Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlackHades (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 28 April 2013 (→Rewriting brain size: We need to approach this article more evenhandedly.). 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

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)

It's not clear that brain size is sufficiently central to mainstream genetic study of race and intelligence that it should be presented in its own section. Initially it looks like what's said about brain size under Health and nutrition, and in History of the debate is enough. Tom Harrison 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be central at all, and giving it its own section is undue weight for what has been at most a side consideration. Much of what has been added to this article has been, in addition, clear SYNTH violations - race and brain size + brain size and intelligence - and whatever else is done, we need to be careful to avoid SYNTH. KillerChihuahua 12:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I wouldn't characterize it as "central" to genetic study of race and intelligence, but it is a very significant aspect of the debate and merits some commensurate mention. It is not just a part of the history, nor does it pertain to "health and nutrition" as it is its own area of inquiry.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All high quality secondary sources characterize the research into brain size, as it relates to race and intelligence, as preliminary and problematic. If you have an independent source which characterize the research as being "a very significant aspect" of our understanding of race and intelligence, then please provide the source. I'll likewise note that this article is not about the debate. The desire to turn this article into a "he said/she said" back and forth debate is part of the ongoing disruptions. aprock (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Human Intelligence excerpt above, Hunt does not say that it is an important avenue of research. He says that results would be important, but that studies are difficult, and indirect evidence is problematic. Please take care with sourcing, as misrepresentation of sources is one of the core problems with this article. If you are referring to a different source, please state which source and provide the quote in context. aprock (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

One might suggest that it goes without saying that if the results of such research would be important, then the research itself would be kind of important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Inferring those sort of conclusions is what is referred to as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH an WP:SYNTHESIS on wikipedia. aprock (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, it's the talk page, for one, and there is nothing "original" about my assessment. We can certainly go "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" and take that into consideration when deciding what details should be covered. That isn't original research or synthesis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the article, not about what is included on the talk page. "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" is not something that can be added to the article. aprock (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you see me suggesting that? We can use sources on the talk page to infer things about the subject even when we are not allowed to state such things on the article. For instance, at AfD you don't need sources that actually say "this subject is notable" because that would be an unnecessary burden to the process and you generally don't add "this subject is notable" to the article text regardless. We can certainly infer from sources such as Hunt that brain size is a noteworthy aspect of the subject. Naturally, the article should still only say what the sources say about the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject". That is false. Using false statements to make inferences is not going to get you anywhere. aprock (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be overstressing the subject to suggest Hunt considered it "important". In fact, he considers the importance Jensen/Rushton/Lynn give to it as overstressed: "The brain size hypothesis put forth so strongly by Lynn and Rushton appears to me to be a nonstarter." Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He was actually talking about its application to gender in that quote, not race.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you are still not reading sources properly. Hunt also finds the brain size argument with respect to racial differences in intelligence to also be lacking. In addition to the quotes above we also have:

Lynn supports his hypothesis by reference to group differences, estimated from studies of cranial capacity. Even if this data is accepted, the group differences in brain size and the correlations between brain size and intelligence are far too small to account for the large racial/ethnic differences in IQ scores.

From the way you discuss Hunt's work, it's not even clear to me that you've read it. Maybe you could locate the quote which you think indicates that published research into brain size is anything more than preliminary and problematic? aprock (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He didn't actually say it was lacking, but that the purported correlations would not come close to covering the entirety of the variation. The quote that was already provided by Artifex shows Hunt saying that, if the data is accurate, it might suggest brain size contributes to 9% of the difference in gauged intelligence and that is not a trivial contribution. Such research being preliminary or problematic does not somehow mean it isn't significant enough to mention here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do present the content and the supporting cite(s) that you would like to add to the article. aprock (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables."--Hunt and Carlson (2007)

Hunt and Carlson have described Rushton's argument, that brain size differences between races is a factor in causing racial IQ disparity, as a "useful principal" and advocated further studies on testing Rushton's argument. It's clear that Hunt considers Rushton's argument does merit investigation. BlackHades (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you folks want, sometime when I'm less frustrated I'll try rewriting this section, incorporating the Hunt & Carlson paper as per Aprock's suggestion below. Akuri (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TDA-yes, the quote addressed the theory as applied to male/female but he doesn't say there are any reasons for accepting its importance explaining race gap but not gender gap. Hunt claims their brain size theory "poses a contradiction, for it is not clear how a small brain size difference could produce a large IQ difference between races, while a large brain size difference produces a small IQ difference between men and women." Even if, Hunt says, the hypothesis is correct, it would probably account for less than 1/10th the gap at most. And Hunt was intrigued with imaging brain structure and processing more than he was imaging's potential for producing more accurate measurements of overall brain size.

And I fail to see how the passage quoted from Hunt/Carlson points to brain size as the "important principle". The "important principle" emphasized there is that testable hypotheses about potential genetic/phenotypic characteristics of intelligence are more useful in coming to an understanding about the gap than battling over the heritability scores. It's more practical and ultimately more informative to focus on those sorts of testable hypotheses, in other words, rather than focusing on justifying particular heritability models.

