Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramdrake (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 4 September 2006 (→brain size wrt latitude). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Race and intelligence received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Race and intelligence was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 25, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 25, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: High level of writing

2. Factually accurate?: Appears good but contested

3. Broad in coverage?: Very well referenced

4. Neutral point of view?: Topic is inherently controversial, difficult to maintain a neutral POV though there are many level editors trying

5. Article stability? Unstable, multiple revert/edit wars.

6. Images?: Multiple graphs, good photgraphs

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Ifnord 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Archive 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

Arbor's issue about the Race assumption

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

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

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

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

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

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

secondary sources to establish notability

many scholar have made singular claims and theories, which we do not have space or reason to mention in the main text of a summary style article -- not to mention an entire paragraph. a citation in a review paper, textbook, or the discussion of a primary reserach article could be used to establish notability. (another possible way to establish relevance is to show that they are a direct response to some other notable idea.) Jencks' labeling bias theory and Blair's speculative hypothesis about gF' being realted to the BW gap are two of those kinds.

Jencks: only sources that cite Jencks' "labeling bias" theory are book reviews and Jencks himself in describing his book. no mention could be found in textbooks or primary literature search.

Here are sources which aren't book reviews or authored by Jencks which neverthless mention his concept of "labeling bias". Hope this will settle it.,,,, I also forgot to mention they mention Jencks by name as well.--Ramdrake 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful. Now we need to use these sources to present Jencks' theory in a way that's integrated with the rest of the text. It should take no more than a sentence to describe his idea, and it should not require quotations. --Rikurzhen 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you can't put an obviously disputed argument that the IQ differences are cultural rather than genetic in the intro of a section. The part about "innate" versus "developed" is already covered, so all that remains is their claim that the gap is due to environment. --Rikurzhen 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the point that the IQ differences are genetic in nature is also disputed. I don't see why they shouldn't both be mentioned.The debate isn't whether there are cultural/environmental/bias issues that come into the gap. I think everybody agrees on at least one of these at least partially accounting for the gap. The issue is whether there are also genetic issues that account for the gap.--Ramdrake 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The text says Their assertion is that non-cultural environmental factors cause gaps measured by the tests, rather than any possible innate difference based on genetics. As phrased, this is an argument that the gap is entirely environmental, which would not be "intro" material. --Rikurzhen 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1)This isn't the general introduction, this is a section introduction. 2)I still don't see why this position in the debate shouldn't also be mentioned at this point. I think it is most germane, especially for NPOV considerations.--Ramdrake 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it not clear that this section is divided into topical sections? -- 1) intro giving the background of agreement upon which the disagreement rests, 2) arguments for culture-only (w/ a minimal statemnent about disagreement) 3) arguments for partly-genetic (again w/ minimal statement about disagreement) and 4) about divsion of expert opinion. -- The text in question belongs in section 2 rather than 1 if in any. --Rikurzhen 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, that IQ is "developed" (i.e heritable) rather than "innate" (i.e. genetic) is common knowledge. The argument that between group differences in IQ are therefore not the result of "any possible innate differences based on genetics" is not only a matter of dispute, but an argument you will not find made by the other sophisticated supports of culture-only theories that are widely cited. --Rikurzhen 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

An argument you will find made is this: Because IQ is strictly a phenotype, as is every observable or measurable human characteristic, it does not, by itself, support any inference concerning the cause of either individual or group differences in IQ. (Jensen, 1999) I see no reason to doubt that this is the mainstream view (it is repeated in the general by Mountain & Risch 2004). --Rikurzhen 17:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There really needs to be a section, Environmental explanations - it seems conflated with Culture only. --JereKrischel 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this in reference to Blair or Jencks? --Rikurzhen 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jencks point about the BW gap is also made by Jensen (1999): Because IQ is strictly a phenotype, as is every observable or measurable human characteristic, it does not, by itself, support any inference concerning the cause of either individual or group differences in IQ. Jencks' first conclusion is universally accepted. His second conclusion, as summarized in the article, would be in conflict with Jensen. Can we confirm that Jencks literally means that from IQ data alone we can deduce that the BW gap has no genetic component? Or is the second concluison simply a restatement of the first? --Rikurzhen 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

blair

Blair: peer commentary makes no mention of theory about BW gap. apparently, no one found it notable enough to mention among the many peer commentaries aimed direclty at this paper. paper is too new to be mentioned in other sources. --Rikurzhen 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

fryer and levitt

there's now a section titled "U.S. Black-White gap closing". this is the appropriate place to describe the debate that fryer and levitt have contributed to. in addition to their paper on babies, they have several papers on K,1,2,3... graders. the implications of these data for the cause of the gap should be weaved in -- as other data is -- rather than appended. notably, different authors have different interpretations. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Their argument against the genetic explanation should be in the correct section.Ultramarine 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact restore their argument, leaving the data described in the section above. Nonetheless, their argument needs to be blended with similar ones to document that it's a general rather than unique claim. --Rikurzhen 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Porteus

why a whole paragraph about Stanley Porteus? --Rikurzhen 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JKs edits

• need quote to make the statement "these studies support the partly-genetic hypothesis", also, if we say "reported to" here, we should say it on every study)

Don't need a quote. They disagree about many studies, but most prominently the MTRAS. You can see this clearly by reading the reference.

If we're going to have a statement backed up by a reference with quotes, the statement should be backed up completely by the quotes. Paraphrasing, "People say A, B, and C" with a ref that only quotes them saying A and B, doesn't seem appropriate. Why not just add a quote from the reference to back it up? --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The divergent interpretation of MTRAS is the most obvious, but there are many cases. For example: "There is in fact no good evidence, contrary to Nisbett (2005; and Suzuki & Aronson, 2005), that g is malleable by nonbiological variables." One side says non-malleable --> genetic; other side says mallelable --> not-genetic. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say non-malleable --> you are saying that ALL biological variables are genetic. I just don't see that it is the case (disease is a non-genetic, biological variable, for one).--Ramdrake 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making this argument but describing it. However, you are missing the logic. If the only known environmental ways to affect IQ are those that directly affect biology, then this is an argument that the BW gap is due to genetic (based on the assumption that these biological-envionrmental sources of variation are not large enough to account for the entire gap). Nonetheless, the point remains that some studies were are argued to support the cultural hypothesis are also argued to support the genetic hypothesis. --Rikurzhen 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"reported to" for attribution. i added the same twist to the 'genetics' section below it.

