Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 7 January 2008

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Multidel

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.

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

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

Template:Trollshere

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 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
Topics Discussions pertaining to haplotypes and haplogroups Discussion pertaining to planning and organization

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

Environment causes IQ gap?

In the article it says for example:

"Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has sought to fight racism. On several occasions he publicly debated Arthur Jensen and William Shockley arguing that environmental factors could explain the black-white IQ gap."

Do environment problems cause a gap or does the gap cause environment problems? Or do environment problems not improve because of a gap? --Jagz 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Are you making a specific suggestion or just observing the nature of the debate? Deepening on who you talk to the notion that "a gap causes environmental problems" is considered anything from "remotely possible" to "flat out racist." To put it in stark terms: what you're saying is that we need to seriously consider the idea that the impacts on health with respect to race the poor quality of public schools in minority neighborhoods etc. are caused by black people having low IQ. Someone like R. Lynn might take such an idea seriously... but, in most academic circles, it'll get you laughed out of the room. (As happened to Watson) ...Or am I misunderstanding your point? futurebird 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "environment" here does not specifically refer to pollution or health problems. What it means is: do impoverished conditions lead to a lower IQ, or does a lower IQ tend to lead to poverty? Also, does an innately lower IQ tend to keep people from rising out of the impoverished conditions that they may have been born into? If you are going to comment, try not to be overcome by your emotions. --Jagz 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Bad schools an inequalities in health care area function of poverty and in some cases racism. These are also forces that make it hard for people to get out of poverty. Maybe I still don't understand what you're getting at here... What are "impoverished conditions" if not conditions with a bad environment with bad schools, pollution and at times racism? futurebird 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, is it "racism" that has caused black Africa to remain underdeveloped since "time immemorial"? Is it only because of poverty that they have failed to achieve anything of lasting value, such as inventing the wheel or written language? If so, then the question is, why are they poor? Why are they poor now, and why were they 2000 years ago, or 100 000 years ago? They've had all the time in the world to rise above poverty (even more so than other races, as they supposedly evolved from migrating Africans), yet they haven't. They surely didn't before the white man came to Africa. The only traces of civilization in black Africa today is where the white man has built schools, hospitals, roads, wells, etc.. Electric Eye 01:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand what I mean by "environment". Also, I am not necessarily focusing on the United States. --Jagz 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Back in the day, explorers used to say that Japanese man will never amount to anything. "They conform themselves with too little" they said. Today, they say that the Japanese are rich because they save a lot, "they conform themselves with little..." so they can save! The problem with these explanations is that they are biased. The explanations rely on cultural prejudices. There is really no clear mechanism (to say it nicely) that would imply simultaneous causality between these variables. Brusegadi 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else mentioned that this sort of stuff could get you laughed out of the room... I was feeling as though I was the only one with that kind of opinion :P. I think the main reason why the "chicken and the egg" issue is not a problem is because that is a perfect example of why conclusions that genetics or environment represent a sole contributor to intelligence are silly. Just as modern scientists have come to realize that genetics and environment are inseparably intertwined, so too have others realized that the argument for chicken or egg is also just as pointless: the reason is that they both developed at once. Neither came first, just as neither genes nor environment represent a separate influence on intelligence: this is why any attempt to separate them is hopelessly confounded.
131.104.235.213 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

I disagree that this topic is humorous. --Jagz 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Humorous?? what? How...? futurebird 18:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this discussion because it's not about which came first, its about what causes what. Sorry I couldn't think of a better analogy. See Circular cause and consequence. Also see Nature versus nurture in the IQ debate. --Jagz 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got that aspect of what you were saying. I don't think the nature nurture debate has much relevance, since we're talking about such small differences between groups-- and those groups have different environments. If you wanted to answer the nature nurture question you'd need to somehow create a study absent the influence of racism. I mean even controlling for poverty can't do that. The real question is how does this relate to changes for the article? futurebird 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion will indicate that there needs to be a change to the article. The quote I included above only addresses one side of the issue. --Jagz 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think we should add? futurebird 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know yet. I'll take a look at the article after the rewrite. --Jagz 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nature/Nurture is considered outmoded scientifically; although, I am sure the history of the debate would make for a decent article on its own.

131.104.235.213 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Are you saying that an IQ gap cannot cause differences in economic prosperity? --Jagz 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, if you mean a gap between two people, yeah, that could happen, but for a whole "race" ? Not so much. Though, how will we ever know as long as there is racism? JJJamal 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that JJJamal is right, it is a commonplace in quantitative analsysis that correlation does not indicate causation. One would need separate evidence to make a causal argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Correlation often does not mean causation, however if socioeconomic status is strongly correlated to IQ on the individual level it will also be strongly correlated for any group containing the individuals as long as there is not significant overlap. There have been numerous studies showing that race and intelligence correlate in many different communities around the world. Numerous studies have also been done that establish a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence (I can look up and specify studies if needed). These studies include twin studies in which identical twins were raised apart. If you believe in either evolution or even microevolution to the degree that intelligent design theorists believe, then you would have to acknowledge that genetics play some role in the traits of the offspring and traits that favor individuals in a population will influence the average occurance of the trait in the entire population. Saying race does not correlate to IQ in many communities would be like saying it does not correlate to skin color in many communities. Myrik (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

Please list your suggestions for improving the article here. --Jagz 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Trim it. This is the biggest one, there is simply too much information in this article.
2. Refocus the article on the mainstream debate about the importance and interplay between diffent environmental influences (breast feeding, education, poverty, culture, language etc.) rather than fringe theories about the innate intellectual abilities of different races. Even with all of the material we have these topics are not covered adequately.
3. Consider renaming per the discussion above.

futurebird 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the article would most definitely need to be renamed in order to limit the scope as you have described above. What do you want to call it? --Jagz 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• I am fairly certain that if the scope of the article is limited as you have described above, the article will be viewed by many as being biased. If you are sincere about resolving the dispute over this article, please suggest a new name for the article that would be more specific to your suggested scope. As an alternate idea, consider moving the article to Wikinfo. --Jagz 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re: FB comments, I agree with 1 & 3 and agree to explore the options under #2. Clarifying #2 may help us to develop #3. --Kevin Murray 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is not any substantial progress made towards resolving the dispute over this article, including a possible new name for it, I will request that the article be unlocked for editing. I'm starting to question whether some of the regular editors are serious about resolving the dispute. --Jagz 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why progress has stalled while we consider the focus of the article and a new name. But, I'd like to see some rapid resolution and then participation again on a section by section effort. --Kevin Murray 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, lets contact the people in that thread. futurebird 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the article be renamed "Group intelligence". --Jagz 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you think the article would cover groups such as, by age, income, sex, country, height, education level, etc.? All in one article?futurebird 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sex and intelligence is already a separate article. Height and intelligence doesn't seem legitimate, maybe cranial capacity correlates with height though. Since race is currently ill-defined genetically and no one seems willing to come up with a definition to use in the article or within sections of the article, "group" would be a better word. The answer to your question is yes. --Jagz 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a particularly correct way to 'name' the title. "Race and Intelligence" deals with the particular issue of race and whatever connotations that raises, and the relative intelligence (as correct or incorrect as that may be). I think several of the sections (such as the whole Stereotype section) are just repeats of other wiki articles and poorly fitted in purely for the purpose of creating a super article. Many could be culled and a subsection left at the bottom for See Also related articles (into which they should be neatly apportioned). Indeed many already have their own wiki's that go into great depth the particular elements included that are covered haphazardly within this article. Some subheadings appear inserted purely for the purpose of a single sentence+ref in order to boost a particular POV within the article.--Koncorde 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the article has to be named and we are trying to come up with a better name. The Caste section in the article for example is not about race, it is about groups. A race can be considered a group. --Jagz 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No one uses "group" and "race" interchangeably. Look, this whole obsession with the idea of "race" being genetically or taxonomically shoddy is irrelevant to the title of the article. Even if it's true that race isn't genetically or taxonomically viable, this doesn't mean that an article about "race and intelligence" is somehow beyond the pale of encyclopedic inquiry. Money and wealth are social constructs but that doesn't make it useless or illogical to examine correlations between them and some other variable(s) if in fact such a correlation is significant and has been widely studied/published on. This article, whatever it is now, was originally (and is supposed to be) about the correlation between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests and so forth) and what most people call "race". It doesn't matter if Misplaced Pages editors can't agree among themselves as to what "race" is, the purpose of this article is to accurately represent the respectable literature that has been published on its correlation with intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with O'Quinlan on the naming bit. However I also agree with Jagz, but not for the reason he stipulates. Namely the fact that the topic wavers quite considerably on the matter and does blur the lines between several 'groups' vs 'races' vs 'ethnicity' vs 'socio economic' etc that aren't strictly speaking "race" (which is kind of O'Quinlans point). I understand their inclusion as the topic is trying to create a 'whole' overview - but really there should be (if anything) seperate topics or more cleanly formatted and dealt with in a concise manner. A thorough appraisal of each work isn't required. I'd like to have a go reformatting and rejigging sections, but obviously the block is preventing that.--Koncorde 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting using "group" and "race" interchangeably. The point is that an article titled "Group intelligence" could include a discussion of race and intelligence, but it does not have to be limited to a discussion of racial differences. --Jagz (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought one of the main problems was that the article as it stands is too long and has too much information while lacking focus; changing it to an even broader subject would only make it harder to achieve any kind of focus, concision, or accuracy. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we create an article called "Group intelligence" and move all the stuff from this article to that one that is not strictly about race and intelligence, like the Caste section. --Jagz (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. The fact is that race is a social construct and not a biological one. Race as a biological idea as it is usually defined does not fit the observed physical or genetic variation we see in indigenous human populations, because we see clinality more than discontinuity. When one samples the global human population from distant parts of the world, the intermediate populations are absent (ie people who show attributes that are intermediate), and so much of the gradation is missing. This can give a false sense of distinctiveness between people. So when we look at places like North America, where populations have been sampled from disparate parts of the world (mainly the Americas, West Africa, Europe and East Asia) the differences appear distinct and discontinuous, this is particularly true of the USA where such things as anti-miscegenation laws and "race lines" were enforced (for example compare the USA with Brazil). Because people "believed" in the concept of "biological race", then real discrimination existed (and still exists). This discrimination is manifested in many ways (e.g. lack of equal access to education, inequal access to health care and safe living environments (both physical and biochemical)). Clearly the general socialised racism that we see includes an assumption that tests designed by and for the dominant social group, that use this specific group's social and cultural norms as a reference, somehow measure some general concept of "intelligence". As Jerome Kagan says in his essay "The Magical Aura of the IQ" (1971) "If contemporary black psychologists had accepted the assignment of constructing the first intelligence test, they probably would have made a different choice." So the article should be about race and intelligence, but should concentrate on how sociologists and psychologists understand these phenomena, and especially how they understand the so called "test score gap" i.e. that it is understood as a product of social inequality and cultural differences. Just because "biological race" doesn't work, it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant as a social concept, nor does it mean that a well researched subject is irrelevant as an encyclopaedia article. If this article needs to have a change of name, then it should be changed to something like "Race and the test score gap" or something like that, because there is a lot of dispute about what "intelligence" is and if/how it could be measured/compared between different cultural groups at all. Alun (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Brusegadi (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV on the subject like it was the final word on the subject. The fact is that a lot of people disagree with you that race is merely a social construct. I can agree with you that perhaps within countries race is used a social construct to classify people within their country but not from a world perspective. Please see: Also, please stop using the article to support your anti-American agenda. If you wish to keep the article name "Race and intelligence" you must include the POV that there is an inherent/biological/genetic difference in the intelligence/IQ of races; this is necessary to have a NPOV article. --Jagz (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, I don't need non-academic journalistic sources to "explain" genetics to me, I have a BSc in genetics and an MSc in biotechnology. As for my comments about race as a social construct, that's what anthropologists tell us and is perfectly well known, I could cite many sources that make this specific claim. You claim that I am sharing my "pov", but actually I'm just stating what the academic community states. Race is a social construct, this can be verified from a great many reliable sources. The fact is that no one disputes that there are genetic/physical differences between people from different parts of the world, but this does not amount to any biologically recognised concept of "race" and your links do not contradict what I said above. I really don't care what you personally believe, and I really don't trust non-academic sources like the New York Times or PBS, journalists are not experts and often get their facts wrong. This is why we have a specific guideline which states that we should avoid using the mass media when citing science. See In science, avoid citing the popular press. As for your comment about "the final word", well I am entitled to contribute to this discussion and I never claimed that my comment was a concluding one. Your suggestion regarding renaming the article is not going to gain any sort of consensus, so you might as well drop it. Furthermore there is absolutely no reason why we need to "include the POV that there is an inherent/biological/genetic difference in the intelligence/IQ of races" unless it can be shown to be anything other than a fringe or tiny minority point of view. Remember than the neutrality policy clearly states

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

As for your accusations of anti-Americanism, I'd appreciate it if you could stick to commenting on the article, please remember comment on content not on users. Thanks. Alun (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The POV you're referring to which is basically the hereditarian POV (Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson, etc.) is already discussed in this article. And race did start as an empirical, social construct. The discussions as to whether it has any biological significance in the light of DNA mapping studies are very recent.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And thirded with Alun and Ramdrake. The issue is that both "Race" and "Intelligence" have undetermined values. The article should represent all those values (or link to relevant sections) rather than renaming the topic for an undetermined purpose. Think the accusations of anti-Americanism meanwhile would be best left out of the topic.--Koncorde (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that we are overly caught-up in semantics. Call it "race" or otherwise, there are recognizable physical variances among populations which have developed over time around the world. Challenging the accuracy of the historic word which we use to is a fairly low priority. It seems that trying to redefine the wording of a topic borders on original research and point of view. The definition of the terms White, Black, Asian etc. are better left to other articles on those topics, except where it directly impacts the understanding of this specific topic. Rightly or wrongly, most people equate IQ measurement with intelligence, again it is not up to us to determine whether that is right or wrong, but we should present the facts for our readers. I think that it is time to table this issue while we move on to improving the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird suggested focusing the article on environmental influences but that can't be done without renaming the article. If the article is to be kept NPOV with its current name, it must discuss more than environmental influences. The average reader is not going to read the whole article because it is way too long. Also, the average reader without prior knowledge is going to be confused as to what the POVs are on this subject because they are so interwoven in each section. Also as far as I can see, there is not sufficient need nor space for the Caste section in this article. --Jagz (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why can it not be done without renaming the article? You need to support this with evidence and a firm explanation because as far as I can see you provide absolutely no reason why we need to change the title of the article at all, just an unsupported statement, but Futurebird is quite right. Cheers. Alun (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to change the title but the article needs to present a worldwide view and present all significant viewpoints. The present title of the article doesn't allow for limiting the scope as you suggest. Also, what is considered mainstream debate on this subject is deceptive; for example, "many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings." --Jagz (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither I nor Futurebird have ever suggested limiting the scope of the article. Above you state that Futurebird has suggested that focusing the article on environment, this is a reasonable suggestion considering environmental considerations are those most associated with test score gaps. Focusing on mainstream research is exactly what the article should do according to NPOV. Claiming that this is an attempt to "limit the scope of the article" is a misrepresentation of what Futurebird suggested. Furthermore you continue to cite irrelevant non-academic sources. The NYTimes article you link to is not relevant to the concept of "race and intelligence", so why cite it? It seems to have been written by someone with at best a perfunctory understanding of science, there is a vast amount of work ongoing regarding human genetic variation, most scientists don't couch their language in terms of "race" because they know that the word is ambiguous with no proper scientific meaning or credibility. Even Neil Risch, who supports "racialised medicine" and the classification of humans into "racial groups" for medical purposes, can't actually define what a "race" is when questioned "Interviwer: Let's talk about the former, the genetic basis of race. As you know, I went to a session for the press at the ASHG meeting in Toronto, and the first words out of the mouth of the first speaker were 'Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.' Risch: What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement.'" So the guy can't even define what a "race" is himself, and he wants to categorise people into races for "medical" reasons. By the way Risch is obviously one of those people who is doing research into human genetic variation, and he doesn't seem to be having any problems with getting research funding. This is why scientists avoid ideas like "race", because they are almost impossible to define. The real reasons for geneticists to avoid racial categories are straightforward and simple then, races are almost impossible to identify, and genetic variation is not mainly distributed at the "racial" level.

Because of the history of misuse of genetics ideas, geneticists have a special responsibility to examine carefully their use of racial and ethnic categories in their research... When the use of racial or ethnic categories in research is deemed necessary, researchers can avoid overgeneralization by using labels that are as specific as possible. Today many genetic investigations label populations with the same loose terms used by the public (Sankar and Cho 2002; Clayton 2003; Collins 2004; Comstock et al. 2004). But labels such as “Hispanic,” “Black,” “Mexican American,” “White,” “Asian,” “European,” or “African” can have ambiguous or contradictory meanings among researchers, research subjects, and the general public. Use of such broad labels without careful definitions can impair scientific understanding and imply that distinctions between socially defined populations are genetically well established. Genetics researchers often rely on the categories specified in the U.S. census—encouraged by regulations that urge diversity of study populations—but these categories are used today mainly for administrative and social purposes and were not designed for genetics research. The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research by the Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group

There's a more important observation here, this article is not about concepts of "biological race", it is about the observed test score gap between some socially constructed racial groups and the causes of this gap. To address this subject we need to discuss what mainstream academic researchers are saying and not what non-expert journalists are saying. This is an encyclopaedia and not a news website. So let's address the issues as they are seen by scientists and not by journalists. See also "Genetics for the human race": Nature Genetics Reviews and "Is Race "Real"?": A forum of the Social Science Research Council. Alun Alun (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a science journal. --Jagz (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to appologise. Of course it's not a science journal, science journals publish original research and we don't, as per our policy on no original research. We do however publish work from reliable sources and science journals are reliable sources for science, and as I point out above, newspapers are not reliable sources for science. This article is about science, is it not? Alun (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So can we actually get this unprotected at some point in order to allow some simple changes to be made to its presentation? The intro alone could be improved for clarity quite a lot as it's currently reads like a meandering dissertation intro--Koncorde (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The agreement has been to work on a section at a time in a sandbox. When we have a consensus then the admin will post it to the page. The first section went very well, but then we've gotten bogged down in the title. Let's get back to work! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz provided me with one such link. Perhaps a full list of sandbox links would be useful?--Koncorde (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

can we clarify what we are talking about?

