Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 22 February 2023

Psychology Start‑class Low‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Eyferth study, 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.

SES

I would have thought the environmentalists would have looked to the 8-point difference between boys and girls as providing additional validation, that is, low SES mothers being more likely to environmentally influence their daughters along those same lines (poor environment depressing scores), less so than their sons. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's unlikely, because the mixed-race girls had about the same average score as the mixed-race boys. I don't think Flynn, Nisbett or anyone else would consider this study as evidence for the claim that (white) women have a lower IQ than men. Nevertheless, they think that the study provides evidence for environmental causation of race differences. They simultaneously deny and admit that the data are anomalous.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for more sources that discuss this.

In this regard, by the way, I'll have to figure out what place Misplaced Pages has in general for specific articles about famous scientific studies or papers. I see the article about Jensen's "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" is currently deleted, but there is a huge secondary literature based on the (Jensen 1969) paper, so I think the case could be made that there should probably be a properly sourced Misplaced Pages article posted about it. Similar reasoning, I suppose, would extend to Scarr's study, and quite a few of the other famous studies in this field. Thank you for launching the article. Step one for me is to continue to cobble together the Intelligence Bibliography on a subpage of my user page, so that all the editors can more readily look up sources. Then I'll try to do general fix-it-up on noncontroversial parts of articles on related subjects (are there such parts? I'll see) and eventually wade in with more substantive edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally an inclusionist, since wiki articles don't take much physical space, and I think this is probably worth more than most lists of pokemon characters. But to defend against deletionists, you should look for some news articles which reference this study. There are countless studies (almost all of them) which have been cited by later studies, and most of them don't get wiki articles. But if you can find some news coverage anywhere which covers this as prominent, that will satisfy them. WavePart (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's Malcolm Gladwell on Eyferth in the New Yorker: He also discusses it in one of his books (it may be the same essay). Here's Nisbett's piece in the NY Times: For comparison, Misplaced Pages has articles on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and the Milwaukee Project.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those two don't really mention it by name, but do seem to talk about it. Added. WavePart (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The German articles

It seems that Eyferth and colleagues published three papers on this topic between 1959 and 1961, all of them in German. I have no access to them, and my German is a bit, umm, rusty, anyway. Has anyone read those papers or some secondary source that describes what there is in them? Flynn's 1980 book on Jensenism apparently discusses the study at length, but I don't have it, either. In the article, I have cited only the 1959 paper, because that's what Jensen cites as a source for the numbers in the table.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have library access to the 1959 paper, and perhaps to follow-ups as well. My German is more practiced for reading about linguistics, but I will give this a try. As before, I'll give higher priority for several days simply to updating my Intelligence Citations list on a subpage of my user page. The next sources I'll be going to the library for will mostly be about genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you could have a look at this at some point. I suspect that Eyferth et al. did not study only intelligence but other things as well. The other article is

• Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 224-241.

The third one seems to be a book:

• Eyferth, K., Brandt, U. & Hawel, W. (1960). Farbige Kinder in Deutschland. München: Juventa Verlag.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos on adding this material! The more that we can get decent Misplaced Pages articles on the most important individual articles, the better off we will be. At some point, I hope to re-add the article about Jensen (1969). In the meantime, you should feel free to edit it here. David.Kane (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article uses the wrong Eyferth study

The study cited in the article (Eyferth 1959) is a preliminary report, which (among other tests) examines IQ scores of a smaller group of children (51 mixed race and 25 white). The results of that study are different from the ones reported here and do show a 3 point difference in IQ (mixed race IQ of 96.6 and white IQ of 99.5), albeit a difference which apparently is not statistically significant due to the low sample size. The correct "Eyferth study" that should be used in this article (and from which the data in this article are taken) is "Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 224-241." -- 2A02:810D:2A40:46B8:E508:6BA7:D5C2:88DB (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hereditarianism section

I feel that Arthur Jensen's hereditarian interpretation should be included. Removing it renders the article less informative.

It's also pointless (and ironic) to have a section titled "Interpretations" and then only present a singular interpretation.