I see no such language in that section...can you quote what you mean? --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Other evidence... have also been proposed to indicate a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps and explain how these arose". --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• (put proper ref for each section - labeling bias 1 ref, non-cultural environmental factors 2nd ref) -- see discussion in section above

• move section down one paragraph for general chronological order - chronological order works well when discussing a single topic, but (1) that section contains many subtopics and (2) the last section of that pargraph should be the summarizing paragraph

--Rikurzhen 17:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The last section of the paragraph wasn't summarizing, it was mentioning the other recent study...they seem to go together better. --JereKrischel 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the next to last paragraph, which long was the last paragraph, was a summary paragraph. Note that this is in a sub-section of a WP:SS section. This is why I've added the Summary Style tag to the section. It is massively too big, and needs to make much stronger use of summary writing. Appending singular, unreplicated studies/theories to the end of the section is not good encyclopedia writing. New material should be integrated into the existing text, and weighted for notability and relevance. --Rikurzhen 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But you can't make it shorter and NPOV by arbitrarily removing material. What materials need to be removed need to be discussed first, and consensus arrived at.--Ramdrake 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to material that I removed that was important to making the point? Perhaps you should compare the concision used to describe the hereditarian argument to that used to describe the cultural arguments. --Rikurzhen 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

environment = culture

from the POV of quantitative genetics, environment and culture are indistinguishable. i'm not sure that there is precident for dividing the two. the term "environment" can be taken as more general than culture, and used in its place. --Rikurzhen 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

From a number of other POVs, they are quite distinguishable (I would say the POV of psychologists, sociologists, ethnologues, etc.)--Ramdrake 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the words have different meanings, but WRT the question of what causes the BW gap, it has been customary to divide the hypotheses into two camps, based in part of the mathematical constructs used in quantative genetics. There is excellent documentation for the two camp split. Can you provide documentation for a three camp split? --Rikurzhen 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the use of "culture-only" seems to be a Jensen/Pioneer Fund grantee affectation (he parenthentically calls it, 0% genetic-100% environmental). --JereKrischel 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds (2000): Few, if any, who have studied the issues and the science involved take seriously either proposition that race differences in performance on mental tests are all due to environmental influences or to genetic influences. Rather, the Environmental × Genetic Influence interaction model is the dominant model among those who reject the argument that differences are artifacts of test bias. Even so, the relative contribution of environment and of genetics is hotly debated between the two most extreme positions of 80% environmental/20% genetic and 20% environmental/80% genetic. I will not engage this debate here beyond noting that my own position is that race differences in mental tests scores are related to the interactionist approach and are a result of an ongoing process of reciprocal determinism over the course of the life span. --- Describes 2 positions, and does not distinguish culture from environment. You will find many similar treatments, including Snyderman and Rothman (1987). --Rikurzhen 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, they don't even use the word "culture". This article seems to use the terminology "environmentalist" and "hereditarian". It also seems that the idea of "culture-only" (0% genetic, as proposed by Jensen), is really a straw man - environmentalists don't seem to be denying any genetic component, they're only arguing as to its magnitude. There may well be a split between primary hereditarians, who believe it is at least 50% genetic, and primary environmentalists, who believe it is no more than 5% genetic. --JereKrischel 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I only object to the creation of a division between culture and environment. The tweaking of wording for maximal NPOV is always helpful. You'll note that we describe Reyonld's conclusions in the expert opinion section. --Rikurzhen 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the conflation of "culture" and "environment", although since the sources we're using do the conflation, it isn't like I can fix their references :). Since even Jensen, et.al., use "environmental" parenthentically when they use a loaded term like "culture-only", it seems more proper to have the section labeled "environmental explanations"...furthermore, if we want two sides to it, we shouldn't use the weakest straw man of 0% genetic on the environmentalist side - the idea of 80/20, 20/80 seems a bit more reasonable to me. --JereKrischel 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the purpose would be of distinguishing between culture and environment because wherever IQ tests are given, biotic and abiotic environmental features (e.g. nutrition, exposure to contaminants, incidence of infectous disease) are largely functions of the culture. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How is where you live a function of culture? How is contamination from a plant up-river a function of culture? Although diet and risk activity may be a function of culture (which you could I suppose, call voluntary environmental factors), there are certainly innumerable environmental factors completely unrelated to culture - no matter if you listen to classical music, or hip-hop, if you live in a smoggy area, the environment does not distinguish between your lungs based on culture. --JereKrischel 22:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some cultures are egalitarian, others are stratified. Some are industrial, some are not. Just these two dimensions allow us to plot out a range of cultural variation, and some of these cultures will divide its members into people who suffer from obesity, people who are malnourished, and people who have poersonal trainers. Some of these cultures will divide their people into those who live next to toxic waste sites and others who live surrounded by trees far from any heavy industry. Of course these things are cultural! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are hurricanes cultural, by your definition? Lightning strikes? Earthquakes? I think that culture can be seen as a subset of environmental factors, but it does not encompass them all. I think you may be confusing correlation with causation, as well - the environmentalist POV asserts that environmental factors are causal to the differences we observe, I don't think you can make the same case for culture. --JereKrischel 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. But whether some people live in trailers in flood zones versus houses on high land with cellars is cultural. As to correlation and causation, I never mentioned either. I would agree that poor nutrition is likely to be a strong cause of lower IQ, but my point is that many cases of malnutrition are the result of cultural systems. Moreover, I see no reason why other cultural dynamics MAY cause lower IQ. Certainly, the reason so many recent immigrants scored low on IQ tests administered around WWI had to do with culture. Now, you can argue that a better IQ test can compensate for the cultural factors and you may very well be right. That doesn´t remove culture as a part of the equation though. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am not wentirely sure what you mean by "voluntary environmental features" but culture is largely involuntary. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ - changing your culture seems much easier than changing all the other environmental factors that can affect you. --JereKrischel 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we just differ. I see US. embassy or oil company personnel in Ecuador and they shop at US outlets and eat at TGIFridays or Pizza Hut - it seems that they cannot travel to another culture without dragging around a bubble of their own culture with them. I know Peace Corps Volunteers who do everything they can to change their culture; they do so in good faith ind indeed change a lot - but still depend on the music they carry with them from their old environment, books published in the US, and talk (often articulately) about culture shock. And I have read travelogue from people who have lived for years in a non-natal culture and they mostly reflect on their feelings of alienation. I wouldn´t limit this to Americans. Graham Greene´s novels capture this quite well. In short, I have seen practically no evidence that it is easy to change one´s culture. It is easy to leave New York City to live in the Amazon, or to leave Santa Fe to live in Norway, in short, easy to change physical environments. But culture? Very very hard. I guess we just disagree. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether you call it cultural or environmental explanations. There are reasons to prefer one to the other, but neither appears prima facie preferred. All I object to is the notion that we can ourselves pick out certain explanations as being about "environment" and others as being about "culture" per WP:NOR. The term "environnment" means everything not genetic in the language of quantitative genetics, which is why it comes up all the time when "culture" might seem like a more nature word to use. --Rikurzhen 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps my issue is that "culture" is not a more natural word to use - it comes with specific connotations, and it seems to have been used by folk like Jensen, et. al., to specifically denigrate the environmentalist position. --JereKrischel 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "culture" as a term of abuse, but I could be persuaded. --Rikurzhen 23:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only a term of abuse to those who wish to abuse it. The same can be said for "genetic."Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

converging data?