I just want to clarify something here. If I'm misunderstanding the dispute then please tell me, but this is what I think the disagreement is.

• Jagz thinks that if the article has a name change then it should not mention the word "race". I get the impression that this is because he believes that if we use the word "race" then we must be referring to a "biological construct", he seems to think that referring to race as a social construct is somehow incorrect (he states above "lot of people disagree with you that race is merely a social construct", although of course they are no disagreeing with me, but with mainstream anthropology, and why "merely"?). So Jagz thinks that if we use the term "race" in the title we must include mention of so called biological reasons for test score gaps. He claims that to ignore biological theories is to breach neutrality. On the other hand he claims that Futurebird wants to "limit the scope" of the article. Is that an accurate precis of the position?
• On the other hand I don't think that Futurebird has any problem with use of the word "race" as a social construct, that is that race is used in the more accepted anthropological sense as a socio-cultural group. She wants the article to concentrate on environmental factors that affect test score differences. This is because the overwhelming majority of academic research focuses on this and we should mirror what is mainstream in academia, as per the neutrality policy. Nowhere does Futurebird say that she wants to limit the scope of the article, just that it should reflect what most academics say.
• So this boils down to undue weight unless I am mistaken. On the one hand Jagz thinks that we must mention hereditarian ideas of intelligence, presumably the ideas of people like Jensen and Rushton, if we discuss "race". On the other Futurebird thinks that these are tiny minority points of view that therefore do not need to be addressed. So isn't the question, does the idea of the heredity of intelligence at the "racial" level represent a minority, or a tiny minority point of view? If it is a minority point of view then it should get a small mention, if it is a tiny minority point of view, then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I just don't know what the difference is between a minority and a tiny minority point of view.
• The contention that race is ipso facto a biological construct, as Jagz seems to be implying (and if I misunderstand here then I appologise), is demonstrably incorrect, and a reading of any half decent anthropological text will confirm this.
• Why not make some suggestions regarding what to call the article? Alun (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and the test score gap

Social status and academic performance

How about we call it "Race and IQ", since intelligence and IQ are not exactly the same thing. That would also save us some trouble in trying to equate and conflate "intelligence" per se (which many people assess on a variety of factors other than test scores, etc.) with a host of other factors (e.g. economic performance, health, etc.)—not to say that IQ isn't also related to these things, but IQ is a more robust and tangible concept than intelligence and, because of this, it seems we would more easily be able to focus on the specific evidence of difference in IQ measure by race (which is the issue whence this article stems) without getting bogged down into tangential disputes over race reality and IQ vs. intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you on your suggested article name. It would help limit the scope of the article since it is already too long. --Jagz (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• While I don't have a problem per se with the title "Race and IQ", it does leave out a great deal of research that has used different ways to assess people, for example school test results, developmental progression etc. I think this is why people talk of the "test score gap", because this topic covers many tests that are not actually IQ tests. Alun (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer "Race and IQ". It will help cut the article down to a reasonable length. --Jagz (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But this does not solve the problem that a great deal of research and writing on this subject has used tests that are not actually IQ tests. I don't know what you mean by a "reasonable length". What do you propose for related work that uses non IQ test result data? We cannot have lots of articles each for different types of test (like one for "Race and IQ" and another for "Race and SAT" and another for "Race and university graduation"). This is clearly a single research subject, and therefore it clearly should all be together in a single article. Can you make a more constructive comment, possibly a suggestion of your own? I'm happy to go with any consensus, but I doubt that "Race and IQ" is going to fly. Let's try to get a reasonably long list of suggestions and then debate the merits or lack thereof of each? You might like "Race and IQ" at the moment, but someone might come allong with a really good suggestion that everyone can agree on. Let's just all have a think about some good titles and decide later? Cheers, Alun (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I like 'Racre and IQ', but you are right, it does mess things up from the perspective of other proxies. I'll see if I think of anything. Brusegadi (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not writing a book. --Jagz (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Racial intelligence" or "Racial IQ"? If race is meaningless then, "Group intelligence" or "Group IQ". --Jagz (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When ethnologists deal with race, they are talking about a breeding population, this is what all the research is into. Nobody can dispute the idea that a breeding population displays differing traits, people here are not understanding the scholarly debate at all. Thus consider race=breeding population and everything becomes clearer and less charged. Lobojo (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is totally incorrect. Ethnologists do not deal with "breeding populations", biologists do. Ethnologists deal with ethnic groups, which are socio-cultural groups, group membership is not determined by membership of a biological population. When biologists talk about breeding populations they usually refer to them as "populations" and not "races" (although the term "population" is often not well defined in biology). When biologists discuss "race", they are nearly always discussing subspecies, a completely different concept. This is easily illustrated. It is obvious that people from Great Britain do not form a "breeding population" with people from say Italy. This is obvious because a person from Great Britain is not as likely to meet and reproduce with a person from Italy as they are to meet and reproduce with a person from Great Britain. The definition of a population is usually something like A group of individuals of the same species living close enough together than any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member, as soon as we introduce organisms that are less likely to reproduce with the population, then we assume that this is due to migration between groups. It is therefore clear that a "breeding population" of any terrestrial organism will tend to be very localised. If you want to read a good paper that discusses what a population is then I can recommend What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. On the other hand most people would accept that British and Italian people are part of the same "race", but clearly they are not part of the same "breeding population". Furthermore, even Great Britain does not represent a "breeding population", nor even Wales. A potential "breeding population" will comprise only of a sub set of those organisms that tend to come into direct contact with each other frequently. One should think of populations as theoretical constructs that biologists, and especially population geneticists use for the purposes of mathematical modelling, they are not necessarily accurate representations of a natural order. On the other hand "race" is generally understood as a social construct by anthropologists, there is no ambiguity here, whatever Jagz says, but we do need to mention this is the article obviously. One should not get confused between the concepts of race, ethnicity and population, the anthropologist Jonathan Marks claims that these terms are often erroneously used interchangeably. The problem here is not necessarily with using the word "race", it is with using the word intelligence, or IQ. Alun (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we should change the word "intelligence" to "IQ" or "IQ scores" which is more precise and accurate. Second, when people discuss "race" they are referring to race as a self-reported category i.e. collective self-representation - not a biological entity; the best research on this matter looks at social and economic factors. There is a solid body of scientific research on genetic factors in IQ, but these are based on twin studies - I have cited several on this page - and not "race." I suggest one article on genetics and IQ drawing on the twin studies, and another on SES and IQ. This is the mose effective way to cover the two major and separate discussions in the scholarly literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002"

Does this take into account recent immigration from Africa? Hundreds of thousands of people have come from sub-Saharan Africa in recent decades, just over the time period that this graph shows the 'gap closing'. The people who came tended to be very well educated, and probably very high average IQs. Asian Americans are listed as having average IQ around 105 but recent African immigrants have even higher education levels. Top universities estimate that most of their black students are actually recent immigrants or descended from recent immigrants, rather than long term native blacks (see Nigerian American ) Peoplesunionpro (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support your theory?futurebird (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Theory? I asked a question, explaining factual reasons why it was worth clarifying. If you're looking for sources on the statements I made about recent immigration, just look on wikipedia. No theorizing needed. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add something to the article you can't do your own original research and synthesis of data, you need to quote some scientists writing in a respectable journal who has this theory. If it is your own invention, then you need to get published in a respectable journal first. Personally, I think your theory is bunk. The number of immigrants from Africa is far to low of have an impact. Test score gains occur even in cities with no immigration. So, I guess you'll need to find another way to prove that black people are inferior. I don't understand why this topic makes some people so desperate. The science just isn't there. futurebird (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Worst article in wikipedia?

Is this the very worst long article in the encyclopedia? I remember reading this about two years ago, and I was impressed at how coherent and neutral it was despite being about such a controversial and hurtful subject. There were clear illustrations, and the different explanations for the differences were described in detail. The various criticisms of the field were also discussed in detail.

I don't know who is responsible for destroying this article but it seems fair to say that these people don't have much in the way of IQ themselves.

This whole train-wreck is beyond repair. I suggest reverting to a very old version and then trying to incorporate some of the current version into to the new one. Lobojo (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that reverting the article to an older version is something that should be considered. --Jagz (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the July 2005 version of the article, which was a featured article candidate, and it seemed to be better than the current article. --Jagz (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some merit to this idea. I advocated a few months back that we begin with the version which preceded the division into multiple articles, but I would be interested in revieiwing the featured article version as a starting point if we feel that the current version is unworkable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This article was indeed excellent at one time. Not sure it's hurtful, though, as people who as individuals have low IQs don't likely read wikipedia. Unless you mean the cherished beliefs of the people who ruined this article being hurt, that's surely true. 72.220.172.147 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been too much of an attempt to blame IQ differences on environmental effects. It would be an amazing coincidence if it was found that the indigenous peoples in each geographic region of the world had the same average IQ. It would disprove evolution. How can the differences in physical appearance of indigenous peoples in different geographic regions be explained by creationism alone? A lot of creationists believe that people started out as one man and one woman. Are we supposed to believe that evolutionary changes are limited to the physical attributes we are capable of seeing? While environmental conditions may have an effect on individuals, it is also true that environmental conditions can cause evolutionary changes in groups of individuals. --Jagz (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and as the experts in this field have written extensively in the relevant journals, research bears that hypothesis out. And the purpose of this article, which is to neutrally present that mainstream opinion, has been subverted. I think this article is truly an embarrassment. One hopes science will win in the end (it always has) but when ideologically-motivated people are willing to tirelessly subvert the process you have to wonder. Is there someone or some process we can start to get this reverted to the pre-zealot-graffiti version?70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. Roll it back. There was a lot of work done to make it a good article, but they gave up and I don't blame them. That was a lot of work ruined. - Jeeny 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Background

The background section needs to go almost completely. This is an encylopedia aritlce not a term paper. Just for example, this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct. That belongs elsewhere. Putting it in here is bogus. The first thing the article must to is describe the observed racial differnces in IQ, and provide the various competing therories. That must be in the lead, that is what a lead is. Lobojo (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. A lot of scientists disagree with this research based specifically on the disputability of the relevance of race as a biological concept; others dispute this research based on the concatenation of studies which used different definitions of "race". So, indeed, some background is quite necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, which is fine. It needs a section describing this, it is the strcture that is the problem. Lobojo (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It seems to me that the usefulness of 'race' is highly questioned. That should also be at intro. Brusegadi (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the artilce and the lead, I agree, what I'm saying is the problems we are having here are partly caused by the fact that this is basicly a termpaper writen by 200 people each using there own plan. The first thing to agree on is (a) stick to the MOS, (ie, no lengthy "background") and (b) agree on a basic layout for the article, then fill in the sections. Otherwise you have the chaotic shitstorm we have here. Lobojo (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that this is "bogus" because (1) it discusses race as a social construct, (2) it reads like a term paper, (3) it is written by 200 people. This is not a logical or persuasive argument. first of all, many wikipedia articles are written by hundreds of people. Secondly, what do you mean by "term paper" and why is it bad? in my experience a term paper is a w:::ell-researched study of the academic treatment of a topic, held to high standards - sounds good to me; you must mean something else but what do you mean? By the way words like "shitstorm" are not going to impress or persuade anyone here - please try to talk like an adult. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article is OK as it stands? I am suggesting the reason it is so finger-licking bad is partly because it strays all over the place, and nobody agrees on the structure, the first thing to do is agree on the structure. This is an ENCYCLOPDIA it is not a collction of college notes. Things around the subject are to be linked in, the subject must be kept in focus. Lobojo (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have followed the talk you would know I have made several suggestions for improving the article. Be that as it may, now you seem to be equating "a collection of college notes" with "a term paper." You either write lousy term papers, or go to a college with no standards. A good term paper is not a collection of notes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need to be unpleasant just because I use the word "shitstorm"? Was that really called for? Why do wikipedia editors have such a proclivity to patronizing others? I wasn't trying to impress anyone, I was just being conversational. I suppose you aren't trying to impress anyone with your "impressive" pseudo-intellectual user page. Oh you read Freud do you, and Derrida. You must be a very clever person then. Why do some people here just latch onto anything they can do put others down, it makes me sad. Lobojo (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"If I followed the link", I wasn't attacking your ideas, I was merely suggesting my own, I can't believe you are making such a fuss about the mere suggestion that people sit down and plan out a serious article, that follows the MOS and provided a readable precis of the research on this subject. The first job is to agree on a layout. Why are you being so unpleasant at the mere suggestion? Lobojo (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All my comments have been bsased on your comments on this page. You opened this discussion with a rude comment. Your suggestion was unconstructive and amounted to pushing the POV that races have some kind of objective reality, and that discussion of their social construction should be removed. That is POV pushing and unconstructive. When you have a constructive suggestion I assure you we are all ears. As to my so-called unpleasentness, I continue to insist that a good term paper is not a mere collection of notes. You still claim this? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was rude about this shitty article; you were rude about me. I never said that! I just said it needs its own section, in an organised article!! There are parts of this article that dont make ANY sense on ANY level, there are whole sections that have been shredded up so many times that there is no coherance at all. This artilce is broken and needs to be redone. Lobojo (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking past one another. I was responding to your comment, "this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct" which states very clearly that you believe, well, that this is not the article to discuss the relative merits as race as a social constuct. You claim you never said that? Please just look to the top of this section. You did indeed say it. In an earlier section you also claimed tat ethnologists think races are breeding populations, which is just absurd. I really do not mean to be rude to you, but yes, you really are pushing a POV and yes, you have so far failed to make any constructive suggestions. As for my being unpleasant, you seem to be upset that I disagree with your claim that a college term paper is a collection of notes. Sorry if this upsets you, but I stand by my disagreement with your claim which I continue to find inane and, to repeat my main point, unconstructive. Does it bother you that I am standing up to your atempts to bully your way around this page? That your vile filth like "shitstorm" and hysterics do not really sway me? Guess what: you just have to deal with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am merely saying that while it should be discussed in proper ormat. This is not the article to discuss this issue at length, no. That belongs in the Race page, don't you agree. Here it needs to be mentioned, but it must not replicate what is already elsewhere. Lobojo (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is enough to say that the mainstream view among scientists is that race is a social construction and provide links to other articles. As a secondary comment, I believe then that we would a separate article that does not use the word race to cover the literature on IQ scores and genetics. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, well no, there is a 50 50 split among anthropolists on the isbsue, as you know. And the biological viewpoint is solidly against the social construct. But I take it you agree with the idea of a root and branch plan for the article? Lobojo (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence for the 50/50 split among anthropologists? Also, when you say "biological viewpoint" are you refering to all biologists (most of whom are not experts on human evolution or genetics) or only those who are experts on human evolution and genetics - and what is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I read it just now on the race page here on wikipedia. The whole field is predicated on the fact. Anyway this is not the point. Do you support my idea or not? Lobojo (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what bit of the article you were reading, but the 50:50 split is from a survey done in 1985. The survey was repeated in 1999 and the result was that 80% of cultural anthropologists and 69% of physical anthropologists disagree with the statement There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens. One should also be aware that the vast majority of anthropologists are cultural anthropologists, physical anthropologists are a very small fraction of anthropologists. See here and here. Cheers, Alun (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the editing histories of a couple of editors of other articles to this page and what I have found is indeed troubling. The article, IMHO, is an attempt to sling enough fecal material at the subject that it will prevent any reasonable person from understanding the stated subject of the article. I have several questions about this subject which are not being answered by the article as it stands. I would recommend a revert to an earlier article. If a person who is more knowledgeable about this subject than I would contact me, I have some real questions. My questions relate to genetics and biological/ vs. social concepts of race. I know this is perhaps not the forum for a request like this, but the article has left me with more questions than answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, your questions about "race" cannot be answered in this article - it takes the article into a major tangent. But your questions aout race can and are answered by wikipedia - in the Race article. I hope that helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Let's not have an article on "Race and intelligence"

Let's not have an article on "Race and intelligence". Before anyone cries "CENSORSHIP" or anything of that sort let me explain. The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the article on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc. I think there is an article call "achievement gap" -- It could be a starting point.