Once imaging studies started rolling out, Hunt when addressing results of one underscored that he doesn't believe brain size research to have been significant (if he ever did). "Unedifying" was how he characterized it. If any of these new studies address race group differences in particular, that would be useful. But absent that here we are battling over what kind of space to give the anachronistic "brain size" stuff- in particular what Jensen/Rushton/Lynn said about the subject of brain size and race-even after brain size has been discarded in favor of superior science into the mechanics and processing involved in individual differences in intelligence. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what Hunt and Carlson is saying at all. They explain it quite clearly in the following 2 sentences following "useful principle" what the useful principle is. That brain size to intelligence is already known to be correlated (per McDaniel's meta analysis of studies), and that Rushton has stated a hypothesis, brain size differences, which is "known to influence intelligence". BlackHades (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, researchers have to use outdated data because it is the only data that exists. Even the traditional concept of "race" is slightly outdated now that DNA tests can precisely measure a person's geographic ancestry. But Misplaced Pages's article is about intelligence compared to race, not intelligence compared to ancestry measured with DNA tests, because comparing IQ scores to "racial" categories is what the published research has been about fo the past few decades. You've shown that comparisons between brain size and IQ are considered anachronistic in favour of more precise measures of brain function, but you haven't provided any sources showing those newer methods being used to examine racial IQ gaps. Are there any sources discussing that? The secondary sources I've looked at discuss race and IQ in relation to brain size, and they sometimes criticise it as outdated, but they don't discuss any data using the newer methods. This looks to me like another situation where the only data available is using an outdated method, just like comparing IQ to racial categories is somewhat outdated. But if outdated measures are what secondary sources discuss, then that is what should be discussed in the article, along with the criticism of them. Akuri (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades. No, that is what they're saying. The lead-in for that section reads, "It would be far more profitable to seek to understand the biological pathway by which specific genes act upon intelligence than to waste time and effort in a quest to tie down heritability coefficients in this or that population, at this or that time." {emphasis mine}. The title of the subsection reads, "Example of Going Beyond Counting Genetic Variance". The authors distinguish the "principle" they're trying to emphasize as not a statement regarding the value of Rushton's argument re brain size but they're using it to illustrate the "principle" Hunt/Carlson are emphasizing--that "Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables." The section it is in is all about laying down research "principles"! Others include, "Measures Must Have Construct Validity'; "When Measurements Are Used to Draw Inferences From Contrasts Between Groups, the Measurements Must Be Shown to Be Valid in All Groups Involved". The "principle" this quote comes from reads, "8. Remember That the Relative Size of Heritability and Environmental Effects Depends on the Population Being Considered". The section begins with a litany of problems with trying to use heritability scores to understanding the race IQ gap. These are "good research" principles, not "root causes of the gap" principles.

@Akuri-No I haven't provided such studies. In fact I emphasized the dilemma we could have here not having them, didn't I? Consider this hypothetical scenario: scientists 100 years ago conducted studies showing a correlation between nose length and divorce rates. Some of them focused further research on racial group differences in those correlations. A game changing study or two comes along that demonstrates the inadequacies of the nose length/divorce rate correlation in determining causation. And another game changing study or two comes along demonstrating a lack of efficacy in focusing so on "group differences" once individual differences were understood. Studies won't be ongoing to retest the discarded paradigm of nose length/divorce rate against the multivarious crosstabbed subgroups of discarded notions like race, astrological sign, or suitability for nose-jobs, would they? Accretion of dead debris like this might pose problems in innumerable articles, a problem ultra-literalist WP policy won't help us navigate well at all.

So leaving strict-literalist policy considerations to one side for a moment, I think Hunt's satisfactorily demonstrated that "brain size debate" has had sufficient prominence to warrant describing here-but only cursorily. Hunt clearly leans in favor of the view that the hypothesis wasn't completely unmerited but clearly tilts away from thinking its results lend much credence to it. He's clearly unexcited about it, but he's merely "fair" to it as at least a plausibly causative hypothesis. In so many words, it's not pseudoscience, in his estimation, even if it's a weak or failed hypothesis. But by the same token, I don't understand a) why he's discussed or implied as lending anything beyond this base-level "importance" to it as at least a plausibly empirical explanation or b) why Hunt's the one go-to to balance Rushton et al. Again and again here I find I keep bumping into this wall. Hunt is relatively dispassionate towards Rushton, etc. But I continue to question why virtually *everything* disputed about the article ultimately orbits the Rushton/Jensen/Lynn view of things, as if they were the consensus that everyone else nibbles away at in the fringes. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No that isn't what Hunt and Carlson is saying. You're trying to link two different points by Hunt and Carlson which are actually separate. The lead in you're referring to is the heritability coefficients of populations and not on Rushton's argument of brain size differences. Hunt & Carlson doesn't consider heritability coefficients of populations very useful. Which is explained in the preceding paragraph that you've stated. They do however consider Rushton's argument on brain size useful which is why Rushton's argument is listed as an "example of going beyond counting genetic variance." The "useful principle" IS Rushton's argument. Rushton's argument IS the testable hypothesis. They make this very clear repeatedly. I'll break it down further. Parenthesis text mine.

Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, (particular argument being Rushton's argument) the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. (argument being Rushton's argument) Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). (Hunt and Carlson explains here why Rushton's argument is a useful principle) Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. (Again explaining further why Rushton's argument is a useful principle) Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. (Hunt and Carlson is advocating for more accurate testing of Rushton's argument by using MRI rather than exterior skull measures) Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim (claim referring to Rushton's argument) is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables. (Hunt and Carlson again stating that heritability coefficients of populations is not very useful whereas Rushton's argument is)

BlackHades (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include content reflecting: "Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables." That doesn't sound all too problematic. That point is independent of Rushton's brain size arguments, which as you observe are "left aside". As is clear from the context "this sort" refers to "using modern imaging techniques". That can be more than adequately covered in other sections of the article, and hardly requires a complete discussion of past explorations, none of which have produced widely accepted results. aprock (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Using modern imaging techniques" is specifically in reference to testing Rushton's argument. As Hunt and Carlson considers it "more sensitive test of the hypothesis" than using exterior skull measures. It is not independent of Rushton's argument. BlackHades (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades, Let me be more succinct then. "PRINCIPLES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES: In this section we offer ten guidelines for conducting studies of racial and ethnic differences. These concerns apply to all studies of racial/ethnic differences in intelligence, whether or not they offer evidence for or against such differences." I quoted the important 8th research principle in my comment above, where this brain size example (not "principle") was used. The authors are not only presenting their "principles" just as I've it, they "broadband" what they mean. They lead with a statement introducing them before, recapitulate each one several times throughout the subsection, and restate them in their conclusions. They've numbered the principles they're proposing in their paper (10) and given this one the number 8. Number 8 doesn't say anything like what you say "the principle" is. It says what I said it says. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS If, as you say, "The "useful principle" IS Rushton's argument" that means what Hunt/Carlson said is, "the brain size principle itself illustrates a useful principle", or, "the brain size argument illustrates a useful argument". I doubt the authors would go to such lengths and use so many words just to obtusely express a point this inane. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of the 8th section is Hunt and Carlson discussing and giving explanations to why they feel the heritability coefficients of populations is not particularly useful. In the final subsection of the 8th section is where Hunt and Carlson gives two examples of what they consider to be much more useful than the heritability coefficients of populations explained earlier. Which is why it's titled "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance." In this subsection Hunt and Carlson lists two examples, or useful principles if you will, that they advocate pursing rather than the heritability coefficients of populations. Rushton's brain size argument being one of the them. The other example is advocating research of specific aspects of the environment rather than global variables. The preceding and following sentences of "useful principle" makes it very clear. The preceding sentence explaining what Rushton's argument is and the following sentence explaining why it's a useful principle. Their answer being because we already know that individual brain size is associated with intelligence per the McDaniel meta-analysis study. The entire 1st paragraph of the subsection "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance" is about Rushton's brain size argument. From the beginning all the way to the end. Not sure where the confusion could be. But I think we're starting to cherry pick this too much now. Whether we want to call it "useful principle" or "important example" is really besides the point. Hunt and Carlson does argue for the testing of Rushton's brain size argument and considers it worth pursuing based on the information that individual brain size to intelligence is known to be correlated per McDaniels. Hunt and Carlson advocates testing this hypothesis using modern MRI and states that this is more important than the studying of heritability coefficients of populations. BlackHades (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

H&C are not saying anything about the "importance" of brain sizes to the topic. They are saying that "the argument itself illustrates a useful principle" because "...discussing this sort of claim is far more..." It is also important to note what H&C are not doing, "...we want to be clear about one thing that we are not going to do. This paper is not a review of the voluminous research ... When we cite specific papers we do so solely as examples..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Synth. The Foster/Sharp paper relates to Race and genetics without any reference to Race and intelligence. It's problematic when there's an attempt here to imply what Foster/Sharp paper says not to do. They argue its bad practice, common in the general public, to inappropriately generalize from the studies in which the social construct of race is merely used as a temporary proxy in beginning a search for genetic markers of particular traits. In other words, race is merely a "starting point" which genetic researchers can use looking for possible genetic links to a trait or disease. And they emphasize no relationship can be implied on basis of unrelated genetic markers "clustering" in a particular socially identified race about any genetic basis for other traits. It's the same old fallacy repeating itself over and over again by people who keep approaching these issues through the long-since failed essentialist race paradigm. Race isn't a "thing" in genetics. Race merely associates with shared ancestry sometimes. And this is perfectly understandable since the social construct of race is one where children tend to be assigned the same race as parents. Shared ancestry is merely a signal genetics may be a factor, not a reason to assume it is. And that "shared ancestry" may only loosely overlap racial identity. There is no reason so far to assume that where genetics plays a role in intelligence (given they do find one) that it's unevenly distributed in any meaningful way by what we think of as "race". It would be the same kind of fallacy as attributing a genetic cause of Urdu because the association between recent shared ancestry and Urdu is so strong. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:35, 19 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