Stripped from article for discussion:

To support these claims, they most often cite four main lines of converging data:

1. Worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size. In the United States, Black-White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests.
2. The magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlates with the extent to which those subtests measures g, which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability
3. The rising heritability of IQ with age (within all races; on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20% in infants, rises to 40% in middle childhood, and peaks at 80% in adulthood); and the virtual disappearance (~0.0) by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (for example, family income, education, and home environment), making adopted siblings no more similar in IQ than strangers
4. US comparisons of both parents to children and siblings to each other finds regression to differing means for different races (85 for Blacks and 100 for Whites) across the entire range of IQs, despite the fact that siblings are matched for shared environment and genetic heritage, with regression unaffected by family socioeconomic status and generation examined

First of all, what is "converging data" mean? They certainly aren't converging on anything - these data sets seem to be on completely different axes (heritability of IQ vs. age is one line of data, but how can it possibly relate to east asian brain sizes??)

Secondly, all of these "main lines" are presented as fact, rather than the conclusions of the studies from which they came. I'd like to put some of this back in, but it seems like it needs a lot of work. --JereKrischel 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That the data is converging and that the data supports their hypothesis is the claim of R&J. These results themselves also happen to be, afaik, not contested. (We can double check this against the response articles.) What is obviously contested is their implication for the cause of the BW gap. --Rikurzhen 22:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I see something like, "observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests", I am dumbfounded. They couldn't possibly have tested every single age, every single occupation, every single socioeconomic level, every single region, and accounted for every single test every administered since the invention of "ability tests". This is pure hyperbole, and glosses over so many details, it's disturbing. Saying that a certain set of data indicates one thing - asserting that a difference is observable all the time in every situation implies that these results are arbitrarily repeatable, which I'm sure you would agree they are not. --JereKrischel 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's paraphrased directly from Jensen. What it means is that each of these variables has been tested independently (at least), not all at once. --Rikurzhen

Then it should be stated that this is Jensen's assertion, not bald fact. It would be better to list out that these factors have been considered, rather than to use the exaggeration, "every" - studies "controlled for region, occupation, socioeconomic level" may be appropriate, but a exaggerated paraphrase stating flatly that every case (even if only individually), is true is definitely POV pushing. --JereKrischel 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jensen is doing the reviewing, not the studying. His published conclusion (now 8 years old) can be taken as non-disputed by default unless someone has actually disputed it. I don't see a problem with the wording; but I could be blind to how it is read. --Rikurzhen 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This rolls into the case you mentioned earlier regarding "reported to"...this case is much farther along, IMHO, but the same issues apply - his conclusions should be indicated as his conclusions, not as fact, regardless if they have been specifically disputed (which, I'm sure we could find a reference for, in such a contentious field). --JereKrischel 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing where the controversy actually lies. I've opened this question as a new thread below. --Rikurzhen 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New problem: you have no basis besides your own opinion to describe/treat Jensen's report as "hyperbole". we cannot substitute our own opinions for those of published experts. --Rikurzhen 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not we believe it is hyperbole, we have to present it as his opinion, not as unadulterated fact. And of course, see below for examples of the arguments over interpretation. --JereKrischel 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The data is not hyperbole. I know of no claim that it is. The implication of the data for the BW gap is obviously controversial. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting the data in such a way to assert that everything points inextricably towards a single conclusion (that a worldwide BW gap exists, no matter what age, region, etc, etc) is hyperbole. I guess I'm asserting that the interpretation of the data is being presented, not the data itself. Because of that, it comes across like hyperbole. If the data itself were presented (i.e., differences in cranial sizes map to climactic zones moreso than "race", or some studies indicate larger cranial sizes for whites, and others contradict that), it wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Telling the audience what the data means (i.e., there exists a worldwide B-W gap in brain size, IQ, etc), rather than just giving them the data (5 studies found blacks with bigger brains, 2 studies found blacks with smaller brains, etc), is where I have a problem with the original presentation. --JereKrischel 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Review articles give conclusions where they can (see below). This is one of the cases where we can. (Note I found one of the 4 to be mostly Jensen's work, so I changed the article to reflect this.) --Rikurzhen 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

doubt about B-W-EA diiffrences

does anyone doubt the existence of B-W-EA differences in IQ, brain size and reaction time -- enough to not treat it as the mainstream scientific consensus? For example, I do not see this claim in the response to R&J's PPPL article. --Rikurzhen 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

found this quote on an otherwise disturbingly POV article on crainometry: "Rushton has been accused by other researchers of misrepresenting the data. When they have reanalyzed the data, Zack Cernovsky et al. argue that many of Rushton's claims are incorrect." --JereKrischel 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link , Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). --JereKrischel 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The APA report (in the form of Neisser 1997) says there is a small but significant difference. --Rikurzhen 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the claim that there isn't a B-W-EA diff in cranial capacity would be news to physical anthropologists (e.g. Beals 1984). --Rikurzhen 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

From the same ref: Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto, extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equator), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer climates, irrespective of race. Sounds like enough contention to derail it as being considered "mainstream" or "consensus". --JereKrischel 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That the major cause of cranial size diffs is climate (via evolution) does not mean that it doesn't also vary by race. (But see also for the most recent extension of this line of thinking.) As with the other comments, this does not chanllenge the basic claim that cranial size varies between races. The important finding WRT what we write in the article is the APA report. --Rikurzhen 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I agreew with JereKrischel. Physical anthropologists have documented variation in cranial capacity but the claim that cranial capacity correlates with differences in IQ is highly controversial. Ralph Holloway is the person to go to on this topic. He has forwarded robust arguments that even in hominid evolution reorganization of crania was more important than changes in cranial capacity to the development of human intelligence (manifested in tool making and perhaps more complex social arrangements).Slrubenstein | Talk 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% certain that the claim that brain size correlates with IQ among Whites is not at all controversial (r=.4 controlling for age, sex). You can read about this in various review articles written ca. 2000-2005 (see Neuroscience and intelligence and Thompson and Gray 2004). At this point, the open research questions are which specific regions/structures of the brain are responsible for the correlation. It is, of course, controversial to claim that the BWEA diffs in brain size are evidence that the BWEA gaps are genetic. --Rikurzhen 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the issue is whehter this is a meaningful correlation. I suggest thaqt thee are physical anthropologists who do not consider this a meaningful correlation. Variation in cranial size may reflect drift or may be adaptive to certain environmental factors. That is also correlates positively with IQ is far from saying that the correlation meanisn anything useful to understanding this debate Slrubenstein | Talk 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the brain size IQ correlation for the BWEA gap (in brain size and IQ) is certainly controversial. The existence of the correlation and gaps is not. We should be able to maintain this distinction, which I think we have so far. --Rikurzhen 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A message from your friendly archivist

I hate to archive recent discussion, but the talk page was close to 400 kb and took forever to access! I acknowledge that this may be the most controversial article and therefore it must be very sophisticated, and I acknowledge that to accomplish this the discussion will often have to be complex and lengthy. Much of this simply cannot be avoided. But with all due respect may I make a few suggestions that may lead to less of a need for frequent archiving?