Our attempt to provide a summary of this topic has failed because it continues to result in an original synthesis of information, and because there is not a definitive position on the topic "race and intelligence" or even race and IQ. So we run in to a problem of being unable to write anything in the "voice of wikipeida" it's becomes a argument of "so and so wrote..." "But sos and so disagreed" etc. It muddles the presentation of the ideas in a clear and concise manner, it gives undue wight to fringe theories and even undue weight to the controversy itself--

My proposal is that we take the material in this article and move each item to its proper place so nothing is deleted and no information is lost and then delete this article. So we'd first request that the page be unprotected than start moving things out-- to ensure that nothing is being "censored" we could post links with the new locations of the information to the talk page. Once the article is gutted we'd request deletion. I'm ready willing to make this happen. futurebird (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I believe we should have an aticle on IQ and genetics that draws on the relevant literature (which is based on twin studies, not race) and we should have an article on the schloarly literature on the relation between IQ and SES. Lest's start by looking at the notable discussions among competent scholars and figure out how best to represent them in Misplaced Pages - rather than invent a title for an article and then go about looking for sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A few months back I might have supported this, but the more activity that I see here the more convinced I am that WP can't avoid the topic under some name, maybe "IQ and genetics". I am very dissappointed that this has become a US-centric Black and White issue. I think that fixing this is going to require a lot of work, and cooperation. I think we need to find a middle ground, adopt strict standards for sources, and agree to more restrictive standards for unilateral editing than are generally applied at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  If you would support an article on IQ and genetics, it sounds to me like you are supporting this proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The flaw I see in FB's proposal. I oppose her suggestion to: "The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the article on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc. I think there is an article call "achievement gap"" I have no problem finding a better name, but the topic itself is viable in scope if not in content. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I think Jensen is more notable than Rushton. I do think non-notable views are best handled in articles on the proponents of those views or books authored by them, as NPOV insists that we include only notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think we are going around in circles, we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. When the talk page descends into a discussion about the meaning of "race" then clearly the article is deeply flawed in it's fundamental conception. Mostly I agree with SLR, an article about twin studies seems the most obvious for discussing the hereditarian and genetic research in this subject, are IQ tests the only tests used though? Possibly we could call the article something like "Genetics and cognitive testing". On the other hand it makes complete sense to have an article that specifically discuses the roles of socio-economic status and test scores, I suppose much of this work includes studies on academic achievement as well as cognitive testing? On the whole I think the scope of this article is fundamentally flawed, this article does not appear to be about a coherent body of work. On the other hand I don't think this page should necessarily be deleted, if it is then some bright spark will only come along and create it again. This page should become a disambig page, or possibly a redirect to one of the other pages about cognitive ability. Alun (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can see merit to a signpost article with a very brief description of the topic and sub-topics and then pointing off to other articles with the detail. Perhaps a collection of authors in the various camps, with links to their articles or articles about their works. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I believe a topic could be fashioned, but it would require the complete blanking of this page first - and then a structured rebuild (as per Kevin Murrays suggestion). I also support the ideas of Futurebird (namely putting things were they should be, rather than trying to create a mass of information). This is also not the topic in which to argue over the definition of Race, nor is it the topic for arguing over the definition of Intelligence (both should be covered by their own pages) though they may be relevant. Nor is the wiki here for interpretation of the science and testing, validity etc. The chief issue thereon is that if you actually remove the arguments over the definitions, science, testing and validity you actually end up with no topic at all. Probably the error lies in that "Race and Intelligence" is actually the generic interpretation/definition applied to many of the studies/tests on why IQ differs nationally/internationally/within social groups by uninterested media sources happy just to peg a result as either supporting a preconceived notion of racial superiority, or disproving the 'myth' as it suits.--Koncorde (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue of differences of intelligence of the races is very significant, it has been written about ad nauseam in respectable publications, and it has received considerable attention from the public and from media sources. All of this attention and study has expressly considered the variable of race (NOT genetics) and its correlations with intelligence as measured by IQ and test scores. I vehemently oppose attempts to water down the issue and call it "IQ and genetics" and so forth, and I take such motions to be deliberate attempts by some to throw the issue into obscurity and to further mystify a topic that deserves clarity and accuracy in its own right. It is absurd to think that we are somehow creating an original synthesis of information when we use the same language which untold volumes of respectable books and articles have. Repackaging this article as "IQ and genetics" when the sources use the variable "race" is original synthesis. And repatriating bits of information in this article to other articles makes no more sense than dissecting the article on the IQ and rewriting it into the one on intelligence. I think we need to start this article from scratch, scrap the historical background, and simply represent the statistics as best we can. Where a given source says that "Caucasians have so-and-so a score on this test" that's what the article says; we start tripping ourselves up only when we try to inject little warnings about how some anthropologists dispute the biological meaningfulness of "Caucasian"—this kind of thing is intentionally brought up to affect a certain POV on the issue and we need to realize that there is no conflict between using a social category as a variable in statistical studies. This article isn't about genetics, it's about race. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  If this is not about genetics, then the title of the article should be changed to "IQ and Socio-Economic Status" because that is what eh bulk of the literature is looking at, and SES is a more accurate and precise term than "race." Slrubenstein | Talk 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  Except the sources don't talk about socio-economic status, they talk about race; that's why this article was created in the first place. It's not like people were reading all this information in books about IQ scores by income bracket and they just decided to reframe it as intelligence and race, they read it from sources that talk about IQ sources by race. You may rather talk about socio-economic status and IQ, but it seems like your problem is with the sources themselves and not with the substantial issue at hand. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think those are the sources that we are suggesting should be discussed in the articles on the authors or on the books themselves. futurebird (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very arbitrary to me; it's not just a dread few racist crackpots who acknowledge that there's a gap in IQ and test scores between certain races. Basically, it sounds like you're saying that even though there are copiously documented academic studies about the gap as it relates to race, these don't deserve their own article simply because they are using race as a variable. That is hardly an even-handed approach to the issue. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you are confused. There seems to be a correlation between self-identified race and IQ score. This is what scientists must explain. Race itself is not part of the explanation - not a cause - it is an effect, part of what must be explained. The point that I think Futurebird and others - certainly I - raise is that biological explanations are fringe. you yourself seem to agree, that this discussion is not about genetics. If we subtract genetics, we are left with environmental factors. These environmental factors can include material causes, e.g. nutrition, especially prenatal and neonatal, and incidence of disease, but most notable discussions (even of nutrition and disease) focus on socio-economic status. There is nothing at all arbitrary here. Futurebird's proposal is responding to an evident problem in this article which is: in clear contravention of our NPOV policy, it has long privileged non-notable views (e.g. Rushton) and has ignored or downplayed the most notable views (those discussing socio-economic status as the key environmental cause for differences in IQ score). NB I have already acknolwedged that there are also non-environmental e.g. genetic causes for differences in IQ scores and I have cited many twin studies - notable scientific research that this article also ignores in favor of fringe views (but be that as it may you yourself have said you are not refering to the discussion of genetics and IQ, I am just reminding you that there is another body of literature on another set of causes out there). The basic issue is, this article privileges fringe theories and minimizes notable research, and we want to reorganize Misplaced Pages's treatment of the topic (variation in IQ score) in a way that adequately represents the notable points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. It's very frustrating to try to explain the same thing over and over again to no avail, but I'll try again:

1) This article is about the well-known gap in IQ and test scores between persons of differing self-identified races. As I've pointed out before, that difference exists whether you believe that race is socially constructed or that has some biological meaning to it.

2) Many academics have published on the topic, whether they think that the gap is caused by SES (likely the majority) or by innate natural differences (likely the minority). It's not just Rushton and Jensen who have noted the race gap (let alone the SES gap), countless others have done so as well. That's why the U.S. Department of Education has spent billions of dollars trying to close the race gap in school performance (independently of the SES gap) because studies show that even when SES is screened for, there still exists a gap in performance by race (this isn't even wholly relevant to whether this article exists though).

3) In conjunction with the multitude of relevant, respectable publications, because the race gap in IQ itself has received notable media coverage it is thus entitled to its own Misplaced Pages article.

4) Nevertheless, the correlation between race and IQ deserves explanation—at this point in the article, we need to discuss the various explanations for the gap according to their respective merits. Thus, fringe theories are to be duly regarded, but it isn't true that all non-SES explanations are fringe. There are plenty of psychologists (see the APA) who regard the gap as being due to natural differences between individuals of different self-identified races. While they may not be the majority, they aren't fringe theorists.

I think the main point is that the race-IQ gap itself has received notable coverage, NOT just the SES-IQ gap. If you agree on this point, then you must acknowledge that the substance and impetus for the article (that is, the race gap, not the SES gap) deserves fair attention. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is, that the race-IQ gap has received notable coverage only in the popular media because it is a politically hot topic. The scientific research on variation in IQ - yes, across self-identified races - focuses on SES. I think we need an article on the notable scientific research. I see the popular media coverage of race and IQ to be one more example of the range of debates about race in the US that would best be covered in an article on "Race in the US" that covers it as a social, cultural, and political phenomena. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: it is not POV to acknowledge that there is an IQ gap between self-identified members of different races. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about not acknowledging it. The gap is one of the two most important pieces of evidence that support the idea that social and economic status has an impact on test scores. Race or caste is a kind of social status and gaps in test scores arise, along racial and economic lines. The other piece of evidence is that modifying social status leads to improvements in test scores. These ideas aren't really disputed, as far as I know. So, we should have an article that explains this. futurebird (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make an article that deals separately with this issue, then good luck (though I doubt you'll find that it's notable enough). The fact is though, the reason this article is possible or warranted is because the gap between race and IQ has received plenty of attention in itself, both from the media and respected publications, regardless of whether it is the same, the opposite, or in no way related to SES. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WM, have you read the sections on "environmental explanations" in the article? Nearly all the the evidence there is talking about what I just described. The problem is we have it backwards. We need to make articles about the theory, not the phenomenon. The theory is "SES has an impact on test scores." The race IQ gap is one piece of evidence commonly cited to support this. futurebird (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the theories aren't notable, the phenomenon is. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - We have to do it here. If the article was born from misconceptions then it can be written in a way that clears up the misconceptions. It seems to be that the mainstream view does not use the race stuff, so explain that. Brusegadi (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The article should not focus solely on what scholars are publishing and cannot ignore what is being published in the media. As I have pointed out, what seems to be the mainstream view is deceptive because people are purposely not speaking out on the subject. In any case, the article cannot be limited to the supposed mainstream view. Some of the editors are making progress impossible because they are refusing to compromise. --Jagz (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - We should not speculate on what they dont publish. Brusegadi (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Try to be cooperative so we can make progress. --Jagz (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - To make progress we should go to the point. One point is that the above is speculation. Brusegadi (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article has already survived multiple AFDs. Conducting an ad-hoc AFD on the talkpage is gaming the system.--Ryan Delaney 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't eaxtcly the same concept of as an RfD and I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone is trying to "game" the system. I think we can all agree that we want to see the material her presented in a neutral manner. I only recently came to this idea, after trying many other ways to move this article forward and then while talking with slr I realized that he was right. If we frame the information in this way we are setting ourselves up to do original research. Putting Rushton on the same footing as Steele is original research. The synthesis is the problem. Universities don't have "race and intelligence" departments or divisions that do research on "race and intelligence" Race is handled by sociologist, occasional it comes up in medical fields, but most often as a socially constructed factor. Intelligence is studied under cognitive science. Genetics is a part of biology or medicine. There are links between each of these things but I feel we should avoiding constructing a tenuous paper chain in order to get from race to intelligence. futurebird (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with FB on everything here, but she is certainly not gaming the system. A drastic change has been discussed and this is just a logical extension of the discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• We should keep in mind that this article is supposed to be about the observed differences in IQ according to race—the question of why this difference exists need not overwhelm the article. I think this is the reason that there are so many deadlocks, because editors go into the process of editing with a conclusion about the gaps' cause in mind, and they try to influence everything to that end. If we successfully disentangled the research data from the possible cause(s), then we might be able to confine editors' disagreements to the section on why the gap exists. From here, we proceed in the usual manner of offering the various theories in a way that reflects their respective merits. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• By your reasoning, we should have an article on why arrows shot into the air fall, and why planets orbit the sun, rather than an article on gravity. Or, articles on why whales use their forelimbs to swim and gorillas use their forelimbs to brachiae and bats use their forelimbs to fly, rather than an article on evolution. In science, we should favor articles on the theories that explain phenomena, not the wide range of phenomena these theories explain. The issue is the variation in IQ scores and the two main causal theories are genetics (via twin studies) and environment (via studies of socio-economic status). Let us put the horse before the cart. Putting the cart before the horse (differences in race are casued by differences in race) just sends us and our readers in circles. More to the point, it is an embarassment to the encyclopedia as it expresses an apparently willful ignorance of the notable scientific research on variation in IQ scores. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  No, there is no basis for an article on "why arrows shot into the air fall" because there haven't been respectable publications or notable coverage on this kind of thing. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  My point exactly. The notable sources on the variance in IQ scores are about SES. You insist that this article is about "race" because you are pushing a racialist POV that is supported by fringe theories in science. You seem to be unaware of the notable scholarship in science. Any Misplaced Pages article should highlight the notable science. This is a matter of fringe versus notable sources and the resepctable publications and notable coverage on IQ variance either focus on genetics (twin studies) or environment (primarily SES). That is what our articles should focus on - and not an editor's favorite POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's not your point; the difference is that there are publications on the race gap in IQ and publications on the SES gap in IQ and they don't always overlap—you're the one needlessly conflating the two. To say that the only notable sources about variance in IQ focus on SES is absurd—James Watson didn't catch hell the world over and spark a wave of media attention in the SES IQ variance, he did so in reference to the race gap. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Race is an important element of SES, perhaps one of the most important in cultures with racial divisions. (Such as the US) In many sense race is a form of SES there is no difference. futurebird (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to make that inference for yourself, but if the sources talk about "race" and not SES, you have no license to take your inference and repackage what the sources say in those terms just because you prefer them. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WM, have you read the sections on "environmental explanations" in the article? Nearly all the the evidence there is talking about what I just described. The problem is we have it backwards. We need to make articles about the theory, not the phenomenon. The theory is "SES has an impact on test scores." The race IQ gap is one piece of evidence commonly cited to support this. futurebird (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the theories aren't notable, the phenomenon is. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• My point exactly. Watson earned his Nobel prize because he participated in serious, long-term research on the molecular structure of DNE, for which he was well-trained. This makes him famous among non-scientists. But notability among non-scientists is not the criteria for inclusion in an article on a scientific topic. His comments were ignored by scientists researching disparities in IQ scores because he neither has the training, nor has done any significant research, on the topic. He is therefore not a notable source on this topic, no more notable than Paris Hilton, who, whatever virtues she may have, is also not trained to research IQ disparities and has not done research on IQ disparities. There really are notabel views among scientists who conduct serious scientific research on this topic. We need editors who know or are willing to read those articles, and not just get their views on science from The Daily News or Time Magazine. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're very confused; I'm not saying anything about whether or not Watson is an authority on the subject, I'm using him as an example of why the topic of race and IQ is notable. His remarks sparked a torrent of media coverage of this issue and that makes the race-IQ issue significant enough to deserve a WP article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WM makes a good point that if a topic is being recognized then it becomes notable for a WP article. The question is: under what name is it most notable? , rather than under what name do we want to cover it? --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you WM Quinlan - I now see how we have misunderstood one another and perhaps I can follow your lead in moving beyond this confusion. Watson's comment was notable not because he has any authority on research in this matter, his comment was notable because a public figure was making a racist comment. In this sense it is indeed notable and should be part of a wikipedia article, but one on racism in the US. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

His remarks didn't just spark new talk of racism, they sparked discussions about the difference between races in terms of IQ and whether what he said was true or not; so it actually doesn't belong in "racism in the US." Plus, he made the comments in the UK and they set off global discussions of the matter. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on racism in the UK! I still see it as a political and cultural debate, not a scientific one. I do not know of any article concerning research meant to explain the IQ gap between races, in peer-reviewed journals, that refer to Watson. My point is only that he is not a notable source for an article on the scientific theories about race and IQ. If you want an article on popular (political and cultural) debates sure, he belongs in there. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

M.W. Quinlan, Watson's remarks certainly did not spark a new discussion in the UK about "race and intelligence". The only discussion I saw in the UK was about freedom of speech, ie should he have been so severely censured for his comments. The debate went something like, "Watson is obviously wrong, but did he have the right to make these statements because we have freedom of speech." Alun (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Those weren't the only reaction to his remarks, and nor did I say that reactions were limited to the UK (rather quite the opposite). Take the recent series of articles on Slate.com : this is but one example of how Watson's remarks sparked a discussion of the merits of racial differences in intelligence, and it is this kind of example that demonstrates the usefulness of an article specifically geared towards the differences in intelligence between members of different races. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "new" in these gibberrings, they just rehash the same old lies. Yes cleverness can be inherited, but heredity is at the family level and not the "racial" level. The fundamental lie is the contention that variation is at the "racial" level, the bulk of variation is at the within group level, that is the individual and family group level. Not only is this not new, it's the same old misunderstanding and lies that eugenicist racists were peddling in the 1920's when people like Madison Grant were claiming that "inferior" European "races" were "polluting" the "pure" North American "Nordic race". Not only is this "debate" not new, it's nearly a century out of date and is currently only peddled by the terminally bigoted or the willfully ignorant. Alun (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely some gibbering going on around here, and a lot of irony too.

WM Quinlan, I really do not understand your position, and want to. I just do not see Watson sparking a discussion on the merit of racial difference in intelligence, because none of the people who participated in this dicussion were actually trained scientists drawing on their research in order to develop any kind of meaningful discussion about explaining disparities in intelligence. It's like people who think mark Twain should be banned from high school libraries (or Vonnegut, or even Antigone, whatever) - yes, yes, yes they spark a discussion about the meaning of the literary text ... but these discussions have nothing to do with academic discussions about how best to understand Huck Finn in its historical context, or how Huck Fin "workd" as a literary text, or aesthetic/formal versus substantive elements operating in Huck Finn ... in short, such discussions have nothing to do with scholarly literature (and yes, there is a lot!!) produced by people in English and Comparative Literature on Huck Finn. The first set of debates are not really about Huck Finn, they are about debates over banning books in the US. These debates are distinct from debates over Huck Finn as American literature. I see the discussions sparked by or exemplified by Watson's remarks and people's responses as being more like debates over banning books, raqther than scholarly debates over the meaning of Huck Finn. I see the discussions involving Watson to be discussions of the freedom of prominent people to make racist remarks - debates in liberal states like the US over both the limits of free speech and also debates over racism. And in this context yes yes yes it belongs in an encyclopedia article. But these debates have nothing to do with actual scientific debates over how to explain disparities in IQ scores. "this kind of example" may "demonstrate the usefulness of an article specifically geared towards the differences in intelligence between members of different races" - but such an article for it to be effective must be based on notable scientific views which would exclude comments by Watson or the media debate over his comments. "this kind of example demonstrates the usefulness" of another kind of article - an article about debates over racism and fress speech in such liberal states as the US and UK. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop labeling Dr. Watson as a racist. He is not advocating treating Africans or Americans of any race unfairly. He has simply made a series of true statements such as, “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so” and “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. As far as I can tell he seems to an intelligent individual with an opinion not promoting hatered, but EQUAL rights. --Myrik (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop using Misplaced Pages discussion pages as some kind of soapbox or forum. Mathsci (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support It tells us nothing but a bunch of gobblygook. - Jeeny 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Make a note of the word "Gobbledygook", I like it and want to use it more in conversation. (see Blackadder Goes Fourth) :) Alun (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you making fun of my spelling? Anyway, I use it all the time, as I speak fluent "Gobbledygook". :p Ooo, poppies! Goodbyeee..... - Jeeny 11:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't, I didn't even notice it was spelt wrongly, it's just one of my favourite words. Alun (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) People, I think we need to take this one apart to see how the pieces fit together:

• There is an observed, documented gap in IQ scores between self-identified racial groups, especially Blacks and Whites, and especially well documented in the US - Notable
• There have been studies suggesting that this IQ score gap was worldwide and systematic (Lynn, Rushton). Less notable and highly controversial (media controversy is notable)
• There have been a large number of studies using a wide variety of hypotheses to try to explain this gap - Notable
• Studies in SES disparity claim to explain most if not all of the IQ gap, and are generally closest to being the mainstream explanation - Notable
• Some studies claim some genetic basis for racial differences causes a difference in IQ scores Less notable (media controversy is notable)
• Some studies argue that the race IQ gap may be an artefacts of our incomplete understanding of intelligence and/or race (multiple intelligences, test bias, conflation of diverging definitions of race) - Less notable
• There isn't at this point widespread agreement as to either the significance (i.e. is it real) even less the cause of this gap. - Scientifically notable but doesn't make for good media attention at all.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with FB that we must view this from the view of the underlying theory, as it hasn't gained the same degree of widespread acceptance as say, evolution or gravity. At this point, I'm not even sure all the factoids listed above belong in the same article, or whether this doesn't become OR or SYNT creep at some point we can't figure out. Maybe we should start from this far back and discuss how we want to build the article from these points, and whether or not we want to include all of these points, or only the most notable ones.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure all the factoids listed above belong in the same article, or whether this doesn't become OR or SYNT creep at some point.