And besides, it there was already had a big discussion about this back in 2010, see comments by User:Ephery and User:WeijiBaikeBianji 40.131.178.46 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Although this may be a misunderstanding, demonstration of personal preference concerning heritability of IQ interpretation appears to disqualify editorial deletion of hereditarian content from Misplaced Pages. The standard for encyclopaedic editing is to present affirmative and opposing arguments for any contested proposition/explanation. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Any reference to Jensen's views would have to be presented in accordance with WP:FRIND, that is, by non-fringe sources independent of Jensen –– since his views on hereditarianism are decidedly WP:FRINGE per this RfC consensus. @Richardbrucebaxter: It's not clear to me what you are attempting to imply about my prior comment which you've linked to, but if you believe that I have "disqualified" myself in some way then I suggest you take it up at an administrators' noticeboard. As you may know, editors are required to assume good faith unless presented with solid evidence to the contrary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Jensen's views are cited elsewhere on Misplaced Pages without needing to reference "non-fringe sources independent of Jensen."

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/Elementary_cognitive_task

https://en.wikipedia.org/G_factor_(psychometrics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Mismeasure_of_Man 72.46.51.6 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Those "WP:" / all-caps constructions (e.g. WP:FRINGE) are links to policies and guidelines. If you don't know what "non-fringe" means, please follow the link to familiarize yourself with the guideline. And thank you for letting me know about other places where Jensen's fringe views might need to be cleaned out. It's very much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:ESDOS states "Don't make snide comments." I believe your last two sentences violate that policy. Mosi Nuru (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

They sound earnest to me.

When someone suggests we should violate a policy or guideline in an article with the justification that it is violated in other articles, as you did, it is only natural that those other articles are improved instead of the article itself made worse. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a sarcastic thank you, and thus an example of taunting or baiting. Mosi Nuru (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are still trying to win a minor point after it is clear that you were wrong. If you have complaints about user behaviour, go somewhere else. This page is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a new editor noting what I believe is rude and uncivil behavior by a more senior editor, in a reply to the specific comment that I believe was rude and uncivil. Mosi Nuru (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Thank you for referencing the RfC on racial hereditarianism. This explains the editorial decision to delete the scientific arguments sourced here. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Not scientific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on hereditarianism subsection

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "hereditarianism" subsection of "Eyferth study" be restored?

See: Talk:Eyferth_study#Hereditarianism_section Mosi Nuru (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The removal of the section from this article was part of a much larger set of removals from articles about various aspects related to human intelligence, mostly by Generalrelative, for the same reason. The issue needs to be discussed in that wider context. There isn't enough space here to list all the other removals, but these are some of the major examples:

• Nations and IQ: 9 sources removed, including the books Cognitive Capitalism (Cambridge University Press), The Rationality Quotient (MIT Press), and papers published in the journals in the journals Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, and Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. This included six of the eight academic sources cited in the article that were published since 2012.
• Dysgenics: 12 sources removed or rejected , including the books The Crumbing Genome (Wiley), An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis (MIT Press), The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience (Cambridge University Press), and papers published in the journals Journal of Biosocial Science, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature Human Behavior (among others). These removals were discussed here, and in that discussion there clearly was not a consensus for Generalrelative's edits.
• Spearman's Hypothesis: 12 sources removed, including papers published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Intelligence, The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, Child Development, Personality and Individual Differences, Journal of Biosocial Science, and Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

I can try to provide a more complete list of all the removals, if that's needed, but it will take a long time to compile.

The objection that I and others have frequently made to this pattern is that the sources being removed have overall been more recent, more numerous, and of higher quality than those that Generalrelative and others cited to justify the removals. For example, of the ten sources presented here to justify the changes, four were over 20 years old, and another two did not mention intelligence or IQ. According to WP:PARITY, fringe theories should be covered as much as their coverage can be cited to sources of similar quality to those that criticize the theories. The question of whether these removals, and the sources the removals are based on, are consistent with the requirements of WP:PARITY, is the central issue.

Last year the largest removals were covered in an article in Quillette, which lists them in the table near the end of that article. The issue went on to be discussed by several prominent journalists and academics, including Jerry Coyne Ed West and Andrew Sullivan. . The world seems to be closely watching whether Misplaced Pages editors are capable of following WP:PARITY on these articles.