1. when someone is obviously using this just to spout their own POV (and I am NOT pointing any fingers) do not engage, politely ask them to take it to their talk page
2. if someone seems not to understand your point, give it a day and see if with a fresh mind you can explain it more clearly, rather than (as most writers do) use the act of writing to sort out your thoughts
3. if two people seem to be going in circles, try to sort out and summarize as concisely as possible the remaining principal points of contention and then immediately archive the preceeding talk
4. if someone believes they are repeating points they have made several times, even a long time ago, ask yourself whether the issue is adequately addressed in the article itself. If it isn´t, figure out how to do so. If it is, refer the interlocutor to the appropriate section in the article itself rather than rehash the arguments again on the talk page.
5. PLEASE PLEASE will one of you consider doing some more archiving before September 3? Go over this page and ask, what is really still unresolved (in terms of complying with our main policies, not in terms of resolving the fundamental debate, of course)?

I make these suggestions with a tremendous amount of respect for the principal contributors to this article. I hope that is evident, and I sincerely hope this is constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are welcome, appreciated, and I hope to do well in following them. I know a lot of the dialog ends up seeming like repetition, and very frustrating, but sometimes it's that one phrase a couple of dozen exchanges into it that makes things click, so you really understand what the other person was intending. I've had quite a few of those moments on this page myself, where I finally understood what the core issue was after a very long dialog. Rikurzhen and Nectar and Arbor have all been very patient, understanding, and supportive of improving the article no matter how heated the discussion has gotten, and I do sincerely look forward to continuing our work together. --JereKrischel 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my contribution to the talk page glut. --Rikurzhen 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

some background for recent disputes

this text is from a review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience in 2004:

it is mildly impolite to dwell on an obvious fact — individual differences are the rule, not the exception.

It is distinctly impolite to suggest that individual differences in ability have a biological basis3,10. The root fear is that evidence about the brain might be misconstrued as evidence about an individual’s or group’s inherent quality or fitness, in the sense of an immutable social and moral value4,7. Gould concluded10 that there is no reliable evidence for “intelligence as a unitary, rankable, genetically based, and minimally alterable thing in the head”, and even less evidence that intelligence is associated with demographic variables, such as race or social class. For better or worse, however, recent progress in the psychometric, social psychological, cognitive neuroscientific and genetic study of human abilities has been dramatic.

In this review,we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf)11, it is related to analytical intelligence12. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically,Gf is the best predictor of performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct13,14.Conceptions of intelligence(s) and methods to measure them continue to evolve, but there is agreement on many key points; for example, that inte lligence is not fixed, and that test bias does not explain group differences in test scores15. Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is widely realized15–17, and permits some definitive conclusions about the biological bases of intelligence to be drawn.

MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51 (REF. 28; see REF. 29 on interpreting this correlation, and REF. 30 for a meta-analysis)

They showed that the linkage between volume of grey matter and g is mediated by a common set of genes. Intelligence therefore depends, to some extent, on structural differences in the brain that are under genetic control, indicating a partly neuroanatomical (structural) explanation for the high heritability of intelligence

The fact that intelligence is heritable does not necessarily have implications for the basis of population-group differences. Group differences can potentially be explained in purely environmental terms, even if intelligence is strongly heritable.

The heritability of intelligence also increases with age — as we grow older, our phenotype reflects our genotype more closely.

Intriguingly, the influence of shared family environments on IQ dissipates once children leave home — between adult adoptive relatives, there is a correlation of IQ of –0.01 (REF. 101).

we should be able to agree to treat this material as they do --Rikurzhen 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in regards to the quote, The fact that intelligence is heritable does not necessarily have implications for the basis of population-group differences. Group differences can potentially be explained in purely environmental terms, even if intelligence is strongly heritable., I heartily agree. The problem comes when you assert that the research shows a B-W-EA pattern -> as mentioned in other quotes, there are arguments that it has better correlation with latitude than anything else. You can assert that groups differ on brain size, and that brain size may correlate to intelligence even (although as pointed out, there is controversey even on that point), but to assert that the differences are measured across a specific pattern is where the interpretation of the data comes into question. I don't think anyone is trying to say that there is a 0% genetic influence on intelligence - but there is significant disagreement as to the statistics being interpreted in such a way to indicate that there is a genetic influence on intelligence caused by specific racial categories, as well as the magnitude of such an influence. Let's say they did a double-blind random study, and found that in fact .0001pt of difference between races could be found, and they even found the particular gene that created that difference. Has the pro-hereditarian camp won? Well, arguably so, since regardless of how minute, they've proven a difference based on "race". Has the environmentalist camp won? Well, arguably so, since regardless of the difference, they've shown only a minute one.

I guess the controversy may be because each side is taking the weakest straw man of the other to bash. Jensen et.al. want to criticize environmentalists as being 0% genetic-100% environment. Environmentalists consider the point won every time they shrink the gap, by whatever means of control or explanation, and consider every bit of progress they make as an essential refutation of the hereditarian view, when in fact no hereditarian is asserting that it is 100% genetic-0% environment. Our difficulty then, is presenting the quotes from these two camps, who are at cross-purposes and inherently disparaging of the merits of the other side.

On a side note, I wonder what would happen if they did the "perfect" study, and found the racial differences as both real and significant, but in a completely different order (say, W-EA-B). I guess in the end we should all just hope for enough interbreeding to make any "racial" distinction moot, and then we can argue about which side bread should be buttered on :). --JereKrischel 03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JK, all that matters about brain size is that Neisser agrees that there are differences. That it is correlated with climate is a wholly different level of controversy, not of importance to this discussion. That IQ is correlated with brain size is, as per the text from the review above, non controversial. Likewise, there is no disagreement about the heritability of IQ among the common conditions encountered in the developed world. For more extreme conditions, the expectation is reduced heritbility, which has been borne out in limited testing. You cannot chose to dillute noncontroversial findings on the basis of tangentially related disagreementets. You can elaborate on them, but doing so in the context of the genetics explanation section would be inappropriate for reasons we could go into. They are elaborated on in the main article being summarized. I highly recommend reading the review article, which is linked in the brain size discussion. --Rikurzhen 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't controversial to assert that there are brain size differences between population groups, but to assert they map to race does seem controversial. Therein lies the problem - you can take a few trivial assertions (brain size varies between some populations, iq correlates to brain size, iq is heritable), and come to an unsupported interpretation based on a unspoken assumption (iq is related to race since the population differences are mapped to race). Now, I can't stop Jensen from making unacceptable assumptions about the data we might agree on, but we certainly can't treat his peculiar interpretation as unadulterated fact. There is no basis to assert as fact a worldwide BW difference for every age, region, socioeconomic status, occupation, etc - one may come to that conclusion from looking at and interpreting the data, but it is not an undisputed conclusion. Perhaps if we put in something to the effect of, "if you assume that these studies actually map to race, and exclude studies that contradict each other, the data show...etc...etc..etc...", since the primary criticism it seems is one of falsely asserting difference by ignoring unfavorable result sets and improperly mapping brain size studies to race instead of climate zone. I guess I'm looking for a way to make sure that on such a disputed issue, both sides are presented as opinion in a sympathetic light. --JereKrischel 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) to assert they map to race does seem controversial. - maybe incindiary, but not controversial (remember we work with the assumption that race is meaningful enough for people to talk about and use in research; anything that varies geographically is going to vary by race); (2) worldwide BW difference for every age, region, socioeconomic status, occupation, etc -- actually, it's only been studied as such in the U.S., but my reading of the lit. is that there is no mainstream debate about this, and I see none in the responses to Jensen's claiming it is so; (3) improperly mapping brain size studies to race instead of climate zone. -- sounds like you are going beyond what has been written about this, focus on the secondary source of Neisser (aka the APA report); (4) on such a disputed issue, both sides are presented as opinion in a sympathetic light -- the proponents of the environmentalist position, such as Flynn, do not buttress their position by denying facts which are maninstream and otherwise undisputed. you should not try to do it for them. what's important to keep in mind is that the facts are largely undisputed, only the interpretation of how they matter for the BWEA gap differ. this should be easy enough to accomodate in the text, if it is not already doing so sufficiently. (5) the Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004 review (in conjunction with the APA and WSJ reports) establish most of the claims which you are otherwise claiming to be controversial (e.g., that brain size does differ by race). the remaining ones you are claiming to be controverisal w/o references to support that claim. --Rikurzhen 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

brain size wrt latitude

Here's just a few studies that show that brain size maps to latitude: ,. The pseudo-mapping to races is incidental (as races have also a partial mapping to latitude). Unfortunately, you can't use the partial mapping of race to latitude to conclude that brain size varies according to race and make your argument from there. It's like having a study saying that fast cars are more dangerous because of the speed, and then saying that since a large proportion of fast cars are red, red cars are more dangerous to drive. It just doesn't stand up, logically speaking. You just have to take the (few) IQ results of Arctic peoples and see how their skull size maps against their IQ to know that the racial correlation of brain size is just incidental and partial.--Ramdrake 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, it's not my argument. The definitive citation is the APA report in the form of Neisser 1997. You or JK brought up the claim that it is due to latitude and thus we can ignore "race" differences. (My counter claim was that the cause of the difference was certainly a matter of dispute but that the fact of race differences was not in dispute.) The formulation that "race" differences can be ignored b/c they are actually "latitude" differences is not found in Neisser 1997 and would require a secondary source to make this claim explicitly. Otherwise, what we have to go on is an adversarial source (Neisser) confirming what all the other sources would indicate is true -- that there are significant (but "small") differences in brain size between Blacks, Whites, and East Asians. On a secondary note, the idea that brain size differences are due to adapation to climate is exactly the theory that Lynn and Rushton embrace, where they differ is to also link that with the evolution of IQ differences (a theory which I am wholly agnostic about). You will note that this causal level of explanation is not the one that we are describing in the text, and so to claim it as a source of controversy is missing the point. --Rikurzhen 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you are not making sense. Race is correlated to brain size. That's a fact. The reason for this correlation may very well be latitude, and the correlation between latitude and brain size may easily be larger than the correlation between race and brain size. (Rushton, whom you otherwise don't seem to defend, has whole theory about that.) But that does not change the existence of a correlation—it fact, it explains the point. All the evidence you are bringing to the table is in favour of there being a known, factual correlation between race and brain size. I have the feeling this is right at the heart of the fundamental misunderstanding you have about the gist of this whole research. Of course race is just a label that happens to be concordant with a lot of other, factors that actually determine intelligence. Race does not determine intelligence, but it is highly correlated to several factors that actually do—genes could be such a thing. All of this does not change the fact that in the US, social scientists and politicians stratify things by race (rather than by IQ or by gene XYZ), so the correlation by race is obviously interesting. Arbor 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor's comment should be re-read. It is concise and on point. --Rikurzhen 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen and Arbor, maybe I wasn't clear the first time around. That brain size (or actually skull size) is latitude-dependant is enough of a claim AFAIK to sustain that the brain size-race correlation is actually an artefact of what really goes on. The problem is we first say that brain size is "correlated with" race, and then we conflate correlation with causation. There exists a gross correlation between race and and brain size, but brain size is NOT a function of race. If you read the article, you will see that the relationship of breain size to race is treated as some kind of direct function. My point is that it is not a function of race, but of latitude. There is ample evidence that it is a function of latitude and climate (see the articles by Beals for more detail). That racial distribution partly correlates with latitude and climate is happenstance. It's like in my example to say that red cars are dangerous to drive because it happens that a large proportion of sports cars happen to be red. You will find a correlation, but it is meaningless. You can certainly say that several researchers think there is a race-brain size correlation, but I don't think you can say it is mainstream and/or unchallenged.--Ramdrake 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want a reference directly disputing the race-brain size hypothesis of people like Rushton, here is the reference to the full-text article. So, now that we've established that this is contested, I think we can throw away the notion that this correlation is "mainstream", which doesn't mean we can't present it as a particular POV opinion (just like its contestation should be introduced as another POV opinion). Under the circusmtances, neither should be presented as "fact".--Ramdrake 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, again, (2) the causal hypotheses for why race differences in brain size exist is a entirely separate matter from (1) the existence of race differences in brain size. What you may not be aware of is that brain size is not unique in that it varies by race / geography. The phenomena of a trait or allele varying in a geographic gradient is called a "cline". Skin color variation in humans is clinal, and correlates highly with latitude. Nonetheless, there are also obvious skin color differences between "races". The fact that skin color differences can be explained as a function of latitude does not mean that they cannot also be described as differing by race. (In fact - of course - skin color is predominantly described as varying by race whereas it would be equally valid to describe it varying by latitude of ancestry.) The existence of "clines" is well understood to be at the heart of the complication with and reason to be skeptical of racial classification. Nonetheless, racial classifications are the heart of this subject, and so it is not valid to criticize any particular instance of racial classifications merely on the basis that the variation could also be described as clinal. Such a criticism is a matter of background, which could be expanded upon in the appropraite section. But we need to make necessary assumptions. In summary: brain size varying by latitude is just a special case of the general pattern of clinal variation in human biogeography. It is a competing/complementary way of describing variation to "race". But that debate exists at a different level than what's being described in this article. Deeper connection: The immigrant residents of the U.S. come from geographically distinct regions of the globe, generally at extremes (NW Europe, E Asian, W Africa). A trait that appears as a cline in the old world will appear as racial in the U.S. Likewise, the existence of global clines does not also mean that there aren't "clusters". --Rikurzhen 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So, are you in fact saying that affirming that brain size varies according to race is the same as saying that brain size varies according to latitude and climate?--Ramdrake 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Those claims are of course not identical, but glossing over all subtly of definitions and data, the shortest answer is "yes". However, "climate" is an explanation, not a data point. A race is a cluster identified by many traits whereas a cline is a geographic pattern in just one trait, etc... --Rikurzhen 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, how can you explain that while Rushton finds a correlation coefficient of 0.2-0.3 between races and brain size, Beals et al find a correlation coefficient of 0.5-0.6 between latitude and brain size? The one explanation that comes to mind is that the "real" correlation is with latitude, and the lower, weaker correlation with race is incidental.--Ramdrake 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor anticipated this possibility and pointed out the distinction between the level of description and the level of explanation. Description (i.e., that races differ in brain size and brain size also correlates with latitude) is facile. Explanation (e.g., brain size is an evolutionary adaptation to climate) is difficult. At the level of description, one is not more "real" than the other. The correlation between African ancestry and skin color is around .5, but I'm sure the correlation with latitude is higher. Nonetheless, no one takes this to mean that races don't differ in skin color. --Rikurzhen 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Races don't differ in skin color - there are people of different "races" with the same skin color in many instances. I think Ramdrake rightfully points out that there is no consensus on race differences in brain size, even though it is a statistical argument. Individual cars differ in paint color, but can we say that there is a Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy of color? Even if we were to find some weak bias one way or another (let's say Toyota produces 10% more white cars than Ford which produces 5% more white cars than Chrysler), would it then be appropriate to say there is an undisputed "white color" gap between Toyota-Ford-Chrysler? --JereKrischel 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When one says "race differces in x" what is implied is "differences in the average value of x among people of different races". This should be obvious to all of us, no? Your analogy to cars makes no sense. Color can be quantified as wavelength, but the distribution of colors between Toyotas and Fords is likely to be completely overlapping when you consider all model years. Such an analogy doesn't help. I hope Ramdrake was close to understanding the difference between an observation (e.g. race differences in average brain size) and an explanation (e.g. adapation to regional climate). Observations (i.e. data) are the raw material of science, upon which competing hypotheses can be created and tested. Whether you consider brain size differences in terms of race or latitude will depend on which kind of question you want to ask. If the question is about "race and intelligence", then it makes perfect sense that you would consider brain size in terms of race also. That brain sizes are tightly correlated with latitude is of no consequence to the truth of the matter that they also differ by race. (It does of course matter to building an explanation for brain size differences, though probably not as Ramdrake first thought given the tight relationship between clines and races.) --Rikurzhen 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the brain size-race correlation is an observational artefact, i.e. while there may be a correlation, it is without significance, as the genuine parameter upon which the variation is based is latitude (and a few other climate-related variables), but that's just my opinion. I'll settle for mentioning that the group variation in brain size is ascribed by some to be related to race, and by others to be related to latitude. I just think it would be misleading to present the brain size-race correlation as incontrovertible fact or mainstream opinion, as it is obviously contested.--Ramdrake 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The car color analogy works even if you want to take all the car colors of every car they produce, and create an average color - you can then assert a Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy based on their average color wavelength. If we did such a study, and found a spread of 400Hz, would the Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy be an undisputed fact? Now, take it a step further and say we did a study based on car sales by latitude, and found an average color when looked at by latitude had an even more pronounced spread, let's say 40,000Hz, would the car color latitude hierarchy be an undisputed fact? Arguably, both are "factual", but I think that maybe we're losing critical context if we don't indicate the more correlated measure, and the relative correlations (is it by an order of magnitude, or just within a reasonable margin of error?). So I propose that if we are to present the information regarding brain size differences as "fact", we need to closely, and prominently mention the "fact" of the higher correlation with latitude - to do otherwise seems to lose important context. Would that be acceptable to you, Rikurzhen? Can we, in the same sentence as a B-W-EA brain size hierarchy is mentioned, note that although factual, it does not represent the most highly correlated view of the data? --JereKrischel 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the car analogy... The latitude view is not obviously privledged because of its greater strength of correlation. Rather, the cline versus race way of describing the pattern is a specific example of the more general debate about whehter human biodiversity has racial (i.e. clustered) or clinal properties. That debate is beyond the scope of this article; a necessary assumption is that human variation can be described in terms of race. (Note that race is not being discovered in the pattern of brain size differences, but rather race is taken a priori and then compared on brain size.) To simply add to the brain size/reaction time/achievement section that global brain size variation is correlated with latitude would be obviously fine. To also expand that observation into an argument that the clinal way of describing the variation is meaningful and the race-wise way is not meaningful would be to engage in the "is race real?" debate, and would not appropriate. Claims that the "correlation is greater" would need to be suspect to greater scrutiny, as the word "correlation" does not mean just one thing, especially in the context of using continuous verus nominal variables. (That is, race is not a number, unlike latitude. However, Jensen 1998 reports that the correlation between average brain size and average IQ for B, W, and EA populations is r>.99.) --Rikurzhen 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind either if we said that brain size varies according to group, and that some interpret it as varying according to race (although I would be careful not to mix Jensen's purported correlation of brain size to IQ, as we are here discussing the correlation of brain size to race, and all sources I could find who have described a correlation usually find a much more modest one at 0.2-0.3 for example, according to Rushton) while others interpret it as varying by latitude and climate (with the corresponding correlation, 0.5-0.6 according to Beals). That way, we wouldn't give the impression that the race-brain size variation is an "unchallenged fact" (it is being challenged by a competing explanation: latitude and climate).--Ramdrake 11:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of illustrating the difference between the correlations - we can simply state the data, and explain that different people choose to interpret it in different ways. --JereKrischel 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's use another example (I believe it paraphrases Gould, but I'm not sure): over the last few years, the price of gas at the pump has been steadily increasing, and the amount of hair on top of my head has been steadily decreasing. Would you state there is an "inverse correlation" between the price of gas and the amount of hair on my head? Or would you rather say any correlation is "coincidental"? I wouldn't be surprised if you did say it was coincidental. Likewise, scientists have argued that the brain size-race "correlation" is coincidental to the real correlation. (In the previous case, my falling hair has to do with my advancing age, and gas price has to do with inflation; the only real relationship between the two is time).--Ramdrake 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full reply. This is not good (especially the second paragraph). You should re-read Arbor's comment that I flagged above. As Arbor points out, "race" is usually not an explanation for anything, but simply a way to group the population. (Genes and environment in some mix proximally explain why individuals and groups are different. History, including evolutionary history, explains this distally.)

Where is the idea that there's a "correlation" between race and brain size coming from? Specifically the word "correlation". --Rikurzhen 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The correlation is claimed by Rushton and others. That is why they order brain size as EA-B-W.The fundamental problem is that many hereditarian researchers make the construct "IQ is related to brain size" (now disputed-see below) and then "brain size is related to race" (disputed) to conclude "IQ is related to race" (disputed also). Also, since it is the second time you issue a warning on the meaning of "correlation", I would appreciate if you could expound on the ramifications of its meaning, in your understanding (when you have a moment, of course). I'd like to make sure we are working with the same definitions.--Ramdrake 19:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The one way I see we can get out of this descrptional impasse would be to state that brain size varies between groups of humans, and that some researchers have ascribed the variation to race (with r=0.2-0.3) while others have ascribed it to latitude and climate (with r=0.5-0.6). I think that's the most neutral this can get. I'm quite sure that just stating that "brain size varies with race" is both incomplete and misleading.--Ramdrake 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I also found this in

(...)another recent study examines the relationship between brain volume and IQ (Schoenemann et al. 2000) but partitions the variation in a significant way. With three relevant variables (IQ, brain size, and conditions of life), these researchers control for the conditions of life by contrasting the relationship between IQ and brain size within families (where the conditions of life vary little) and between families (where the conditions of life vary more substantially). They find a correlation between IQ and brain size only across families, where both the conditions of life and the volume of the brain vary. Within families, where brain volume differs but the conditions of life differ much less, there is no correlation between brain volume and IQ. To the extent, then, that there may be an empirical relationship between brain size and IQ, it is far more likely to represent a spurious statistical consequence of common life circumstances than it is to represent a deterministic nexus linking size of brain and size of thought.

Here is a direct link to the Schoenemann article cited (full article freely available):. So, it does look like even the brain size to IQ relationship is challenged. But we'll keep that for the next discussion. :)--Ramdrake 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I again don't have the time required to fully reply. the primary problem here is a confusion about (and confounding of) different levels of description. (1) no one "ascribes" (as in "explains") variation in brain size to race. rather races happen to vary in brain size because of certain causes (as described in my last short reply) which it seems most researchers agree includes regional evolutionary adapation to climate (this is a major part of Lynn's & Rushton's theories i believe). (2) the pearson correlation (r) is calculated between two continuous variables. race is not a continuous variable, and it requires different and more sophisticated kinds of statistcs to compare a continuous variable with a cateogorical variable (like race). i briefly searched thru Rushton's PDFs to see if he uses "correlation" to describe the B-W-EA difference in brain size. based on my seach, he does not. he does sometimes correlate some continuous variable that is different between races (say IQ) with brain size to find that they are correlated. (3) looking at individual primary research papers to form an opinion about the brain size IQ correlation is not appropriate for this article. (likewise with race differences in brain size.) the various review articles and textbooks (Gray and Thompson 2004; Sternberg's "Handbook on Intelligence"; McDaniels 2005) all agree that the within-race-sex-age correlation between total brain size and IQ is .4. however, i believe Schoenemann's different findings are described in the sub-article. coincidently, while searching thru Sternberg's "Handbook on Intelligence" I found that it too agrees that there are race differences in brain size. --Rikurzhen 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I have a problem understanding your objection. If we say that some people find that brain size varies according to race, while others find the variation is according to latitude, where is the harm? Best case scenario, it will help people better understand the underpinnings of the debate, and worst case scenario it may seem like superfluous information for some. And, FWIW, I have been using Lieberman, a secondary source for most of the arguments presented in this section.--Ramdrake 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely appending a sentence saying that brain size is correlated with latitude among indigenous populations is fine. The additional material that you seem to have been suggesting would not be. --Rikurzhen 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section we were concerned with was the "genetic explanations" section with the "4 lines of converging data"...can you do us a favor, Rikurzhen, and "write for the enemy" the compromise you think might work? Let's try a few iterations between us, and see if we can put the first line into a more NPOV position. I believe it currently reads:

Worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size believed to exist based on various compliations of previous studies. In the United States, Black-White IQ differences of varying magnitudes have been observed when controlling for age (above 3 years), occupation, socioeconomic level, and region of the country.

Your take on what you think might be acceptable to Ramdrake and I would be greatly appreciated. --JereKrischel 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JK, (1) "believed to exist" is a WP:WEASEL term (who believes it to exist? it's the mainstream view of scientists who write review articles on this topic) and "based on various compilations of pervious studies" merely describes review papers and the process of meta-analysis (which are the proper basis for establishing that it's the mainstream view). We cannot present mainstream views this this way. Note that the interpretation of these facts WRT the cause of the BW gap is controversial, but not the facts themseleves. (2) The previously established structure of the now "Explanations" sections is to present an the best arguments for the particular positions mostly unbroken by counter-arguments. I believe this is the policy recommendation on presenting a scientific dispute fairly. --Rikurzhen 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I you're insisting that the opinion that there are significant racial differences in brain size is the mainstream opinion, I think the controversial nature of this statement has been demonstrated enough to show that it is not the mainstream opinion, but an opinion shared by many researchers (while others dissent). Also, the Neisser comment on the APA report (Neisser 1997) states this: Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe. Nowhere is the mention of "significant differences" made, just that of a "small overall trend" (which without qualification may or may not be significant). Also, Neisser prefaced his entire comment with this caveat: Readers should be aware that this response reflects only my views, not necessarily those of other members of the task force. So, one can't take anything in this comment as representative of the APA task force's opinion as a whole, but just as Neisser's views. So, I think the right thing to do NPOV-wise is to describe both positions (brain size varies with race vs brain size varies according to latitude and climate) as being just that: positions in a debate.--Ramdrake 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bias - about PF fund

This gets us back to the discussion about PF and "bias" from above. As per the long thread above, you have mischaracterized claims about the effects PF on research. The test is in how PF research is treated by the reseacher's peers -- not what outsiders and nonscientist think. The opinion is well summarized by Sternberg in the Skeptic magazine interview that was linked previous: PF doesn't matter when evaluating the science. --Rikurzhen 08:44��B�����eGET http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Slrubenstein HTTP/1.0 Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-sockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applic�ation/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/mswor arises solely from its relation to some theory and its testability, or susceptibility to empirical refutation. Which is the same opinion expressed by Sternberg. I believe this gets to the crux of what Nectar was getting at about comments made by this within/outside the field. If Jensen and Sternberg, who disagree on many points, agree on this matter, then it is important that we take their opinion about what's important into account. --Rikurzhen 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think when it comes down to it, Jensen and Sternberg's agreement does not obviate the criticism that has been made of the Pioneer Fund grantees and funded research by Gould and other scientists, scholars, and journalists. To somehow elevate an arbitrary group (say "Intelligence researchers") as the standard by which we discredit criticism is really unnecessary. We can certainly make mention of some of the positive notes made by people though, to present a balance with the criticism - I just think that in either case (praise/criticism), we shouldn't be trying to undercut their worth by ad-hominem attack, or appeal to authority. Can we take Jensen & Sternberg's example and work it in without trying to undercut Jensen by calling him "cited by notorious racialists", or overplay him by calling him "praised by unbiased scientists"? --JereKrischel 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that what Nectar was looking for was to distinguish between those people/journals who study intelligence and those looking from the outside, and to make this clear in the text. And of course the MMoM/Gould is a relaible source for his own opinions (despite not being a reliable source for the scientific consensus.) --Rikurzhen 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Pete Hurd wrote a good section on generalist journals versus specialist journals - I don't see any worthwhile distinction there as to credibility regarding the issue. We could just as soon caveat every research with that their background is, psychology, genetics, anthropology, etc. Rather than distinguish types of criticism in some arbitrary way, why not just stte the criticism, and state the praise in a neutral, sympathetic manner? --JereKrischel 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The distiction of importance is at the level of individual commentors. Jensen, Sternberg, are specialist in the field of intelligence. Critics of the sort cited are not. --Rikurzhen 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like something different that what I originally understood you to be saying. If I'm not mistaken, the original contention was that we should include phrasing to the effect that criticism had not come from "specialist intelligence journals" - if we want to identify the background of critics and commentors, i.e., this one is a psychologist, this one is an anthropologist, this one is a geneticist, I suppose I could agree with that - is that acceptable to you? --JereKrischel 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

in deference to SLR, i'm waiting for the brain size thread to be completed. --Rikurzhen 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is now 89 kb long. I beg Rikurzhen, JereKrischel, and Ramdrake to pick just one of the points of contention currently being discussed, hammer out a compromise change to the article that satisfies all parties (and its compliant with core policies) and then archive whatever talk was related to that point of contention/compromise. Just trying to be constructive (and I find it hard to believe that any of you has yet to have communicated to the others what s/he thinks and why). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no better place to start than the top - Rikurzhen, Ramdrake, et.al., would you like to pick one issue and call for a moratorium on other issues until we get it settled? --JereKrischel 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, the brain size issue is the most active. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the moratorium.--Ramdrake 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical Suggestion

Thinking about it in the shower this morning, I thought maybe we could do something more radical than try to fine tune this article - what if we were to create two articles, one called Genetics and Intelligence, and one called Race and Genetics - we could probably write a very good article on Genetics and Intelligence without too much consternation, simply illustrating the various studies and overall agreement on the partial influence of genetics on intelligence, and then have the real disagreements, between whether or not race is a genetically viable proxy for genetics in another. Just an idea, of course, I'm not suggesting I have a complete answer, but I thought it might be interesting to try. --JereKrischel 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would go a long way towards removing the contentiousness of this article.--Ramdrake 22:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

These articles already exist in the form of Inheritance of intelligence (which is a sub of IQ) and race. Also, Misplaced Pages:Content forking generally rules out such proposals. --Rikurzhen 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No only that. Genetics and intelligence is a field we know very little about. (In the sense that there is only a tiny handful of papers highlighting some candidate "brain-buildling" genes. Not in the sense that we know that there is a genetic contribution.) This is all very new research, and nobody really knows much, not even Bruce Lahn. I sure wish we did know more about it. On the other hand, Race and intelligence is a field that has been studies for a century (or at least for a number of decades) with thousands of publications. You and I and Rik may all agree that Genetics and intelligence is teh shit and the True and Good way of presenting this whole body of knowledge. (I certainly think that in two or three decades that will be the case.) But Misplaced Pages has no ambition to provide superior presentations. Quite the contrary. It is explicitly forbidden. Race and intelligence is a very real field with very real data and a huge body of work; articles. books. survey papers. Even if we all agreed that Genetics and intelligence (or Test bias and IQ tests or Discrimination and school performance or whatever) is the best way of understanding this complex, we couldn't just write it. But what we can do is to make this the best damn article on Race and intelligence on the planet. Arbor 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, Arbor - I think if all the people cited in the R&I article could admit that Genetics and intelligence is a field we know very little about, maybe we wouldn't have such consternation :). But enough said, let's try and knock down one disputed section at a time (currently on the B-W-EA brain size differences argument, if I'm not mistaken), and work on compromises and NPOV. I move to table my suggestion, and put this in the archive. --JereKrischel 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is common to distinguish between "genetics" and "inheritance" (or "heritability"). Here, Arbor is taking "genetics" to mean "molecular genetics"; where "inheritance" might be understood to mean "quantitative/behavioral genetics". --Rikurzhen 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion present in society that the word "races" is subtly and/or unconsciously synonymous with the word "genetics" is too strong to ignore and too dangerous to perpetuate. It's very noteworthy that advocates of "race and intelligence research" do not even attempt to define the word or concept of "races" using words from the field of genetics, this should be a scientific prerequisite in my interpretation. This article's X and Y method of presentation is fundamentally disputed just because of the fact that many genetists have publicly contradicted "race and intelligence researchers" proposed (or lack of a scientific) definition for the concept of "races". How can presenting an issue using an X and Y dichotomy be neutral and scientific if the presenter refuses to scientifically define "X"? It almost seems as if "race and intelligence researchers" do not even really attempt to "define" the word or concept of "races" scientifically because they prefer the common prejudicial/stereotypical ones. Geneticsts have long argued that the prejudicial and stereotype-esque "definitions" of "races" are wrong and have no scientific basis, why do "race and intelligence researchers" perpetuate this confusion? Words are suppose to point toward abstract conceptualization and mean nothing intrinsically.

Any title like "race and genetics" will probably be errantly read as a tautologistic dichotomy centered around the same concept. Adding another layer of dichotomy around this abstract issue only perpetuates and obfuscates the extreme problems with the incomplete and misleading way this issue has already been presented. There are numerous ways of contrasting things for the purpose of thinking about the larger issue, a key question is why do advocates of "race and intelligence research" always focus, to the exclusion of all else, on just one contrast among many possible? Just because someone else relentlessly contrasts a larger abstract issue exclusively one way does NOT mean you have to think about it their way. To escape a dichotomy you should think about an issue abstractly and search for alternate and multiple ways of mentally contrasting something. Zen Apprentice 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Template:AYref
2. For example, see Template:AYref; see also Spearman's hypothesis
3. for example, inbreeding depression scores measured in Japan predict the magnitude of the Black-White gap in the United States. (Template:AYref)
4. Template:AYref
5. for example, the children of wealthy, high IQ Black parents score lower than the children of poor, low IQ White parents (Template:AYref, p. 358); and for Black and White children with an IQ of 120, the siblings of the Black children average an IQ of 100 whereas the siblings of the White children average an IQ of 110; in comparison, for Black and White children with an IQ of 70, the siblings of the Black children average an IQ of 78 whereas the siblings of the White children average an IQ of 85 (Template:AYref, pp. 107–119))
6. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/cmurraybga0799.pdf

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Former good article nominees