At this point I don't think they belong in the same article. I think we need to make articles that describe notable theories.

FB that we must view this from the view of the underlying theory, as it hasn't gained the same degree of widespread acceptance as say, evolution or gravity

Not true as even the fringe theory guys who want to say that genetics accounts for a significant part of the gap, acknowledge that SES plays an important role. How exactly this happens is another matter. For example, education level is also an element of SES and it has an impact on test scores. (No surprise there) What I'm talking about is the really basic theory that health, wealth, social advantage and education have a positive impact on test scores and school performance. I'm not talking about the position that "It is not likely that genetics plays significant role in creating the test gap." This second view is merely "well supported and mainstream" but the first view, that SES plays a role , is practically a statement of fact-- Even Jensen knows this. futurebird (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Paper chains

Paper chains:

1. Race --> Genetics --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (genetics plays a role, there is a real difference)
2. Race --> Social factors --> IQ and test Scores gaps (test scores do not represent cognitive ability)
3. Race --> Social factors --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (Test scores represent cognitive ability, but are due to social factors)
4. Race --> Social factors --> health --> Cognitive ability --> IQ and test Scores gaps (Test scores represent cognitive ability, but are due to social factors and non-genetic physical differences)
5. Genetics --> Cognitive ability and 2,3 or 4, but for unrelated reasons.
6. Some combination of any of these.

futurebird (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are just critiquing the idea of the correlation itself, which is, of course, irrelevant to whether or not it meets the criteria for having its own Misplaced Pages article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to outline the possible positions. The question is what sources, if any describe the "full chain" -- what we want to avoid is making the chain ourselves-- and that's what the article seems to be doing at present. futurebird (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I take Quinlan seriously by taking the correlation seriously. But correlations are not causes. This correlation is an effect and the effect needs to be explained, and it cannot be explained by the correlation itself - that is circular. Futurebird's chains all illustrate the confusion that occurs when one thinks in circles, assuming that effects are causes and that correlations explain things, rather than need explaining. In most studies of race and IQ race is self-identified and as Quinlan himself has agreed, it is not about genetics. That means it is about environmental causes and the notable research explaining this correlation looks at socio-economic status. A good encyclopedia article should (and according to our NPOV policy a good Misplaced Pages article must) foreground the notable views, which is why this article should be renamed "IQ and SES" and show how SES affects IQ scores (as I have stated repeatedly, we need another article on how genetics affects IQ scores; that article should foreground the notable research using twin studies) Slrubenstein | Talk 03:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's be careful here; the studies are not about genetics per se, and nor can they be reduced to genetics, but likewise, they're not about environment and social status either. You're still interchanging the correlation and its cause, which we need to avoid doing. To say that the article needs to take some predetermined stance on the causes of the correlation is incorrect. There is nothing circular about following the sources to where they lead; there is enough data (that is, raw, unbiased statistical evidence) that a correlation exists and those data are the basis for the current debate about racial differences in IQ that has been brought to the public's attention, and consequently, the basis for this article. Thus, I think all we need to do is present the statistical information (which itself, has little to say directly about the cause) in one section and then in the next section we should discuss the various interpretations of these data. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by per se as the twin studies are all about calculating heritability which is an important part of population genetics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You still have to explain the race and IQ correlation, even if spurious. It has received enough attention in the media to merit mention, even if it is to show that it is not robust. Incorrect statements that receive attention are notable. Brusegadi (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me or to Quinlan? I do not understand what you mean when you say I still have to explain the correlation. It is a non-sequitor. Didn't you read what I just wrote, which is all about how to explain it? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean that SES and genetic stuff can be placed in one. We just have to build it properly. It is important to clear up any possible misconseption. That is, the reader should know what is public discourse (BS) and what is academic discourse. I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much, I dont think we have to do that as long as we show that it is the predominant stuff. Brusegadi (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much." Where did I ever say that? Please tell me what you were responding to. Besides, what is "too much?" You are missing my point: I want to stick to our NPOV policy which says that we include notable views and I want to stick to notable views not fringe ones. The Evolution article is not bogged down with Creationist views. The Physics article is not bogged down with Ptolemaic astronomy. Likewise this article should focus on notable scholarly views and yes, they exist. This is not "too much." However, like others I disagree with you that SES and genetics should go in one article. i am calling not for a POV fork but a content fork (because specialists in each scholarly field accept the findings of the other scholarly field). The scholarly work on twin studies and on SES are actually two distinct bodies of literature and to do justice to either one would bog this article down and make it too long. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "I thought you wanted to stick to SES too much" is obviously not something you said. So, "where did I ever say that?" is rather confrontational. This page gets too heated up for my taste so I try to stay out. My point is that this link between race and intelligence exists in the minds of many, and it is notable enough to be controversial in the public arena, so we have to deal with it. In my eyes, the best way to deal with it is to treat it along with what the academics have to say. There is an article on creationism, and it is in great part dedicated to showing its BS, we should do the same. Brusegadi (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have wounded your feelings. You misrepresented me and I do not like being misrepresented, especially when I am trying to work towards a consensus. I have made it explicitly clear that I support an article on genetic causes of IQ variation, as well as some way for Misplaced Pages to cover the popular (cultural and poplitical) debates over race and IQ. You and I may disagree over the best way to do it, but please do not suggest I have taken a position I have not taken. You are quite correct that we have an article on Creationism. I think it is important to note that Creationism is dealt with in a different article than Evolution. Furthermore, there is a third article on the Creation-evolution controversy. I agree with you that this is a model worth following e.g. articles on scientific research on IQ variation, some discussion of some of this stuff, like Watson's comment, in the article on racism, and more specific and broader coverage in an article on the controversy over racial inequalities in the US (or elsewhere). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can make one important distinction here, SLR, is that twin studies are very important in assessing the heritability of IQ within a group (such as between pairs of identical twins), but it doesn't allow us to generalize to between-group heritability (such as between racial or ehtnic groups). Thus, twin studies have only a very limited ability to explain the possible causes of the racial IQ test score gap.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Read this wikipedia section and note that the claims you make about there being virtual unanimity in favour of your assertions (which you say should be the basis of any article on this subject) are false. You need to sit down and work with other editors Rubinstein, and work towards an article that represents the current state of the research field, by describing the findings and then offering the various competing explanations for them in a NPOV way. Rather that your current MO, which seems to be to make up your own languauge and force everybody else to use it. Lobojo (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like It is clear that you did not read Alun's response to you in the antepenultimate section, nor that you understood what I just wrote. Unlike you, my method for researching a Misplaced Pages article is not just to read other Misplaced Pages articles. You do not seem to know much about anything relevant to this article and have nothing to contribute. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You really are insufferably obnoxious and arrogant. Please address the substance of my point instead of the ad-hom. Lobojo (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New Ideas

Noting , again, why don't we nix all these silly semantic arguments which have ruined what was once a good article, and have an article called Populations and IQ or Ethnic groups and IQ or some such. Then we can get down to the business of describing the difference ans listing the explanations. Lobojo (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above, and no consensus has been reached. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with these suggestions but they are constructive and that at least is a big step in the right direction. We are still discussing these matters and I prefer the titles Genetics and IQ and Socio-Economic Status and IQ but it can't hurt to have a couple of other onstructive proposals on the table. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WM makes a good point above in mentioning that a topic is notable and thus valid for inclusion at WP if it is noticed in credible sources. I would expand on that by saying that we should entitle our article based on the most notable name for the topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Let's be clear about an important distinction: you and Quinlan are discussing what constitutes a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. I originally introduced the term "notable" in the context of our NPOV policy, which addresses not what constitutes a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article, but what constitutes a view that must be included in the article. There are serious scientific debates about the variation in IQ score and the notable views in these debates center around research on genetic explanations and research on environmental (SES) explanations, and these are the views that should be highlighted in any article on the scientific research into variation in IQ scores. Murray and Quinlan seem more interested in the political and media debates over race and IQ and I have no objection to an article that covers these discussions, but I believe that these discussions are subsets of more general political and cultural debates about race in the United States and should be in an article with that title. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The theories about the causes for variation in IQ are only notable in the context of the media coverage of race and IQ. Moreover, the media coverage of race and IQ merits a discussion of its causes (after the phenomenon itself has been discussed), as these are also part of the ongoing public debate. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The theories about the causes for variation in IQ are only notable in the context of the media coverage of race and IQ" you cannot possible believe this - do you hold this standard to other articles? Are the only notable sources for an article on evolution ones that appear in the media? Are the only notable sources for an article on string theory those that appear in the media? Are the only notable sources for an article on Plautus those that appear in the media? Do you really believe that wikipedia should not have articles on areas of scientific research, and that those articles should not highliht notable scientific research? You seem very uncompromising: I have agreed with you that there is a place in Wilkipedia for topics of political and cultural debate. But you refuse to accept my point that there is also a place in Misplaced Pages for articles on scientific research? What would our Evolution article look like if the threshold for notable sources was notability in the media? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, that's not what I meant to say; I just meant that even an article motivated by the popular debate requires a discussion of the causes, i.e. the theories on IQ variance, but as they relate to race, not simply SES. Apologies for that one. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• whew!* - thanks for the clarification, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I must have missed that in the 500,000words on 30 archive pages! Lobojo (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just throw an idea out there and hopefully it won't further distract us, but what if we rename this article "Race and intelligence controversy"? If this is a bad idea, I'll cross it out and we won't need to worry about it. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go with Genetics and IQ and Socio-Economic Status and IQ. The controversy can be covered on the articles on the specific things that caused the controversy: books such as The Bell Curve, and IQ and the Wealth of Nations etc. Or the people involved. Beyond that, synthesis can occur in the articles about racism and scientific racism. I think treating everything from The Bell Curve to Watson in one article on controversy is an original synthesis. Unless we have some source to guide us on this synthesis we'll get nowhere. I mean Gould, sort-of of dose this in his books, but, when you use him as the source it all becomes about "criticism of Gould" and we end up with an article that reads like a bad usenet debate again. futurebird (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be original synthesis to call it race and intelligence controversy, so I'm not interested in pursuing that idea. Also, I don't think an article about the controversy itself is jutsifiable. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

So, it seems that there is general agreement towards the following:

• Create article titled SES and IQ and cover the relevant scientific literature.
• Create article titled Genetics and IQ and cover the relevant scientific literature.
• Rename this article and title it 'Race and intelligence controversy' and cover the public affair around this. This article should have a section linking and discussing the scientific literature (eg links to the articles to be created above.

I will also like to suggest that instead of IQ we say 'test scores' since IQ is a basically a spphisticated test score. Let me know what you think and please expand, I am a lazy bum. Brusegadi (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Rename this article and title it 'Race and intelligence controversy' and cover the public affair around this." I don't know about this. But I agree with everything else, and I think "test scores" is the right way to go. futurebird (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several things that I disagree with as well, but consensus is not unanimity. I think dealing with the controversy is necessary, because it is notable. Covering it up does no good, it just pops up articles that are poorly sourced like the one in the section below.Brusegadi (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I like "SES and test scores" and "Genetics and test scores", but I don't have any fundamental problems with using IQ, I just think "test scores" is more accurate. I would not support an article called "race and intelligence controversy". Alun (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we really are reaching a consensus at least concerning some issues. Do we all agree on one article on Socio-economic status and IQ test scores and Genetics and IQ test scores? (I think we need to specify IQ as there are many other tests people take besides intelligence. Or come up with something other than IQ, but we cannot just say test scores, that is too vague and broad). In the section above, Brusegadi makes the helpful point that we have an article on Creationism. I think it is important to note that Creationism is dealt with in a different article than Evolution. Furthermore, there is a third article on the Creation-evolution controversy. I agree with him that this is a model worth following e.g. articles on scientific research on IQ variation, some discussion of some of this stuff, like Watson's comment, in the article on racism, and more specific and broader coverage in an article on the controversy over racial inequalities in the US (or elsewhere). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in the world are people finding a consensus on this talk page for that?? If you reread all the "support" votes, they're not supporting the creation of those two articles (except maybe for Wobble and SLR), they're bemoaning the squabbling over this one. No one seems to take the idea seriously that the correlation between "race and intelligence" is one in itself which is notable, has respectable publications devoted to it (NOT just racialist/racist ones), and deserves clarification. Can someone tell me what's wrong with writing the article like this:

1) Present the major statistics on the performance gap between the self-identified members of different races on tests and IQ tests. (This should not be that controversial, since no one disputes that the performance gap exists--even those who dispute the biological meaningfulness of "race".)

2) Follow that statistical portrait up with a section of the various theories that seek to explain "why" this phenomenon is occurring; in this section, both the SES and natural/innate difference camps will be represented in a way that is honest to their prominence and respectability. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WM. You're describing the the exact kind of novel synthesis that we are trying to avoid. I'm willing to go with this consensus dispite my reservations about having a controversey article. futurebird (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT a novel synthesis—how in the world is that novel?? Have you looked at the kind of literature out there on the race-IQ gap? There's plenty of it that doesn't bother repackaging the issue as SES and IQ. The phenomenon of the race-IQ gap is well-established and there is nothing novel about explaining it—that's exactly why this article was created in the first place: because there is a wealth of published literature on the topic and the topic is notable. I really resent attempts to repackage this as SES and IQ because that completely and deliberately disregards a whole smattering of respectable books and articles that attempt to explain the specific issues of the race-IQ correlation. Please tell me how it is novel to reference books and other publications on race and IQ when they talk about race and IQ. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, Futurebird, and Alun all seemed to agree on at least two of the articles I suggested. I continue to insist that a good encyclopedia provide accurate accounts of notable scientific discussions, and the two articles we agree on (SES and IQ, Genetics and IQ) do that. I have already explained to you that the issue for scientists is not one thing that they are trying to explain, one thing which happens to be paid a lot of attention in the popular media for political reasons; scientists focus on powerful models that explain many things. This is why we have one article on evolution rather than an article on why pandas have thumbs and bats birds and butterflies all have very different kinds of wings. Are you advocating separate articles on all things covered by the theory of evolution? Scientists do not explain any correlation between race and IQ through the concept of race - that leads only to circular arguments; they address it by studying genetics and SES and if we are to provide accurate, verifiable accounts of scientific discussions drawing on notable sources, this is the best way to present it. And let me end by reminding you that most of us do indeed want Misplaced Pages to cover the popular debate over race and IQ. But as Futurebird points out, to conflate that popular debate with scientific ones is a novel synthesis and thus violates NOR - and would distort the science. Let's cover the debate over race and IQ accurately: it involves two things: fringe theories of racist scientists, and a politically charged public debate (at least in the US) about race, racial divisions, public policy and free speech. The question is how best to cover this? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I too would suport separate articles on "SES and IQ scores" (I could suggest, more broadly "Environmental factors affecting IQ scores" but I'll agree to whatever has consensus), and "Genetics and Intelligence", where I would like to suggest a strong section be devoted to explaining the difference between within-group heritability (WGH) and between-group heritability (BGH), in order that readers understand well why the concept of genetically-driven racial differences in intelligence is really a fringe concept. The article on the contrversy could be its own article, or maybe conceived as some content fork of Scientific Racism. Just my tuppence.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake's suggestion. I suppose we do need somewhere to put the reaction of the frothing at the mouth response of the predominantly rabidly racist extreme right media. Alun (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of comment that takes us two steps backwards. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you recognise sarcasm? Alun (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hence my comment. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But sarcasm isn't meant to be taken seriously, or at least this wasn't. It certainly wasn't meant to be offensive. If it did offend you then I appologise, although I remain baffled by your over-reaction. Alun (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence in the United States

I started a new article named Race and intelligence in the United States. --Jagz (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

good idea. Lobojo (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice that the sources you used are old and do not seem to cover the US. One of them seems to be about SSA... I will wait to see what others think, but I think AfD is the way to go. Now, this is why I think all the stuff should be dealt with in one place. Else, articles will just pop up. Brusegadi (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, have you been following the conversations here? We're almost at a point where we have reached a consensus, and it seems like (to me) you've just gone off to do your own thing without asking for any input... I'll look at the article and see what I think. futurebird (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not unusual in Misplaced Pages to have an article with a worldwide view on a subject and other articles from the perspective of specific countries. Press ahead with your efforts for an article with a worldwide view. --Jagz (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? why in the world did you do that? Forget your poor rational, as it's nothing but a POV fork! To repeat Futurebird, have you been following the coversations here, and about POV forks related to race? *sigh*. - Jeeny 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this new article, created by Jagz apparently as a pov-fork, is a prime candidate for speedy deletion. It is not acceptable to go and create an article on Misplaced Pages so as to avoid consensus building. Alun (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You say that there is no consensus for a new article, but you forget that you don't need consensus for a new article, you need consensus to delete one. It certainly isn't a POV fork either, its a viable topic no question. Lobojo (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no need for a consensus for a speedy delete, and how is it a "viable" topic? It's clearly a pov-fork, where Jagz thinks he can express his pov free of the constraint of normal Misplaced Pages convention, as such it is a candidate for speedy deletion. You provide no actual evidence that it is either "viable" or not a pov-fork, you do need to provide evidence here you know. Furthermore Brusegadi has already pointed out that the sources Jagz has used do not specifically refer to the USA, which makes it even more clear that this is a pov-fork. Alun (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been working towards consensus and Jagz creation of a new article with no discussion is a disruptive edit which many consider a POV fork. Here is the content:

The study of race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities may vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the underlying causes of such variance.

Theories about the possibility of a relationship between race and intelligence have been the subject of speculation and debate since the 16th century. According to J. Philippe Rushton the contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and importance, or lack of importance, of ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability, and whether "race" is a meaningful biological construct with significance other than its correlation to membership of particular ethnic groups. Thus, Rushton writes, the question of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability is seen as fundamental to understanding the debate.

The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses on the results of IQ studies conducted during the second half of the 20th century in the United States, Western Europe, and other industrialized nations.

No one here wants to cover up or brush under the rug the political and cultural controversies surounding race and racism in the US, including debates in the popular media over race and IQ. The question is, what is the most appropriate way to do it? In an existing article or in a new article? What should it be titled - Race in the United States? Racism? Structural Racism? Or a specific article on the race and IQ controversy in the US? Let us have discussion and reach a consensus before we act. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the article without following proper procedures or justification. You are also guilty of a conflict of interest. You are continuing to display a disruptive arrogance. --Jagz (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the fact that this was a POV-fork is enough to justify speedy-deleting it, even if SLR was involved in the conversation. Also, please refrain from personal attacks as you are then placing yourself in a position where you could be subject in turn to personal attacks yourself.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that those who are calling the article a POV fork are just plain and simply ignorant. You can't just go around and call everything you don't like a POV fork. --Jagz (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jagz, the article becomes a POV fork the moment you frame stuff like Rushton's hypotheses (or Lynn's or Gottftredson) as if they had significant scientific acceptance with the community (i.e. mainstream) when in fact it is clearly demonstrable that they are fringe hypotheses with only a very limited following (for example, compare the number of signatories to Gottfredson's "Manifest on Intelligence" (about 50) to the number of people in either the APA or the AAA, which is over 10,000 in each case). It is of course a POV fork also if you present them without saying that they are fringe opinions within the community.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very prejudicial of you to assume that my sole purpose on Misplaced Pages and anything I do is to push forward the views of Rushton, etc. You are dead wrong and I request that you stop it immediately. By the way, you seem to consider deleting an article to be a better alternative than simply editing it. The article that Rubinstein just deleted improperly used the same introduction as this article so you must be using a double standard. --Jagz (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I saw was what SLR copied to this page, and it certainly talks mostly about Rushton, as if he were an authority in the field, instead of a scientist with fringe theories. And I didn't say that your sole purpose on Misplaced Pages and anything you do is to push forward the views of Rushton, etc. What I said is that the specific article which you created yesterday and which SLR deleted seemed to present Rushton's work and opinions as if he were an acknowledged authority on the subject, when in fact he's a controversial, even fringe theorist. And that advancing someone's ideas without putting them in proper context (like saying he's fringe, or at least a minority position) is a POV fork. That's all.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubinstein should clearly have is admin powers removed. He speedy deleted an article on a topic that he is so heavily involved in. He could have asked another admin to do it. That kind of abuse cant be tolerated. After the bitter personal attacks he made, including telling me something to the extend of I am a useless moron who knows nothing and shouldn't dare to try and contribute to this article (especially if I don't agree with him) I am flabbergasted to find out he is an admin. "You do not seem to know much about anything relevant to this article and have nothing to contribute." That was the quote.Lobojo (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo and Jagz, do you think the article should be reinstated? It was not so much that the article was POV fork, but rather that it was created despite and the process of reaching consensus on this page. As I said before, it seemed like Jagz was going off to do his own thing and ignoring the plans being made here. (maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seemed) We might even end up with an article with that name at a later date-- but, it would be "Race and intelligence controversies in the United States" I think such an article could be good because it could talk about how much of the US controversy started in response to Brown vs. Board of Ed and backlash against school integration.

As for slr's rude comment, I think he put a strike through on the comment (look back), so um... that should be water under the bridge at this point. These discussions can get heated and I think we should all work hard to keep our cool. futurebird (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see the article in time but, given that this article covers to a great extent the science, then a "X in the United States" is almost by definition a POV fork. Scientific questions of "race and intelligence" are no different across national borders. History, sociology, and so on, do differ across geography, but then an article title and its content should reflect that more limited focus, e.g., "History of eugenic science in the United States" -- and such an article wouldn't generally discuss in detail the substance of the science. --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd be correct if everyone defined the word race the same way. That is not the case. --Jagz (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But the variant uses of the word "race" do not break down along national lines. --Lquilter (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They do in the USA. --Jagz (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like the page reinstated because I'd like to find out how all the information about Rushton that Ramdrake is referring to got put into the article. All I recall doing is copying in the first 3 paragraphs of this article. If it is speedy deleted, then someone not involved with this article should do it. --Jagz (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the entire content of the article was a verbatim copy of this article, then it should stay deleted, as it is a copy of already existing material, therefore redundant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of African-Americans belong primarily in an article relating the United States. They can be discussed briefly in another article using a worldwide view but not in depth because of concerns regarding worldwide view and article length. --Jagz (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying the B-W IQ gap only exists in the Untied States???--Ramdrake (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone is planning on turning the present article into one with a worldwide view they have a lot of work to do, which means not giving disproportionate coverage to the black-white issue in the US. --Jagz (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A Straight-forward Approach

I don't want this proposal to be lost in the give-and-take above so I'll repeat it here. Can someone tell me what's wrong with writing the article like this:

• 1) Present the major statistics on the performance gap between the self-identified members of different races on tests and IQ tests. (This should not be that controversial, since no one disputes that the performance gap exists--even those who dispute the biological meaningfulness of "race".)

• 2) Follow that statistical portrait up with a section of the various theories that seek to explain "why" this phenomenon is occurring; in this section, both the SES and natural/innate difference camps will be represented in a way that is honest to their prominence and respectability. (For instance, in the account of the hereditarian explanation, we might simply provide links to the articles on Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Murray, Vanhanen, etc. instead of trying to take up space explaining them.)

This is NOT an original synthesis because nothing here is being synthesized originally (go figure): what we have is a phenomenon which is significant by virtue of its public coverage and the wealth of literature devoted specifically and decidedly to the phenomenon itself (that is, to the correlation of IQ with self-reported membership in so-called races). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be about the theory that explains the gap. Not about the gap ...and then a list of "possible explanations." What this format you are proposing does is give undue weight to the genetic theories if racial difference in intelligence by offering them on equal footing with facts about the way that SES has an impact on test scores. That is an original synthsis. futurebird (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! How can you describe the "theory that explains the gap" if you haven't first "explianed what the gap is"! That is just incoherent, like the current article. What you and others object to is that wikipedia should describe the gap at all, since it can be hurtful, though you wont admit this and instead resort to endless obfuscation. This is why this is going nowhere, and yes I completely support your idea Quinlan. Lobojo (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, you're wrong about what I object to... I mean, don't try to read my mind. I think the gap is of incredible importance and it should be highlighted in the article that explains the well supported and wildly accepted theory that SES has an impact on test scores. The impact with respect to race is some of the best evidence we have that inequalities still exist in the education system, it shows that the disparities in health, school funding and neighbored ecology are having a real impact on people's lives. A lot of the material I've added is from studies that describe how this works, there is debate about exactly how the effect happens and what variables matter the most, and the article will cover the full spectrum.

What I object to is the idea that theories about the genetic inferiority of people of African decent deserve equal footing and equal time alongside real research. futurebird (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says they deserve equal time or equal footing to the majority opinion (I dispute your characterization of the two sides)? It's true that hereditarian explanations are not as widely held as some other views, but they aren't in the fringe of fringes that you might like to think they are; they don't deserve no mention at all, and the ideas behind them merit some explanation as well. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be about the theory that explains the gap. Not about the gap ...and then a list of "possible explanations.

—But the gap itself is notable. That's what I've said over and over again and no one has disputed this.

Your reasoning goes like this: it is a fringe position to even look at the correlation between race and IQ as not being the same thing as the correlation between SES and IQ. Therefore, because the majority of people have one explanation or interpretation for a significant phenomenon, the phenomenon is to be treated as that interpretation. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. Take for example, UFOs: most people believe they are not in fact extra-terrestrials, rather they are either atmospheric phenomena or man-made aircraft. By your logic, Misplaced Pages shouldn't have an article on UFOs and instead it should only mention UFOs in the article on atmospheric phenomena and airplanes. This is absurd though, because "UFOs" are notable in their own right and there is plenty that has been written on them. The correlation between race and IQ is even less fringe because there are plenty of respected professionals and academics who write about it (perhaps not the majority, but plenty nonetheless). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Therefore, because the majority of people have one explanation or interpretation for a significant phenomenon, the phenomenon is to be treated as that interpretation. This is not how Misplaced Pages works.

I think it is, isn't this why we specifically have a policy that states that we do not give undue weight to minority points of view? Isn't it in fact why we don't need to mention tiny minority points of view at all? WP:UNDUE Your analogy doesn't make sense. Indeed analogies rarely do, it is not correct that we can take any odd example and extrapolate onto the current topic. Stick to the point, UFOs are irrelevant. Alun (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The analogy absolutely makes sense, I'm sorry you don't understand it. And no one is "extrapolating" anything either, I'm just offering a description of the double-standard at work here. If you don't think it makes sense, explain why. And Undue weight is not being given in the model for the article that I am proposing—I specifically said that the explanations should be given weight according to their merits. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I cannot see that your analogy clarifies your argument, nor does it make it more coherent. It just confuses things. On the other hand we are back to discussing the difference between a "minority point of view" and a "tiny minority point of view". If the eugenics of a century ago, as resurrected by certain racist scientists, is to be treated as an appropriate subject for the article, then it needs to be at least a minority point of view, and even then it can only get a tiny part of the article, as per WP:UNDUE. If it is only a tiny minority point of view then we don't need to mention it at all. I have no idea what the difference is between a minority and a tiny minority point of view. I do know that I can provide a cornucopia of genetic evidence to show that it is virtually impossible for the genes that affect "intelligence" to be substantially different between groups. This is obvious because as anyone who has even a basic understanding of human population genetics knows, the vast majority of genetic variation is at the local level, and not at the continental level. Alun (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the analogy by putting this as elementarily as possible:

1) We have a significant phenomenon, namely the correlation between race and IQ--the analogue for this is the phenomenon of UFO sightings

2) The phenomenon has a number of explanations, some more widely held than others; in the case of the race-IQ phemonenon, it is the SES crowd, with the minority position being the hereditary explanation--the analogue for the majority position on UFOs is the crowd that thinks UFOs are atmospheric phenomena or misidentified airplanes; the minority point of view is that UFOs are extra-terrestrials (hopefully you feel as dumb having to read this as I do having to write it).

(I'll pause here to point out that no one would dispute that there is sufficient cause for WP to have an article on UFOs; likewise, there is sufficient cause for an article on race and IQ--I've already been through this on the talk page, see above.)

3) It is being proposed that this article be scrapped and in its place there is to be created an article on SES and IQ because SES is the majority opinion on the explanation of variance in IQ. If this is a valid reason for scrapping this article, then in order to be consistent, we ought to scrap the article on UFOs and repatriate all of its information to the analogous majority opinion-explanations, namely to the articles on atmospheric phenomena and airplanes—this is, of course absurd. So if we realize that just as UFOs are notable enough to have an article in their own right (as opposed to merely being rewritten into their respective majority opinion-explanation articles), then we must similarly realize that the comparably significant phenomenon of race-IQ discrepancy deserves an article in its own right. I have already proposed a model for how this may be done in a fair and accurate way (read: not giving undue weight to the minority position).

Your characterization of the hereditarian position seems to demonstrate such a profound ignorance of the topic, it seems obvious your POV is getting the better of you. However I've already agreed that it shouldn't get undue weight in the explanations section. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "characterised" the "hereditarian position" at all. It is a demonstrable fact that clever people are more likely to produce clever children, this is an "hereditarian position". But I made no reference to it whatsoever. The only reference I make is to the fact that the overwhelming majority of genetic variation is within group, that the vast majority of alleles are shared over the whole global human population and that there are a vast amounts of publications and data to support my observation. I don't know what you mean by the "hereditarian position", but clearly you mean something else. We share inherited characteristics with other members of our families and not with a larger group. Heredity (the adjective is hereditary) is the transfer of characteristics from parent to offspring through their genes,, from Heredity. Alun (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the eugenics of a century ago, as resurrected by certain racist scientists, is to be treated as an appropriate subject for the article...

This is how you characterized either some completely irrelevant position (in which case why?) or this was your attempt at summarizing the nature of the position which denies that IQ correlation to race is merely SES. No one has even mentioned eugenics so I could only guess that it was your way of characterizing the hereditarian position. And your comment on genetic variation is also irrelevant to my proposed plan for the article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a simple miscommunication between Alun and W.M. O'Quinlan. "Hereditarian" is being applied to two very different positions. I think when W.M. O'Quinlan writes, "Your characterization of the hereditarian position seems to demonstrate such a profound ignorance of the topic," he means Alun's characterizations of people like Rushton. I think Alun does indeed liken Rushton's position to that of older eugenicists. The miscommunication is that (I think) Alun does not consider Rushton to be representing a hereditarian position. I think when Alun refers to the hereditarian position when he writes, "It is a demonstrable fact that clever people are more likely to produce clever children, this is an "hereditarian position"," he is not referring to Rushton and others like Rushton. I think this is because Rushton either does not understand (perhaps not surprising, as he is a social psychologists and has no training in genetics) or willfully misuses the concept of heritability. Now, at least i can speak for myself and not Alun: there are a groups of population geneticists and biologists who do use the concept of heritability and who have used twin studies to measure the heritability of race. I would call their work "hereditarian" but their methods and conclusions have nothing to do with those of Rushton. In short, I am suggesting that O'Quinlan uses hereditarian to refer to Rushton and Alun does not. Therefore, when Alun criticizes Rushton O'Quinlan thinks he is criticizing the hereditarian position, and Alun does not think he is criticizing the hereditarian position. And when Alun defends or talks about the hereditarian position, he is not refering to Rushton. If O'Quinlan thinks Alun is refering to Rushton, I am suggesting, O'Quinlan will be misunderstanding Alun. I think this is what is going on. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. The opinions of the likes of Rushton and Jensen are "racialist" (in the sense that they assume a real difference between so called "races"). An hereditarian position would be a demonstration that "intelligence" is something that can be passed from parent to child. I'd just like to point out that heredity per se is not necessarily "genetic". One can inherit one's parent's attitudes or money, and in the UK one can inherit a title. Even when we discuss heredity in terms of genetically transmitted abilities, this does not apply to "races", because "races" are not composed of people who form a recognisable family group. So hereditarian theories do not necessarily support a differential ability in "races". I possibly use heredity very specifically when I use it to refer to the transmission of genetic elements from generation to generation, because I have a background in genetics. Alun (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What makes the gap notable? This UFO stuff seems like a tangent. futurebird (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What makes the gap notable?...Seriously? For starters, the volumes of books about it, the recent torrent of international media attention and coverage of it vis-a-vis James Watson's remarks on it, the fact that the US Dept of Education spends billions of dollars trying to close it...the criteria for notability aren't really all that rigorous. And, again, the UFO "stuff" is an analogy, plain and simple—it shows how your position and proposal to rewrite this article as SES and IQ is flawed because there is ample precedent for a notable phenomenon having its own article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to weigh in on this idea? So far only a couple people have done so and I'd like to hear more (especially from SLRubinstein, Aron Foster, and Kevin Murray). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will weigh in. If we have two articles for the notable scientific literature on genetics and IQ scores, and SES and IQ scores, then that leaves us with two types of sources I think: first, fringe scientific theories - I agree with Futurebird's suggestion that these be presented in articles on the theorists (e.g. the article on Rushton) or in articles on their books (e.g. an article on Race, Evolution and Behavior). Second, sources on the notable popular, by which I mean political and cultural, debate on race and racial inequality in the US - my idea would be to include a section in the article on Race in the United States on controversies over race and intelligence. If (or if you prefer, as soon as) this section gets too big, it can be spun off as its own article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, you still aren't recognizing that the debate over whether the so-called races differ in intelligence is itself notable, as I have time and again shown by pointing to the copious independent coverage of it. The idea of putting all this material on race and intelligence back into other articles just doesn't make sense when you look at all that has been published specifically about it. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the differences in intelligence of race are notable and deserve their own wikipedia article. However, putting everything into one article obviously hasn't worked. There's too much disagreement among us as to the inclusion of the genetics/IQ component of the difference. Therefore, to improve the article, I think it makes sense to detail the intelligence differences and offer summaries of and links to SES/IQ and genetics/IQ. The wording of the 'genetics/IQ' summary will need to be done carefully so that people who read only the summary and not the linked article understand that it's a minority viewpoint. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereditarian theories of racial differences in intelligence

Horribly long name, but if we have an article on the SES theory we could have one on this one too. Or would it be a POV fork? We could treat it in the same way as other fringe theories. The word "Hereditarian" has good currency and it might work better than having a "controversy" article. Thoughts?

I'm saying to have this article instead of "race and intelligence controversies" then have a (large) section of this article that deals with controversy. All of the controversies have been about these theories anyway. futurebird (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do better, how about Racial theories on the test score gap and their historical relationship to the eugenics movement of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Now that's a good title. Alun (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! futurebird (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereditarian theories of racial difference should be a topic in the article on Scientific racism, which disucsses fringe theories that are plitically notable. Current science should be in an article called something like Genetics and IQ scores which would draw on a whole oher body of scientific research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk belittling the Hereditarian stance and assuming the SES stance is a foregone conclusion. From what I understand of the field, most experts (once they get past arguing about 'what is intelligence' and 'what is race') believe that racial differences in intelligence is part social and part hereditary. After all, intelligence is (generally assumed to be) partly heritable, and members of race A are more likely to procreate with other members of race A, QED heritability is a factor in continuing intelligence differences between the races. I think it's good to keep discussion about race, intelligence, SES, and genetics together because humanity's understanding hasn't separated them yet. Aron.Foster (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While certainly done in good faith, your assumptions are misleading you in several ways: first, you seem to conceive of "races" as discrete, separate subpopulations, akin to subspecies. While this is true with many other species, "races" in the human species don't differ by that much. Also, while intelligence has been shown to be heritable within groups (twin studies), its heritability between groups (i.e. between races) isn't supported by any direct evidence so far. Finally, you assume that "race A" and "race B" started out with differing levels of intelligence. If we instead assume that we are all descendants from the same small group of proto-humans a few hundreds thousand years ago, there is no good reason to assume there ever was a difference in intelligence between "race A" and "race B", and the mechanism you suggest wouldn't generate a difference in intelligence between races per se. And lastly,we should be writing articles based on the references that exist, rather than build an article to suit our preconceptions which you come across as saying, even thought this may not have been your intent.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the argument on 'what is race' isn't resolved. There are few, if any, genetic differences between people who identify themselves as Race A versus Race B. Regardless, there is a measureable intelligence difference of average intelligence between people who identify themselves with certain races, most notably black and white. Also, doesn't the article start off saying it's grounded in two controversial assumptions one of which is that race is genetic?