I and Ferahgo the Assassin both tried to start RFCs about these removals, but both got shut down before they could reach a consensus. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#RFC_on_sourcing_in_relation_to_race_and_intelligence Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_89#RFC_on_sourcing_decisions_in_the_R&I_topic_area But maybe this time, the community can have a discussion about whether they support this approach to sourcing, and the effect it evidently is having on the public's perception of Misplaced Pages. --AndewNguyen (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, user:AndewNguyen, for an extremely thorough and contextualizing comment. Mosi Nuru (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• The supposed pseudoscience here is that a small sample size increases sampling error - basic undergraduate statistics. This is an example of the urgent problem presented across the encyclopedia by scope creep of the FRINGE guideline. A guideline originally about snake oil cures and bigfoot sightings has become a winner-takes all approach to every scientific or political topic. The loose definition of "minority view" leads to even a 49% minority being vulnerable to WP:POVRAILROADing. It's time for people to stand up and recognize that NPOV is still a pillar.

Sennalen (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As I stated at FTN, this argument is false. Here's what I cut from the article back in October, and which is for some reason attracting a rush of IPs, new accounts and LTA socks right now: There were in fact four critiques listed (none of them referred to sample size), and the subsection was clearly framed as a defense of racial hereditarianism, which is definitively fringe. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look closely enough. It's not one valid methodological objection to this study, but four. There is no community consensus against heritability of IQ in toto. Sennalen (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for revising your view based on evidence. In this context, "hereditarian" does not refer to the idea that IQ is largely heritable (almost everyone agrees that it is), but rather that group-level differences in IQ have some sort of genetic basis (that's what's been determined to be fringe). If you read the RfC I linked to below, you will see this distinction explained at a couple points.

("Hereditarianism" is a really misleading label for what is essentially genetics-illiterate scientific racism, but these figures succeeded in making it the COMMONNAME within their narrow field. I prefer to follow sources that refer to it as "racial hereditarianism" to distinguish it from other, more mainstream branches of hereditarianism.) Generalrelative (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, you might have been confused by the seeming contradiction between Generalrelative's statements that "racial hereditarianism" is the only thing considered to be fringe, and the fact that many of the sources they removed do not mention race, such as all the sources they removed from the Dysgenics and Recent human evolution articles. This happens because when "racial hereditarianism" is considered to be fringe, that means removing not only sources that discuss the idea directly, but also marginally related sources.

For example, race is not mentioned in either of these two sources that Generalrelative removed from the Flynn effect article. But the author of the first paper (Rindermann) has published a paper with similar methods in a different journal, and that other paper does include a discussion about race, so as I understand it Generalrelative's argument is that this makes Rindermann's paper about the Flynn effect a "fringe" source also. Generalrelative did not directly explain why they also removed the second paper, by Pietschnig and Voracek, but presumably it was because those authors agreed with Rindermann about causes of the Flynn effect. Generalrelative can correct me if I've misunderstood their reason for removing the Pietschnig and Voracek paper. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

AndewNguyen: if you would like to discuss my behavior, I'm sure you know that an article talk page is not the place. Generalrelative (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Anyone unfamiliar with the race and intelligence topic area should see the prevailing consensus on racial hereditarianism here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per the article, the Eyferth study is significant because it "contrast to results obtained in many American studies, the average IQs of the children studied were roughly similar across racial groups, making the study an oft-cited piece of evidence in the debate about race and intelligence."

  Without articulating the view that the Eyferth study is famous for rebutting, the significance of the study is moot. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would be happy to include more context in the present article so long as it's sourced in accordance with WP:FRIND. That said, readers who are interested can simply click through the existing wikilink to race and intelligence. Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I've come here from a Feedback Request and have no view on Jensen. However we do need to be consistent on whether its refered to or not. In the latest version of 21 Feb . There are three Harvard references to Jensen but no corresponding reference. Further two of the other references seem to be commentry on Jensen, so as an uneducated observer it seems to be an important, if flawed,reference. At the least we should either remove an the inline references to Jensen or include the reference. --Salix alba (talk): 19:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment