section it does not make it original synthesis. I will include the information in that section as well. However, that topic page does not refer or apply to IQ change at all. Thus, I am hesitant to include the information in a section it is ill suited for. Moreover, no where was it stated that the articles referenced group differences in IQ. They explicitly refer to IQ change , which is the central facet of the subpoint.

Dbate1 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me be direct. You don't yet understand how Misplaced Pages works. You are going in like an angry elephant, thrashing and trampling. It won't work. Unless you take the time to understand how things are done here, you won't accomplish anything. The other people here have good will and will help you if you give them a chance. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my rather rash behavior earlier. I assumed wikipedia functioned much like most internet venues (with moderators that resolved disputes) and was populated with people unaccustomed to rational resolution. I see I was severely wrong on both accounts. I was unaware that these issues are to be resolved via educated discourse in avenues such as this. And I hope you all accept my apology.

From the points mentioned earlier, I gleaned two primary objections that led to the conclusion of original synthesis.

1) Primary Source Use

To address the issue of primary source use, the papers I included internally cite each other. Specifically, Boosma 2011 cites Bartels 2002, Boosma 2007, and Boosma 2003.

In the original piece, I did not include the secondary source through which I originally found the other materials. They are all cited in Haworth 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/). This accounts for Child Development 1989, Plomin 2007, Plomin 2004, and Boosma 2003. The article by Lyons 2009 was cited by Nisbett in Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.

I was not able to find a secondary source for Plomin 2013, and as a result will eliminate it because it is a primary source.

2) Applicability to Race IQ Gap

Another concern was that the material was not in reference to black-white IQ gaps. However, Nisbitt cites Lyons 2009 in his article (Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments)in regard to racial gaps. Additionally, Lyons 2009 directly cites: Bartels 2002, Plomin 2004, which suggests that these articles are in the relevant realm of race related IQ debates.

In terms of their applicability to IQ in general, this is true. But that is all the more reason that it is relevant. The emergence or lack thereof (depending on which data is cited) of an IQ gap is highly integrated with the general structure and stability of IQ in general. Because the gradual emergence of the gap originates on the population level (as opposed to individuals), articles that reference IQ stability and change on the population level are relevant to that subject matter. However, one must be careful that the articles are reported objectively without any inclusion of interpretation.

I understand that this is a topic matter fraught with emotion. But I would argue that that is all the more reason that we should allow the data to speak for itself without our own interpretations. I was careful to only include factual information from the sources and to obviate any sort of interpretation. Misplaced Pages, as we all know, is used as a tool for many people exploring a new topic, and for that reason I believe that the inclusion of more data is always better.

Objectivity is always in the eye of the beholder, so I would appreciate any constructive criticism to make the section better.

Good day!

Dbate1 (talk) 2:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:

I would really like feedback on whether the piece would be considered original synthesis given the above information. If no one has objections, I can rewrite the section to exclude the primary source and incorporate the secondary source, and then add it to the article.

Dbate1 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that links the studies to the race and intelligence debate, please provide it. You mentioned Nisbett but please be more specific exactly where in "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" you are referring to. BlackHades (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned under the Social Factors section.::::Dbate1 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.198.67 (talk)

Please quote the specific text you are referring to. BlackHades (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Genetic arguments

The section on genetic arguments is missing some key lines of reasoning. One, for example, is that the mean differences correlate with heritability estimates. This is found with structural equation modeling:

Probably the most rigorous methodology presently available to test the default hypothesis is the application of structural equation modeling to what is termed the biometric decomposition of a phenotypic mean difference into its genetic and environmental components. This methodology is an extraordinarily complex set of mathematical and statistical procedures, an adequate explanation of which is beyond the scope of this book, but for which detailed explanations are available. It is essentially a multiple regression technique that can be used to statistically test the differences in “goodness-of-fit” between alternative models, such as whether (1) a phenotypic mean difference between groups consists of a linear combination of the same genetic (G) and environmental (E) factors that contribute to individual differences within the groups, or (2) the group difference is attributable to some additional factor (an unknown Factor X) that contributes to variance between groups but not to variance within groups.... (Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.)