Forgive my laziness; rather than read and search for information on my own, do you have a link handy that supports while intelligence has been shown to be heritable within groups (twin studies), its heritability between groups (i.e. between races) isn't supported by any direct evidence so far, because my understanding is that there is no reason the two are different. If no link, could you expand on what exactly you mean? 'Cause I'm confused...

There's plenty of good reason to assume Race A and Race B have different intelligence: there could be a period of time during which one race was more inclined to favor intelligence for reproductive selection. The IQ of groups is believed to change over time ala Flynn_effect.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should write based on existing references and not our preconceptions. It's obvious my opinion on the debate; I'm fairly certain that it's an opinion more substantial and more widely held than "UFO's are aliens", so I'm left feeling like other's preconceptions are outweighing references on this matter. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US I think more people believe in creationism than evoloution... Also, even if there is a genetic difference in intelligence between groups, you still need to show that the difference is making the gap in test scores wider. For all we know it could be making the gap smaller. futurebird (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Welcome to the discussion Aron.Foster. Since you are a newcomer you have missed much discussion. I am not sure what you mean when you say that people assume "the SES stance is a foregone conclusion." Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. It is not a foregone conclusion that SES is a cause for variation in IQ score, it is a fact that a good deal of the research on variation in IQ scores studies socio-economic factors. Since a good deal of scientific research explores this, i.e. it is represented in notable sources, Misplaced Pages must provide an account of this research. Misplaced Pages does not claim that the findings of these scholars is true, it only claims that it is true that a group of scholars have reached certain findings. Moreover, I assure you that no one has belittled the hereditarian stance. The question is, what is the hereditarian stance? As Ramdfrake points out, heritability applies only to variation within a population, and never between populations - this is an uncontroversial statement, it is how evolutionary scientists and population geneticists define the term. It is no more controversial than saying that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is ${\displaystyle \Delta x\Delta p\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}}$. Here is my main point, which I have argued consistently and which I believe Ramdrake, Alun, Futurebird, and others support at least in some form: good articles on scientific topics ought to provide an accurate account of any major debte or trends in research. One major explanation for variation in IQ scores is genetic. An article on this research must be organized around the most notable and mainstream views on the matter - it should include all notable views, but i think that the major notable views should be the principle factor in the organization and presentation of the article. Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles. These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70. In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies. But scientists who study the genetic influence on variation in IQ also acknolwedge that in addition to genetic causes, there are also environmental (effectively, SES) causes. Although scientists conducting research on these different causes agree that both innate (genetic) and exogenous (environmental) factors play a role in variation in IQ scores, the scientists who conduct this research come from different academic disciplines and really contribute to two distinct bodies of literature. There has been so much published on genetic and environmental causes that no good article can provide a good account of the research and debates in both bodies of literature. Therefore, I advocate two articles, one covering the literature on the genetic caues, and one on the environmental causes. Since these are not competeing theories (at least, not among the scientists doing the actual research - just as gravity and inertia together account for the orbits of the planets, two very different causes modeled by two very different theoretical approaches combine, rather than compete, to explain the observed effects) this is not a POV fork but a content fork. I have been forwarding this proposal for months and as far as i can tell no one has objected to my call for an article to cover the literature on twin-studies that provides the basis for calculations for the heritability of IQ. So I really fail to see anyone belittling attention to research on the genetic component. (inter alia, I do see some people who seem to think that genetic and SES explanations are competing or even mutually exclusive. I know of no notable scientific article that makes this claim so I think it indicaes a misunderstanding of, or unfamiliarity with, the mainstream scientific research and to present these two bodies of research as competing in a Misplaced Pages article would violate NOR. I do acknowledge that the popular media often presentes these two views as competing which is why I think that this particular view is accurately characterized as a cultural or political phenomenon and should be addressed in another article on the politics of race in America). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excelent response. I've been digging through the above discussions and a rehash of issues at hand is very welcome. I agree with you on all points, although I've never given much thought to heritability between populations and learning about it on my personal to-do list. From the current Misplaced Pages Race and Intelligence article and the books and papers I've thusfar read, it appears that one major explanation for variation in IQ scores is indeed genetic, but some people seem to be advocating WP:UNDUE and that the genetic component is such a fringe minority view that it shouldn't be included at all. Above quotes like futurebird's

...give undue weight to the genetic theories if racial difference in intelligence by offering them on equal footing with facts about the way that SES has an impact on test scores.

perhaps got me a little too emotionally riled up. Looking back I probably should have read a little more before posting.

So, if you'll forgive my Misplaced Pages ignorance, why haven't we already split the articles? Aron.Foster (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about genetic differences between racial groups in that comment, btw. futurebird (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to speak for Futurebird, i would just add to her comment that there are certain people (and their books) that are - at least among scientists - fringe theories that thus fail to meet the notability standard in our NPOV policy, Rushton being a premier example. I agree with Futurebird that we need not exclude him from Misplaced Pages merely because his views are frings among scientists - we can present them via an article on him or his books (we have many articles that do this e.g. Guns, Germs and Steel (i just mean, presenting someone's views via an article on his or her book is not in and of itself a judgement on the veracity of the views of the book). As best I can tell, the counter-argument is that Rushton's views are not fringe they are notable, but it is evident to me that if his views are in any way notable it is not within scientific discussions but rather in popular discussions e.g. the mass media 9this is certainly the case with Murry and Hernstein's The Bell Curve). Again I tend to favor Futurebird's approach of covering these views in articles on the books (like we do for Guns, Germs, and Steel). An alternative would be to have an article on popular debates concerning race in America - I am not sure what the best title would be, but my point is simply that there are some views that are notable for political or cultural reasons that are not notable in scientific discussions. As I pointed out earlier, we have an article on Evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design are most definitely "notable" ib you judge by newspaper articles and court cases ... but they are just not notable in scientific debates. That is why they are given practically no space in the article on evolution. Instead, there is an article on creationism, and another article on the creationism-evolution controversy which is presented as a political and cultural controversy, not a scientific one. I think this is a model we should follow, and it is why I think there is no room for a discussion of Rushton or Murry/Hernstein's views in the articles on scientific discussions of variation in IQ. This is not because i am "anti-hereditarian" - I think we ought to have an article on genetics and IQ drawing on the vast literature on twin studies, and an article on SES and IQ drawing on a whole other and equally if not more vast literature on SES. I just think Rushton and M/H's views don't belong in those articles because they are not notable sources in those scientific debates. As to your question, why hasn't the article been split like this before? Well, you need to ask people who are opposed to Futurebird's or my proposals. But one obvious answer is that this is a controversial topic and some people feel very strongly about it. Frankly - and I do not say this with any disrespect to anyone here - Misplaced Pages has a great diversity of contributors. Many people do not have access to libraries with subscriptions to journals like The Lancet, Cognition, Behavior Genetics, Twin Research and Human Genetics, or Nature. They do however have access to popular media and to the web, and I think this means that they are far more familiar with popular debates (which I believe are rooted in cultural and political debates) (also I do not think I am alone in believing that the popular media prefers to report on socially or politically controvesial views over technically complex scientific research) than with debates among active researchers. And you know, people write about what they are most familiar with. Anyway, I am just speculating about how to answer your question. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly feel like I'll be playing catch-up for a while. My background is in math and not genetics or social sciences, and the reason I'm here is because I care about the issue, want to learn more, and want to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Initially, my knowledge was from popular media and the web mixed with personal experiences, but (I'd like to believe that) I'm slowly getting a better grasp of the current state of human knowledge on this issue. I'm trudging through the Race (classification of human beings) page and through the references on Race and Intelligence. I'm surprised to see you dismiss so quickly Rushton and Murray's views, since most of what I've been able to find against their arguments has consisted of name-calling and complaints about their funding rather than their actual science. Aron.Foster (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

off topic: I'm a grad student in math too. I'd give you a longer answer. But, I have finals next week. futurebird (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, with all due respect, if you do not mind some advice i would say that if you want to know what scientists think of Rushton or Murray and Hernstein, you should see how their books have been reviewed in the major journals. Most research in human evolution and population genetics is done by anthropologists - see if their books have been reviewed in the major journals, American Anthropologist and Current Anthropology and more specialized journals, American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Annals of Human Genetics. If they do not review the books at all, well, that silence itself would speak volumes. However, i would think that at least one of these journals has reviewed at least one of their books and I bet that their reviews will not focus on who funded them ... unless the science is considered so fringe that reviewers invoke the funding sources to explain the nature of the bias (if you do not know, one way that scientific researchers accrue prestige is by receiving highly competitive research grants from highly competitive sources e.g. the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health - these are the most notable, but there are of course others. Some private foundations - like MacArthur - are also very very very well-considered. I know this sounds pretentious or snobbish but scientists are pretty competiive and money and prestige go hand in hand. Scientists are impressed by someone who can get funding from the NSF (or its UK or Canadian or whatever equivalent). They are correspondingly skeptical of someone who cannot get funding from the NSF or an equally prestigious foundation. I think the reasoning goes like this (again, I admit it is snobbish): Rushton needs to get funding from the Pioneer fund because he cannot get funding from Canadian equivalent of the NSF. He cannot get funding from NSF because he is not good enough to compete at that level. And so on. Of course, there are other factors: the Pioneer Fund was founded with a fairly explicit racist agenca. But more salient is the fact that Rushton heads the Pioneer Fund meaning - it is not that hard for him to get a grant from that foundation. I am trying to make two points. One is that Western scientists, like most Westerners, are competitive and respect people who win difficult competitions more than people who win easy competitions. For better or worse this is one reason why the source of funding matters. But i have a second point: these foundations really are important mechanisms for policing the quality of the science. I am not saying that they are perfect mechanisms, they are not, I am only saying that the source of funding for research is not arbitrary or unrelated to the quality of the science. NSF is so competitive because they seek to fund only the most rigorous research proposed by the best qualified researchers. To get a grant from the NSF means that a panel of very prestigious scientists read your proposal (and the proposals are very detailed) and judged it to be original, rigorous, and significant. I would agree with you that it is lazy to dismiss Rushton's work because he did not get funding from NSF (rather, the Canadian equivalent). Making such a claim is using "rejected by NSF" as shorthand for what would be a much longer explanation of what is bad about the science. My point is, if (assuming Rushton actually did apply to the Canadian equivalent of the NSF) you read the reviewer's comments that explained why his proposal was rejected, you would be reading a detailed explanation fo what is wrong with his science. Now, we editors of Misplaced Pages do not have access to those reviews (they are confidential though perhaps one could petition for them under the FOI act). But it would not be hard for a trained geneticist to reconstruct the rationale for rejecting his proposal. I am just saying that (1) such a reconstruction would in fact be a detailed explanation of what is wrong with his science and (2) it would take a while to write that reconstruction and it saves time - like I said, laziness - just to say "NSF rejected his proposal. But for scientists, just knowing that means that his science didn't cut the mustard. Anyway, if you can find reviews of his books or the Bell Curve in the journals I mentioned, you will probably find the substantive critiques you are looking for. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this: Racialism and Racist Agendas: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, J. Philippe Rushton. Review author: C. Loring Brace American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 1. (Mar., 1996), pp. 176-177. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And this: Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. By J. Philippe Rushton. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 1995. 334 pp. ISBN 1-56000-146-1. $34.95 (cloth) American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 98, Issue 1, Date: September 1995, Pages: 91-94 John H. Relethford Slrubenstein | Talk 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want a crash-course on the topic, read this book: Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms. Alexander Alland Jr. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 219 pp. - it specifically goes into detail on the difference between good and bad science. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are lazy! I think you take this topic seriously and i appreciate your candor. i believe that if you read these two book reviews and Alland's book (which was very well-reviewed, and is fairly accessible) you will understand why so many consider Rushton to be a pseudoscientist (caveat: his training was in social psychology and I have no reason to question the research he did for which he was trained; it is only his publication on topics outside of his field of expertise - genetics and evolution - that I consider him a pseudoscientist). I grant that the book by Alland will take you a few days but if you are serious about this topic as you seem to be, I am sure you will find it very informative and enjoyable, and it will be well worth your while. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, I won't have access to a library (or at least an English one) for another year thanks to my job, but I'll grab a book or two from Amazon. I don't plan to subscribe to any major journals just to read a few of their articles, so I'm going to stick with what I can find or steal online for free. You mention a lot from the field of Anthropology (your own field, methinks?), and I'm also checking out Sociology and Psychology since they've weighed in on the issue.

Thus proving my point about the systematic bias in Misplaced Pages owing to the fact that a large number of contributors (if not a majority) do not have access to good libraries. Does the military not have electronic subscriptions to major journals through J-stor? Or a good inter-library loan system? Be that as it may, I would not expect you to subscribe to these journals! If you want to e-mail me at slrubenstein dot yahoo dot com I can send you pdfs of the book reviews. Yes, I am an anthropologist, but not a physical anthropologist (and it is they who are the real experts on human evolution and population genetics). For what it is worth, I think sociologists have done the best research on SES factors. Those psychologists who are specifically trained are indeed the best experts in IQ testing specifically; psychologists and neuropsychologists on human cognition more generally. From what I have read, few psychologists have expertise in human evolution or genetics, and it is usually when psychologists who may well be very competent scholars in their own areas of expertise begin making arguments involving genetics and evolution that they are accused of bad or pseudo-science. The best research on the heritability of intelligence comes from population geneticists either from physical anthropology or evolutionary biology. AJPA is the top journal in physical anthropology, see also Behavior Genetics and Nature. For psychology, the journals Cognition, and Applied Psychology. The top journals in sociology are American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review. I am not sure what is available on-line, but I hope you have access to a good library or at least a library with a good inter-library loan service and reference librarian. If you read the Alland book I personally would like to know what you think of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And on a quasi-unrelated note, if all the Race and Intelligence (xxxxx) sections have been merged into Race and Intelligence, shouldn't the links from the main page be removed? Aron.Foster (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aron. I got hold of a second hand copy of "Race and IQ" edited by Ashley Montague from Amazon for just a couple of quid. This contains a lot of very good essays by very well respected scientists. I was pleased with my copy, it' an old copy from Leeds University library, and knowing how hard UK university students work, I was unsurprised to find that the volume is like new!!! Alun (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Race, Evolution, and Behavior

Since everyone is still talking about Rushton, here is a link to his book: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective; 2nd Special Abridged Edition. --Jagz (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Stop the intellectual farting contest and start writing the article. --Jagz (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do not have anything constructive to say, shut up. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. This includes discussing reliable and notable sources. Aron, Alun and I have been discussing central issues in good faith. That this pisses you off is just one more piece of evidence that you are a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of agree with Jagz. Most people think dividing the articles would be worthwhile. Let's do it and go from there. Aron.Foster (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Aron, I think you know I agree with you, if by dividing the article you mean creating one article on genetics (or heritability) and IQ test scores, and another one on SES and IQ test scores. As a matter of fact, I proposed just this yesterday - and was shot down. Moreover, it is not clear to me that Jagz is supporting this proposal. When he says "start writing the article" it is not clear what "article" he is referring to, but the last time he expressed this sentiment, he unilaterally created an article for which there was no consensus. If our discussion in the section above did anything to move us forward to a consensus, I am glad. But I remain skeptical of anyone who thinks that discussing sources as a means towards building consensus is an "intellectual farting contest." Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubinstein you are a bloody admin! Do you really think it is appropriate to tell user to "Shut Up"? Lobojo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need a consensus to create an article. I plan on having your involvement in the deletion of the article reviewed. --Jagz (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Al's suggestion

Well let's agree to start two articles, "Socio-economic status and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ". It seems to me that arguments about the validity of racialist concepts are irrelevant to the creation of these two articles. Any discussion as to the global distribution of human genetic variation and whether this can lead to "cleverness" being differentially distributed between continental groups (which would not conform to the known distribution of physical and genetic traits) is a question for the "Genetics and IQ" article. The question then becomes one of how minor is the racialist point of view? Surely this reasoning is sound? Alun (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we have one article that described both these theories, since both these theories are designed to explain the very same set of empirical data, we could call it say Race and intelligence? Lobojo (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read any of the scientific literature, or else you would not have said this, since each body of literature works with different data. Please tell me what of the scientific literature you have read? Have you read Jacobs et. al. 2001? Reed et. al. 1991? Sokol et. al. 1995? Race et. al. 2006? Plomin et. al 1989? In what way do they address the same data as those writing on socio-economic status? This is just one reason for two articles, they examine different kinds of data to analyze different (though complementary) factors. Another reason is that for each article there are scores of scholarly books and articles and to cover the scintific debates accurately in one article would make the article far, far too long for Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my word, I was just making a joke. Foster got it, but you were so busy trying to figure out how to insult me again that it went right over your head, you made this (unintentionally) funny reply! So thanks. Lobojo (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So, asking you how much of the scientific literature you have read is now an insult? It is a sorry day when encyclopedi writers think that the thought of doing research is insulting. Anyway, your non-answer actually answers my question, obviously you haven't read anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If we made an article like that, it'd probably end up getting locked while people yelled at each other on the talk page. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA Lobojo (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's agree to start two articles, "Socio-economic status and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ" This is fine, as long as these are not supposed to replace this article. No one has demonstrated why this topic of race and intelligence fails to meet criteria for its own Misplaced Pages article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we also agree to move the SES/IQ and genetics/IQ information into these articles and only leave summaries and links in the Race and Intelligence one? Aron.Foster (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as long as they can be shown to be related specifically to the race-IQ phenomenon. I'm all for a fair representation of this issue, and I think my proposal above is perfectly adequate to provide this. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No one has demonstrated why this topic of race and intelligence fails to meet criteria for its own Misplaced Pages article.

What a very selective memory you must have. Indeed Futurebird has stated in great detail why this article is original research here. You can disagree with it, but if consensus is against you then Futurebird's suggestion will be implemented. Alun (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to someone who is apparently being so willfully ignorant. Perhaps you should reread it, because all she says is that this article is somehow original synthesis with no attempt to prove it, so please forward me a link to her great details. The point is this, though: How is it original synthesis to have an article about the race and intelligence gap when the New York Times, CNN, Slate.com, the BBC (and many more independent sources), and countless other books and articles HAVE ALL DISCUSSED THE RACE-INTELLIGENCE GAP??? You obviously need to reread the statement on original research and so does futurebird if you two are honestly trying to say that there is nothing significant and/or respectable in publication on the race-IQ gap, in which case you are in a colossal state of denial. There's no consensus either, you, futurebird, and slr are simply not responding to specific things I've said. It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith when you so consistently misrepresent the progression of dialogue on this talk page. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this article is not called "race and intelligence gap", it is called "race and intelligence" is it not? If you want to have an article about the actual gap, then we can create one. The point is the actual gap is somewhat irrelevant, what can an article about the gap actually say, except that the gap exists, and of course your citations are fine to confirm the existence of the gap, but non are academic sources that can be used to verify academic research. On the other hand, what is notable is the cause of the gap. So what causes the gap? The truth is no one knows. But what is the actual evidence that the cause of the gap between so called "races" is not exactly the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race"? And, as there is a consensus among academic researchers that the cause of the gap between "races" is the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race", then this article is unwarranted, because it a priori assumes that the cause is "race" itself. So what are the options? We can do what SLR suggests, we can have an article that deals with SES and the test score gap, which will deal with test score gaps between socio-economic groups, and we can have an article about the Genetics of intelligence, of which very little is known. Alternatively we could have an article called Within and between group variation in IQ and put everything in there, this article would not a priori assume that the cause was "race". Now I understand some of your concerns, there is apparently an observable difference in test scores between people from the same socio-economic group who happen to identify as belonging to different ethnic groups, possibly this needs to be addressed in one or both of the suggested articles somehow. I can find no evidence of you "assuming good faith" at all, furthermore your comment above about "willful ignorance" is very close to a personal attack. Please remain clam. Alun (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alun, please read the WP Original research guidelines. In order for something to have its own article, it must have received notable coverage by independent sources. That's why I mentioned the New York Times and the BBC, etc. to show that the issue of race and intelligence and the gap between races in measures of intelligence is notable because it has been covered extensively by independent sources, and thus it can have its own article. And it's not just the gap itself that is notable, but the entire phenomenon of the correlation between race and intelligence/IQ. James Watson's remarks (and no, I'm not using him as an authority on the matter, I'm using his remarks because they are germane to a discussion of how this issue got to be so notable, i.e. covered by independent sources in the international media) weren't just about the IQ gap between races, he said explicitly that people of different races were intelligent to different extents, and that is what the media fallout was focused on: whether or not the so-called races differed in intelligence. I'm not saying any of these parties involved are scientific, and that's the point: since they are not scientific (but the debate about whether so-called races differ in intelligence is), but there is plenty of scientific evidence behind all of it (whether it be in favor of SES explanations or hereditarian explanations) then the subject (race and intelligence) deserves its own article. I'm sorry for losing my cool, but it doesn't seem like we're on the same page and I think you and slr and futurebird are confused as to what this article is and should be about. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what Alun, Slrubenstein and Futurebird are all alluding to is this interesting bit: the IQ test score gap is notable with regards to the media and press coverage it received - it is indeed very notable in popular and politcal discourse. However, in academic circles the IQ test score gap isn't that notable, it's closer to what one would call a conundrum of science. Even though there are about a dozen scientists who do research on the subject around the world (and their books do receive a lot of attention in the press), it's not otherwise considered a scientifically important topic. Therefore, while there is enough notability to the subject to have an article about the subject in the media, building an article describing in detail the different theories around this result (a great many of them being fringe) threads dangerously close to synthesis. I hope this explanation makes sense to you.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not considered a scientifically important topic? Says who? There are more than a dozen scientists who have published on the topic, but even if there weren't, that's not how we decide whether or not a WP article about a given subject ought to exist. And once again, the media coverage was about the phenomenon and the work published on it. You're describing a situation in which the media covered their own coverage of the topic, which is not what is really going on. If you had read the articles in the New York Times and Slate.com you would know that they weren't talking about public perception of the race-IQ gap or how it is portrayed, they were talking about the topic itself and the scientists and published works. It isn't up to you to decide whether or not the question is academically popular, it is determined by the independent coverage, and in this case, the independent coverage focused on the published work done on the race and IQ disparities; whether that included a mere dozen scientists or more doesn't really matter, it's only important that the issue has been notably covered by independent sources. And again, there is no original synthesis, just read the New York Times and Slate.com: they synthesize the matter for us by explicitly discussing the correlation between the so-called races and measures of intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another way to put the question we're dealing with: What would it take for the various explanations of the "race" and "intelligence" correlation to meet criteria for having their own collective and inclusive article? This ought to be a simple test of whether or not this issue is being heard out fairly. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the importance of the media coverage of an issue with its importance in academic circles. If you take, for example, Creationism, it has usually rather wide media coverage. However, in academic circles, this viewpoint is considered that of a tiny minority. So yes, there may be tens or even hundreds of newspaper articles on this subject, but that doesn't vouch for its scientific importance. It does, however, vouch for its political, social and popular importance. And yes, the articles did talk about the research being done on the subject. But due to its political and social importance, this subject receives more media coverage per article published in the scientific press (I'd say nearly every paper written is at some point talked about in the press) for each of maybe a dozen papers published every year (if that). Compare that with the press coverage that a field such as astronomy gets (a few blurbs a year in the popular press - for several thousand publications!). So, no, a subject's weight in the popular press doesn't vouch for its importance in the academic circles.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I hardly think the minority status of creationists within the life-sciences is comparable with that of the non-"SES-causes-IQ-variance" crowd among intelligence researchers, but I think we probably aren't actually in too much disagreement; I'm fairly supportive of reframing this article in terms of its public and socio-political significance. I disagree with those who want simply to dissolve this article and create "SES and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ" (the latter of which already exists). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chimps cleverer than humans

On some types of "intelligence" tests young chimps are better than human university students. So much for tests and "intelligence". Alun (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh. So that means that "intelligence" has no real meaning now. What a perfect Chomskyite fallacy! So you say "intelligence" has no real meaning and whatsisname argues , that "race" has no meaning, yet somehow, there exists this set of perfect correlations between self-identified race and IQ test performance. I suppose it is all just a coincidence. Its not like we need a new study to tell us that chimps are smarter that some humans. Lobojo (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does Alun say "intelligence" has no real meaning? His statement above makes sense only if it has real meaning. Lobojo, I think you are making things up again/ Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He dosent say it, he implies it but putting it in scare quotes. I dont know why I'm replying to you, you are so rude to everyone else here. PLease dont reply to my comments any more unless you have something substantial to say. Lobojo (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No the quotes imply that the tests does not measure intelligence. Alun (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up this article just incites a flame war. Garbage in, garbage out: just because a test that has shown high 'g' correlation in humans, one cannot conclude that monkeys can have their intelligence measured on the same scale by the same test. Reaction times also have a strong 'g' correlation, and some animals have faster reaction times than humans, too. This is all unrelated to the issue at hand. Aron.Foster (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the idea of "g" is a disputed isn't it?General_intelligence#Challenges_to_g On the other hand I only posted this link because I think it just highlights the shortcomings of these sorts of tests. So many editors here seem to have an almost religious belief in the twin fallacies that (a) biological race has any real meaning and (b) tests scores measure intelligence. It's always good to challenge firmly held convictions, especially those held on such flimsy evidence. Alun (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, there is already an article Genetics of intelligence, it has a short discussion of the distribution of genes between continental groups. So this article already exists. Alun (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's akin to saying that the American War for Independence article mentions the Battle of Saratoga, so we don't need an article on that... W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what your comment is referring to. Care to be a bit less cryptic? My comment was relating to the suggestion by SLR that we create a "Genetics and IQ" article, and I was merely pointing out that we already have a Genetics of intelligence article, so there is no need to create a "Genetics and IQ" article. You seem to be discussing some copletely unrelated issue regarding some long distant war. Are you sure you have posted your message on the correct talk page?Alun (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read the article on analogies or just consult your nearest dictionary. The way it works is that if a person wants to describe what's going on in one given situation, he or she will compare it to an unrelated but easily understood situation with similar properties (in this case, the criteria for something having its own article) to show how rules are being applied, thereby demonstrating whether they are consistent or not. In this case, the rules are clearly not being consistently applied because people are trying to do away with this article for arbitrary reasons. I'm sorry no one here seems to understand how analogies work, but you'll just have to trust me on this, I wasn't actually making a point about some long distant war, I was mentioning it to make the following point:

Just because some article on a very broad subject (the two analogues are the "revolutionary war" and "genetics and IQ") mentions a subject that is more specific than itself (the two analogues are "the battle of saratoga" and "race and IQ") doesn't mean that the specific subject is therefore spoken for, and it thus doesn't need its own article. It works kind of like a simile, so in case you've ever read a work of fiction or anything else ever written, then try to think of it like that. I'm using a simile to describe our situation, okay? (I don't mean to sound demeaning, but did you even think about what I wrote before dismissing it as a post on the wrong page??) W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what I posted. The two articles I was referring to were Genetics of intelligence and Genetics of IQ, I was stating that we do not need an article on Genetics and IQ (as SLR has suggested) because we have an article on Genetics of intelligence. Now how is that difficult to understand? I nowhere made any mention whatsoever of Race and IQ. So clearly I was totally confused by your inappropriate analogy. If you had bothered to read by response to your so called analogy, you would not responded in such an arrogant fashion. I don't mean to sound demeaning either, but clearly I was not talking about "race and IQ" and I clearly stated this in my previous post. Just to be absolutely clear here, the words "race" and "genetics" are not synonyms, you do understand that don't you? Alun (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, there is already an article Genetics of intelligence, it has a short discussion of the distribution of genes between continental groups. So this article already exists.

This was what you wrote after you criticized the biological reality of race and I'm supposed to know that this was in reference to SLR's motion for an article on genetics and IQ?? No where in this thread on "chimps cleverer than humans" does anyone say anything about the proposal for split articles on SES and IQ and genes and IQ. And I absolutely agree with you that "race" and "genetics" are not synonyms, which is why I disagree with the idea of splitting this article into those two forks, because then the substantial correlation between race and intelligence is ignored, despite all its significance. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we get to the core of the problem, O'Quinlan's fear that the correlation between race and intelligence will somehow disappear from Misplaced Pages "despite all its significance." O'Quinlan, "significance" can mean different things. The correlation is important as I have said in popular culture for political reasons and I have no objection to an article on race in the US covering the popular significance of this correlation. But Misplaced Pages should not just have articles on popular culture. We should also have articles on scientific research. In science, the correlations of race and intelligence is not significant because in science, it is the causes, not the effects, that are important. And the correlation between race and intelligence is not a cause, it is an effect. Let us grant as you say that race and genetics are separate things. Then the cause for the correlation lies either in a flaw in the design of the IQ test, or in socio-economic factors. Articles on the relationship between SES and IQ tests will not "ignore" the correlation between race and intelligence. On the contrary, they will explore the things that really are important, the causes of this effect. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But signficance has a very specific meaning in terms of Misplaced Pages articles about certain topics existing. It's not a "fear" of the correlation disappearing as a fear of people exercising arbitrary powers on issues to effect a certain outcome which they favor. That was the whole point of my making the two ill-received analogies above: to show that some people are using a double standard on this topic when they wouldn't dream of using their same flawed logic on articles they don't really care about. But either way, if you feel that on the basis of my arguments above the best interpretation of this article is in terms of its popular and socio-political significance, then I would probably settle for retitling and rewriting this article to reflect this interest. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ... one thing I am sure of, this article has been used to say too many different things for a very long time and just doesn't work. I think most people agree that the media controversy over race and intelligence, which has social cultural and political reasons for existing and being notable, is worth covering. I think that people agree that there is research on genetics and intelligence that is worth covering, and that there is a debate over whether IQ tests are flawed in their design in a way that creates a racial gap, and that there is a debate about the way the social and economic environment leads to test score disparities that also are worth covering. I do not see how one article can do it all, effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake made the comparison with the intelligent design-evolution debate, which I think is maybe a useful model (I haven't actually read that entire article). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have made the coimparison and proposed it as a model several times already, in previous sections.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This was what you wrote after you criticized the biological reality of race

No, this is what I wrote after I stated that the idea of "general intelligence" was disputed, and after I gave a reason why I had posted a link to the chimp article. I then went on to say on a different note, you see, there's a clue there, it's a different note. Furthermore, though you are correct that I could have been more explicit in what I was referring to, I had though that it was perfectly obvious that an article called "Genetics and intelligence" would be very similar to an article called "genetics and IQ", but not similar to an article called "race and IQ". If you were confused, then i suggest you could have ask for clarification rather than taking such an extremely patronising attitude. Not only did you not assume good faith, but you were deliberately provocative and went out of your way to try to create an antagonistic atmosphere. Something you seem to make a habit of. Again you make reference to "substantial correlation between race and intelligence being ignored", but I don't think anyone has ever stated that we should ignore this. All anyone has ever said is that we should report what mainstream academics tell us, which is that "race" is a social construct, and therefore the correlation between IQ and "race" is due to social inequity. Just how does this ignore the correlation? Indeed it is you who seem to be ignoring the vast bulk of mainstream science in order to promote a tiny minority opinion as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding patronizing, it's just frustration. But the problem with that syllogism of "most people believe race is a social construct, therefore let's replace it with 'SES'" is that it is an original synthesis. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Most people probably don't think it's a social construct. But the consensus in academia is that it is a social construct, For academic subjects we use academic research. This has got nothing to do with what "most people think" and everything to do with the results of scientific investigation and the consensus of mainstream scientists. Alun (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. No one said that we should replace "race" with "ses" did they? The discussion is how best to frame this subject in a way that better reflects the research being done. rather than framing it in the simplistic and misleading way the popular press often treats it. Alun (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, we are all frustrated, let's all try to be a bit less testy. Cheers. Alun (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies for that. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We can call the article Race, Apes, and Intelligence. --Jagz (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

? Alun (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Things that are already out there

These are some of the articles were we might move things from this article:

• Achievement gap - but this name seems to be a misnomer since it contains a graph based on studies by Flynn on cognitive ability. Calling the gap one in "achievement" may be a bit of spin-- as it implies it can't be a gap in ability. Thoughts? (anything mainstream about the gap should go here) We might want to rename it "test score gaps"
• Racism in the United States - Needs a section on scientific racism. (material from the "controversies" section)
• Scientific racism has a section called "Criticism of IQ tests and intelligence research" (much of the content in the history section belongs here, cand much of the content from the controversies section)
• Genetics of intelligence

futurebird (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to move things from this article into those. The subject of race and intelligence can sustain itself as an independent WP article vis-a-vis the significant independent coverage thereof. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. That article would be a sub-article of the article on racism or the article on scientific racism, and it would discuss the race and intelligence debate about the intrinsic intellectual inferiority of black people as seem in mainstream media. It would not conflate the issue with legitimate, research on:

• Genetics and intelligence
• The achievement (or test score) gaps found along lines of class and race and the widely accepted research about the many factors that influence those gaps.

Theses things do not belong in this article. futurebird (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The subject of race and intelligence can sustain itself as an independent WP article vis-a-vis the significant independent coverage thereof.

So you want to make an article from the point of view of "coverage" of a scientific research and not from the point of view of published reliable sources by actual researchers? How is this notable? Unless you are proposing to expose the biased way that the media cover this subject (in which case the article should be called Media bias and the coverage of race and intelligence), I can't see this as encyclopaedic. It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to have articles on the "coverage" of science, it is the purpose of an encyclopaedia to have articles on the consensus of mainstream scientists who do research into the subject at hand. Let's fact it you have failed to produce a single reliable source in the whole of this discussion, you just post links to newspaper articles and internet blogs that would never be considered reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. So your whole argument is "it must be true I read it in the newspaper". Alun (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alun, you are tragically mistaken. I've never said that "it must be true I read it in the newspaper." I've never said that these newspapers and magazines have anything useful to say about the science of the correlation, much less that they validate some hereditarian explanation of it; I'm only using newspapers and magazines to show why race and IQ deserves its own article. (And the last time I checked, the New York Times is a reliable source (not for proving scientific hypotheses, but obviously, that's not what I'm doing).) Furthermore, I haven't made a single scientific claim about race and IQ, but I hope you bear in mind that it doesn't make any difference whether or not Misplaced Pages editors find some scientific hypothesis convincing—it's not our job to evaluate the science itself.

Anyway, here's what I have said (and this is for Alun, because those who have actually read anything I've written above will likely be offended that I am writing it here yet again):

Back to being patronizing, again, huh? Let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't patronizing him, I was writing that as a disclaimer for you, because I have already said all this to you. And if you read Alun's characterization of my argument, you'd know that he is obviously not following me, so I owe it to him to clarify myself. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument One:

1) The correlation between race and IQ is notable.

2) All notable things get their own Misplaced Pages articles.

Therefore, since the correlation between race and IQ is a notable thing, it gets its own WP article.

Wrong. Notability means it gets included in Misplaced Pages. Whether it gets its own article, or two or three articles - or whether it be part of an article - is up for discussion. We all agree that it should be covered in Misplaced Pages. That is a starting point for compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a great example of you all of a sudden instituting an arbitrary policy. If that's what notability means, then why not just dissolve the article on Biology and just write it into the article on Science? Because that's not how Misplaced Pages works, and it shouldn't make special provisions just for this article. If something meets the criteria for having a Misplaced Pages article, then it makes sense just to give it one. If we just mentioned all "notable" things in other articles, then it would be impossible to determine which ones got their own articles and which didn't. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument Two:

1) All correlations require explanation.

2) There is a correlation between race and IQ.

Therefore, the correlation between race and IQ (which has a WP article by virtue of being a notable thing) requires explanation.

Patently false. all of our discussion correlates positively with gravety but this does not require explanation. You do not understand basic science. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The correlation between gravity and our discussion would be so slight and it has never been written about or discussed in any publication of any kind. If you disagree with the argument I wrote, then you must agree with the following: "Some correlations don't need any explanation--they just are." Do you actually think this make sense from a logical or scientific perspective? W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument Three:

1) The explanation of how race correlates to IQ is a scientific one.

2) On Misplaced Pages, all scientific explanations are given attention in accordance with their prevalence among the experts (i.e. their majority/minority status among the experts).