When directly correlating mean differences and genetic loadings:

I had demonstrated in my research of the 1970s that mean Black–White differences in IQ were more pronounced on the more heritable, less cultural subtests. For example, Jensen (1973) cited a study by Nichols (1972) which found a correlation of r = .67 (p < .05) between the heritabilities of 13 tests estimated from twins and the magnitude of the Black–White differences on the same tests. I further demonstrated an inverse relation of r = .70 (p < .01) between the environmentality (the converse of heritability, that is, the percentage of variance that can be attributed to nongenetic factors) for 16 tests estimated from differences between siblings and the mean White–Black differences (Jensen, 1973)…

Strong inference is possible: (1) genetic theory predicts a positive association between heritability and group differences; (2) culture theory predicts a positive association between environmentality and group differences; (3) nature + nurture models predict both genetic and environmental contributions to group differences; while (4) culture-only theories predict a zero relationship between heritability and group differences. These results provide strong and reliable corroboration of the hypothesis that the cause of group differences is the same as the cause of individual differences, that is, about 50% genetic and 50% environmental (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, 2010) (Jensen, A. R. (2012). Rushton’s contributions to the study of mental ability. Personality and Individual Differences.)

And when correlating mean differences with g-loadings:

In this study we collected the complete empirical literature and conducted a meta-analysis. The findings clearly show that the true correlation between mean group differences and g loadings is strong: a correlation of .71 based on the Wechsler tests as a reference for the restriction of range correction and a correlation of .91 when the Dutch GATB was taken as a reference. Probably the GATB is a better reference, as its variance in g loadings is closer to the variance in g loadings from a theoretically optimal test battery, measuring all broad abilities of Carroll’s (1993) model. Also, the correlations between group differences and g loadings do not differ by group; some out comes are even virtually identical…….Recent psychometric meta-analyses have clearly shown that g loadings correlate highly with measures of heritability. te Nijenhuis and Grimen (2007) show that g loadings of subtests correlate perfectly with these subtests’ heritability coefficients. Moreover, te Nijenhuis and Franssen (2010) show that inbreeding depression correlates .85 with g loadings. This strongly suggests that g loadings and heritability coefficients may be interchangeable. This in turn suggests that the high correlation between g loadings and group differences could imply that mean group differences have a substantial genetic component. However, this is not necessarily the case, as the score patterns of biological factors, such as better nutrition and better health care for pregnant women, may mimic the score pattern of the heritability coefficient. At the present, these effects are impossible to disentangle, as all the available research is correlational and not experimental…. (Dragt, J. (2010). Causes of group differences studied with the method of correlated vectors: A psychometric meta-analysis of Spearman’s hypothesis.)

(The argument here isn't that the found correlations prove that the differences are genetic but that they are consistent with a genetic hypothesis and not obviously consistent with an environmental hypothesis and so provide grounds for making an inference. Now, this line of evidence has been frequently cited and discussed, so it is odd that it is not included. Instead, there is a section on Spearman's hypothesis (SH). But SH isn't about genes, it's about phenotype. SH is that the black-white (and other) gaps are largely in general intelligence. This is out of place here. The argument for genes is: the size of the gap varies with the genetic loading of tests.

So, if no one has any objections, I will rewrite the Spearman's hypothesis subsection. If you have any objections let me know.--Zebrapersonfrank (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The proper way to present that section is using WP:SUMMARY style. If you think there are specific aspects of that topic that are missing from Spearman's hypothesis, then the place to start is with that article, not with this article. aprock (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag in "Genetic Arguments" lead.

If there's no objections, I would like to remove the neutrality tag in the lead for "genetic arguments". This tag was added back in December 2011 when Hipocrite (talk) was making major changes to the "Genetic arguments" lead and Victor Chmara (talk) was reverting them. The current version is much different than any of the leads back then. It's been altered and there is more balance overall. I previously removed the tag a couple months ago but Aprock (talk) put it back on. Given all the changes since the tag was originally added in December 2011, I asked Aprock (talk) why the tag shouldn't be removed but before he had the opportunity to reply, we all got sidetracked in the discussion related to the removal of "Brain Size" and other sections of the article. So I would like to open this discussion again and ask if anyone has any objections to the removal of the tag at this time. BlackHades (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Brain size

The new brain size section has a few issues...

I.

Many studies have looked at differences in brain size or head size (see Bibliography below). A study by Jensen and Johnson in 1994 found that black children had on average smaller heads and lower IQ than whites, and that IQ was positively correlated to head size. The differences in head size seemed to account for the differences in IQ: "White and black children who are matched on IQ show, on average, virtually zero difference in head size."

— Jensen, A. R.; Johnson, F. W. (1994). "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ". Intelligence. 18 (3): 309. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(94)90032-9.

• This paragraph violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a primary source. Multiple high-quality sources are required for "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

II.

From our article (emphasis mine)...

Earl Hunt writes that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are an important argument for a genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are very expensive to obtain, so much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly. Combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a small portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.

— Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 433–434. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

From the source (emphasis mine)...

Rushton and Jensen, and (in separate papers) Lynn have also proposed that the difference between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size. Brain size does have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence within the White population. Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence. However, such studies would be difficult to arrange, due to the expense of obtaining brain images. Therefore, researchers interested in this topic have made estimates of brain size differences from external measures on the skull. This indirect method has its problems.

The correlation between intelligence and cranial capacity, estimated from measurements on the skull, drops to about .2, which is not surprising as brain size is substantially but imperfectly related to skull size. In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm, which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46. Combined with a .2 correlation, this leads to the conclusion that on the basis of skull size there should be a difference of d = .09 between Black and White test scores. If we accept the idea that brain size and processing speed are statistically independent, the expected gap due to these factors is then .19, still far below the observed value of 1.0.

• This paragraph makes Hunt's explanation of Rushton, et al's argument appear to be coming from Hunt himself. It also includes a number of distortions and omissions e.g., "This indirect method has its problems." becomes "only measures brain size indirectly" and " brain size would be an important link in an argument" becomes "differences in average brain size are an important argument".

Given the above, I am going to remove the section. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand how sourcing works. Yes, Hunt is summarising Rushton, because summarising primary sources is what secondary sources DO. We should cite primary sources sparingly, but when a secondary source presents data from a primary source, putting what the secondary source says in the article (in the voice of the secondary source) is exactly what we should to as Wikipedians. This is at least the third time you've removed the section, despite others telling you to improve it instead of using this slash-and-burn approach. I'm telling you the same thing again now. Please improve the section if you think it does not summarise Hunt well enough. When other editors are telling you to do that, it is disruptive for you to refuse and to only keep removing it again and again. Akuri (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the text given Artifex's concerns. We may not need to cite Rushton directly when we do have secondary sourcing coverage. Hunt seems to have sufficient detail about the research of hereditarians on the matter. Getting some additional sourcing would be good, but I don't think blanking the section is the appropriate response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, please stop blanking "Brain Size". You've blanked "Brain Size" 3 times now. If you think there's specific issues, then raise them or fix them but constant attempts at blanking the entire section is now very disruptive. BlackHades (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hopeful he's going to stop blanking it now. Do you want to try rewriting the evolutionary theories section, so we can try to restore that also? 101.0.79.18 (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will see what I can do regarding "evolutionary theories". BlackHades (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did what I thought was best in the light of the policy issues I raised at the top of this thread. Obviously several editors don't share my concerns and have restored the section. I still find the current content to be in volation of several core polices, however, I will certainly not be engaging in an edit war over it.. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is welcome and we will work toward addressing specific issues you have. We should be moving to give proper due weight to all significant viewpoints that exists in reliable sources on this section. Hunt as a source is a good start. But I would like to see more balance with more secondary sources from varying perspectives on the issue. Both from a genetic perspective and the environmental perspective. As well as reliable sources that deem current evidence to be inconclusive. This section needs a lot more work to address out the quirks but this is a decent start. BlackHades (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Massive revert by KillerChihuahua

KillerChihuahua just reverted the entire article to a version from a month ago, with no discussion. The explanation in his edit summary was "Not seeing recent changes as an improvement'". This looks like page WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Even if he does not see recent changes as an improvement, he shouldn't have the power to single-handedly reject every change other editors have discussed and agreed upon in the past month, without discussing those changes with any of them. I'm tempted to undo this massive revert right away, but first I want to make sure other editors agree it's a problem for one editor to roll back a month of changes with no discussion. Akuri (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If edits improve an article, it's not a problem. If they don't improve the article, then the talk page is the proper place to discuss the content of the edits. Id you have a specific issue with the edits from a content perspective? aprock (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the improvements he undid were ALREADY discussed, on this very page. I think the version he reverted to is from February, so the explanation for the changes that had been made since then and that he undid is in the past few archives. It isn't fair for to force everyone to re-discuss all of the same changes that already were discussed and agreed upon once before. That would trap us in an endless cycle of having to discuss the same changes again and again, every time someone decides to revert the article back more than a month like he did. Akuri (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussions above, I'm not quite sure which content you are referring to. Looking at the changes, many of them were added back, with the most notable exception being the treatment of brain size. Reviewing the brain size content that was removed, it's clear that both the Hunt and Jensen sources are being misused. aprock (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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