Therefore, the explanations of the correlation between race and IQ are given attention in accordance with their prevalence (i.e. minority/majority status) among the experts.

Wrong. There may be scientific explanations for the correlation. However, beyond this disagreement I agree with the rest of what you wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with this argument, you are admitting that there is a non-scientific explanation for the correlation. What this explanation would look like, I have no idea. Please share if you think of one. (Perhaps you don't consider the SES explanation scientific? In this case, you're surely better at refuting yourself than I am.) W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument Four:

1) Among experts, the SES explanation of the race-IQ correlation is favored by the clear majority.

2) Among experts, the hereditarian explanation of the race-IQ correlation is favored by the clear minority.

Therefore, the SES explanation of the race-IQ correlation is given attention as the clear majority position and the hereditarian explanation is given attention as the clear minority position.

It is now clear that you either did not read my comment here and Alun's addition, or you did not understand it. All the hereditarian research I know by scientists involve twin studies and do not address the race issue. I do know people who address the IQ disparity gap in terms of race biologically rather than socially understood, but these people are (1) not population geneticists who have done research in heredity and (2) repreent a fring and not a "minority" view. They should be represented in an article on racist science, but they do not qualify as a minority view among scientists, they are fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I hadn't read that comment so I apologize for that, but I think you are right to some extent; basically, I am just using "hereditarian" to differentiate between the position that claims IQ variance among populations is simply due to SES and that which does not. I don't know of a different way of putting it without writing too much every time I refer to it. I'm not sure what your definition of "fringe" is either (this is why I made the analogy to UFOs, which is based on a fringe view, because even in that case no one denies that UFOs deserves its own article). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The last argument is, to me, the only one that should really be disputable, and that dispute would concern the extent to which the SES and hereditarian explanations are the majority-minority status. At any rate though, it seems clear to me that the hereditarian explanation, while clearly a minority position, is not a "tiny minority", and thus it is to be treated as such. I'll add though, that this is in no way an original synthesis because this has been synthesized by the independent (that is, non-scientific sources). In light of this synthesis which has been provided by non-scientific, yet reliable, sources, I am supporting reframing this article as a public debate (maybe, as Ramdrake suggested above, something like the Intelligent design/evolution controversy). W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to W.M.'s comment of 22:04, i.e. two paragraphs up (I just don't want this to get too involuted). I understand how you could have missed my comment and Alun's subsequent comment, W.M., things get so involuted here. But I am glad you took the time to read them now. Here is my point: "heritability" is an important concept in population genetics and there are indeed people who do serious research on the heritability of IQ (meaning, what proportion of variation in IQ score - but it could be other things like height - among a population has a genetic cause. The thing is, this notable literature does not use the term "race." The reason that I consider those people who do use the term race in relation to genetic differences (like Rushton) as "fringe" is that they are not trained in genetics, they have not done proper research in genetics, they do not get published in the major geneticist journals, and are not cited by geneticists (except as examples of racist science). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Rushton and the like aren't geneticists, but they're not necessarily making a point about genetics, their work is simply designed to show that the race-IQ gap transcends the SES factors that their intellectual opponents use to explain the gap. Anyway, I think you and I more or less agree that this issue is better framed as a public or popular debate than a scientific one, so I'm ready to move on with that and put all this behind us. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What would it take for the various explanations of the "race" and "intelligence" correlation to meet criteria for having their own collective and inclusive article?

I'd like to hear some ideas on this. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

An article titled "Race and intelligence in the United States" could use the definition of "race" commonly used in the USA. --Jagz (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of debate in the US about the "definition of race" --the census just changed the way it records race. In medicine there has been a long debate about weather or not race is useful. People used to go by the "one drop rule" but more and more people are identifying as "mixed" --other people want to abolish racial designations altogether. Most think they hold too much social significance to ignore, but the issue is complex. So, how would limiting it to the US, clear up the "definition" in any way? futurebird (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you are using this argument as a red herring. --Jagz (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A red herring for what?futurebird (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Alun (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This would need to be framed as a debate which occurs mostly in the popular media, acknowledging the proponents of the racialist-hereditarian position (e.g. Rushton et al.) as a tiny minority view, litterally a fringe view. The majority view could be represented by the likes of say, Flynn, Niessen, Lieberman and others (who write the real reviews, about which you hardly ever hear in the news because it doesn't make for sensationalistic news).--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What??? --Jagz (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this in response to Ramdrake's comment?futurebird (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

( A comment was removed by JagZ futurebird (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC) )

? huh? futurebird (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FB, you took the words right out of my mouth. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Alun (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks, don't feed the trolls. This whole section is a red-herring because the article that wold be inclusive of all different kinds of explanations would be this article. But most people involved in this discussion feel that this article is a disaster for one reason on another. There has been much constructive discussion about how to handle this set of topics, and O'Quinlan's question just brings us back to square one. It is clear to me that there are two methods clashing here. Some people do research on an area by trying to identify sources; they can then distinguish between different kinds of debates (like, the debate over the reason ofr a certain average heritability of intelligence among single-chorion twins among biologists; the debate over funding for public education in the US among politicians and policy-makers; research on racist representations of diferent groups of people, largely by historians and sociologists) and between notable views, like Phillips 1993 and Stromswold 2006, and fringe views, like Rushton, in one discussion among scientists. It is by doing this kind of research that people figure out merits an encyclopedia article or articles, and what they should cover/include. But other people begin with a personal belief, for example blacks are less intelligent than whites, and insist on an article that caters to that belief, and they they just go out looking selectively for whatever sources would fit their belief. Obviously this second method leads only to bad scholarship - one ends up taking things out of context and misunerstanding them, or making connections between different sources when none exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point; I'm trying to show that this topic, despite all of our bickering and endless arguing, deserves its own article. The point is that when people honestly appraise this topic according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines, it meets all of the criteria for having its own article. People keep disputing every point under the sun on this topic except the truly relevant ones about it meeting Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion.

And just to clarify, by a collective and inclusive article on the explanations for the race-IQ gap, I mean that the article would give attention to the explanations in accordance with their weight and minority/majority status. I'm not saying this article should be a rambling exposition on the work of Rushton, Lynn, or the likes of them, but rather they should be given attention according to their status within the field of experts on the relevant field. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that not enough of the editors have the balls to write this article correctly. They also appear to be concerned with having to scrap a lot of the unnecessary information in the article. --Jagz (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course I don't have balls I'm a woman!!! :P jeeeeeez. OK. I'll be serious. What on earth do you mean by "write this article correctly" ? -- I think that is what everyone is trying to do here. We just don't agree on the right way to do it-- though, right now I see there is consensus with everyone except for you and WM. futurebird (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're making progress on what to do with the article. I don't have any objections to splitting the article in two. I can see Quinlan's point too. --Jagz (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Basic structure

I think the whole article is based on faulty premises. It begins with:

The study of race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities may vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the underlying causes of such variance.

Apart from the obvious affront to good English, the lead makes the mistake of framing this as a scientific issue. It's primarily a popular issue - people have always assumed that other "races" (or classes) are somehow lesser. Secondary to that is the fringe "scientific" views of people like Rushton (with their deep methodological flaws).

Modern theories and research on race and intelligence are often grounded in two controversial assumptions:

• that the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry, and
• that intelligence is quantitatively measurable by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary "general intelligence factor"

The article isn't called "modern theories of race and intelligence", it's called "race and intelligence". It cannot give undue weight to one set of fringe theories. Granted, if you look at word count, the article devotes a lot to the certain aspects of the history of "race and intelligence" (although even there, it's got a huge "undue weight" problem, since only addresses the issue of black and white in the US).

It's unacceptable to write articles from an "in universe" perspective. We need to give greater weight to the mainstream scientific perspective, and give appropriate weight to agenda-driven fringe science. Guettarda (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, what do you think about the proposals, in the sections above. I agree with you about the framing issue. futurebird (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice post Guettarda. Alun (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about daughter articles. I think that's a bit premature this soon after the AfD. Can we create a balanced, NPOV article here? Guettarda (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a solution to have three broad sections in this article, two about academic mainstream work, on "ses and race" and on "genetics and race"? A third section could deal with the problems of hysterical media reporting of some of the work? Just an attempt at compromise. Alun (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Brusegadi (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Guettarda (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Test data article is back

Any comments on this diff? Now we have another article again. --can't we just merge this in too? I don't know why it was missed. futurebird (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important information that's too in depth for the main article but should be available to those who are interested. Since we're planning a split of Race and Intelligence anyways, I see nothing wrong with keeping this information where it is for now and merging it with the new articles in the future. Disregard; I hadn't read the AfD discussion. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I put it back, simply because the idea was to merge it in here, but this was never done. The artilce has problems but 130 sources down the drain dosen't wash by any standards. Lobojo (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion of the AfD was "merge", which was, in this case, a soft deletion. If you want the references, you can get them from the history. Guettarda (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the result of the AfD was clear, changing the state of the article was a breach of policy. Alun (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no "soft deletion" whatever that might mean, you might have liked that , but the idea was merge, and explicitly NOT delete. The material was never merged back. If you want to delete 130 sources you need an AFD decision to that extent. I nor nobody else needs to get the sources from the history. There are procedures for deleting material from wikipedia and this is just gaming the system. Lobojo (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The merging is due mainly to preserve a track of who has contributed to what. If you delete a page then only admins can see who wrote what and thats problematic (I think there is an associated license issue; under it, it is better to merge.) Brusegadi (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to escalate this matter as people are bahving very badly and playing games with wikipeida policy. Lobojo (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo, this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. You are being disruptive. Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong with mining the article history for any sources we need. If you're adamant that we merge it back in here, then let's get an admin to do that. I don't know what you mean by "people are playing games" futurebird (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing is wrong with it, but it should need to be done. Five weeks ago a choice was made to redirect the page and merge in inforamtion. The first part was done, the second part not. Thus the article was DELETED in the face of consensus at the AfD. Lobojo (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to escalate this matter

Surely this sort of "threat" violates Misplaced Pages behaviour policies? Is it not a threat to edit war? It is a direct "challenge" to confrontation and deliberately ignores the philosophy of consensus building. Furthermore when articles are merged it does not mean that all content needs to be kept, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, it needs to give good quality articles, but there are limits to the detail that should be included, it needs to be accessibly to everyone. If Lobojo wants some of the material from the article to be merged into "Race and intelligence" then he can always do it himself. It seems an odd solution to say that "because it hasn't been merged I will restore the article" when the correct response should be to merge the content yourself. Alun (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In what sence is that a threat? If people continue to ignore AfD closings, it needs to be escalated to an RFC or something. What a drama queen! None NONE of the content has been merged, not a damn word, and a number of editors have mede it clear that they think this fine, since "merge really meant delete" anyway. Its not Lobojo that wants the material merged, it the WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY that wants it merged as set out in the AfD of five weeks ago. I can't add it the artilce is locked! Lobojo (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well no one else can add the content if the article is protected can they? There's no point in complaining that you cannot add the content when no one else can either. The result of the AfD was not to keep the article, so it has been redirected. When this article is unlocked you will be free to move whatever info you like. Until that time the decision of the AfD was not to have all of these pov-forks. That was the decision, that was what the AfD was about. If you want to get this article unlocked then we need to avoid edit wars and come to a consensus about what to do, you have some responsibility in this regard as well. No point in complaining the article is locked if you are not prepared to contribute constructively to the debate about getting it unlocked. Furthermore you need to explain the utility of all of the test score data, we do not need to present every piece of evidence that the test score gap exists, we just need to cite reliable sources to verify that it does exist when we make this claim. So what purpose do these data actually serve? Alun (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A possibly useful source

If and when this article ever gets unlocked, here's an article from the New Yorker that could be used as a source for some of the 'anti-IQ' arguments: . It's a review of a book which argues that IQ is essentially the product of social and cultural factors rather than inherent biological ones, and quotes some interesting results; if anyone has the book itself, of course, that would be even better. Terraxos (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could respond to this as I would on /b/. Aron.Foster (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good article, Terraxos, and the book is surely a must-read for IQ fundamentalists everywhere. My favourite bit:

The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?” The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories. Trachys (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent source. Think about how it can be used/fit, and let's see how our discussions for reorganizing this go. Please stayinvolved! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Early stereotypes

Are either of the new articles going to discuss minstrel shows like the current article or is type of information going to be discarded? --Jagz (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of that stuff would get moved to the articles on racism or scientific racism. Right? It's talking about stereotypes about race and intelligence-- which, under the general heading of this article, is perfectly on topic-- futurebird (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Racism perhaps. It doesn't seem to fit under scientific racism. --Jagz (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Might it possible to return to the discussion on Slrubenstein's constructive suggestion for splitting the article into two

• "IQ Scores and Genetics"
• "IQ Scores and Socio-Economic Conditions"

with one or both of the articles briefly covering controversies around "race and intelligence in the USA"? I have been following the discussion for some time (I intervened here at the time of the Watson affair). There seemed to be reasonable consensus over such a split fairly recently and I think the editing impasse would disappear once a decision to split was made. It would undoubtedly result in two good mainstream encyclopedic articles. --Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC):

"IQ Scores" is not necessary, just "IQ" is enough. --Jagz (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shorter titles are better. A more precise explanation of what is meant by IQ in this context can appear in the lead. Mathsci (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already established that there is already an article called Genetics of intelligence. My understanding on the agreement reached was that this article was to be reframed as a popular debate and not a scientific one. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case the "IQ and Genetics" article can easily be redirected and that article can be expanded, renamed or modified as appropriate.

I wonder whether you could spell out what exactly you mean by "popular debate"? Do you mean uninformed soapboxing, as happens for example at Hyde Park Corner? User:MoritzB lurked on this page and soapboxed: you know what happened to him. Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, is about producing articles and operates according to intelligent academic principles. Both "IQ and genetics" and "IQ and socio-economic conditions" have a significant scientific component. Do you personally have a problem with science? Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe in this case, what WM Quinlan is referring to is that there is a popular debate about possible genetic causes of the observed Black-White IQ test score gap, which is considered fringe in academia, but which has notability in the popular press (not unlike the creation-evolution debate, which exists in the popular press, but is basically nonexistent in academia).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But this has nothing to do with the main point: the split of the page into two. That particular point can be made later in either or both of the two articles, and is connected with the controversy "race and intelligence in the USA" I first mentioned. It has nothing to do with the split. In France where I live, there are prejudices against racial minorities, sometimes echoed in the "popular" press. I have not so far seen these echoed on the french wikipedia. Amicalement, Mathsci (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I think that an article solely on the "popular debate" with no scientific component would be pointless and offensive. This is a fringe point of view which must be presented in its correct context in a mainstream encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, you finding something offensive and pointless has no bearing on whether or not Misplaced Pages will have an article about it. And don't jump into a debate that's been going on for over a week and make threats and accusations against me until you've read the whole discussion here. If you had, you'd know that the only thing I've argued for this whole time is that the subject of the relation of race to measured intelligence meets Misplaced Pages criteria for notability and thus deserves its own article. And recasting this as a popular debate does indeed have to do with splitting the article into two new articles: Why rewrite the entire thing in two very different forms instead of just retitling this article and remaking it into a discussion of the popular debate about race and IQ (similar to the intelligent design-evolution debate) (and creating a separate article about SES and IQ)? W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The popular debate is something that occurs in the USA, not in Europe or the rest of the world, as far as I am aware. It might also be more accurate to use "popular misconceptions" to describe it. It does not seem to warrant its own article in an encyclopedia if there is no mainstream scientific support. BTW I expect that any attempt to insert this kind of material as a footnote in Genetics of intelligence might encounter difficulties. Unless backed by mainstream science, these are controversial fringe views which should not be given undue weight. Such controversial fringe theories can be discussed in a more appropriate context, as Slrubenstein outlines below. (This would not confer any scientific validity on these particular points of view.)

I'm not sure you're quite right about editors' opinions. European people was a racist article until it became European ethnic groups. We had to vote on that, so views that the previous version of the article was repugnant and offensive mattered. Similarly User:MoritzB's continued attempts to insert racist material onto the WP seemed designed to cause offense; he made the mistake here of over-capitalising on Watson's misguided and retracted interview and was reported by me on WP:AN/I. Even just recently I had to add 6 or 7 references to European ethnic groups to stop an editor removing the statement about race being a social construct. There are people around determined to get their racist message onto WP by fair means or foul. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion above before you make abusive threats towards me. I have not made or attempted to support a single racist statement at any point, and it is not my position to propagandize on behalf of racists. Give me an example of my "attempt to insert racist material" into this article; if you look, I have persistently advocated giving due weight to the relevant sources—nothing more, nothing less. I can't speak on the example of the "European people" article, but if in fact changes were made simply on the basis of some editors finding material offensive, then that would indeed be a sorry precedent for a purported encyclopedia to adopt. There are many Misplaced Pages topics that I find offensive (e.g. pornography) but I wouldn't attempt to change those articles on that basis alone. All I am arguing for here is that we treat this topic consistently with its merits as a subject for an article. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no threats towards you: the statement you quote refers to User:MoritzB not you. You said personal opinion does not count on WP and I gave some examples where this was not the case. These matters of judgement occur on a higher level than edits of articles. For example if somebody writes even a sourced article it can be put up for deletion and then the community has to decide by voting whether or not they want it deleted. That process seems to be purely reliant on opinion. Regarding pornography, whatever you may mean by that, a basic tenet of WP is that it is not about censorship. Another tenet is WP:UNDUE: that seems to be part of the problem with the current article. Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

W.M. Quinlan has being doing a pretty good job of clarifying the issues including my own views, but just to be clear, Mathsci is wrong that I proposed dividing this article into two. I proposed two articles to deal with the notable scientific research relating to variation in IQ: one looking at innate (genetic) factors, which would provide an account of the extensive and growing literature based on twin studies as ways of caluclating heritability (and debates arising over different findings) - since we already have an article on genetics and intelligence I think that this literature could be discussed in that article; and a second article on environmental (SES) factors. But i also proposed a variety of alternative additional articles to deal with fringe and racist theories such as those proposed by Rushton. Here are some possibilities:

• deal with fringe theories in science in articles on the scientist in question e.g. Rushton
• deal with fringe theories in science in articles on their specific books e.g. the article on race, evolution and behavior
• deal with them in an article on racist science
• deal with them in an article on race in the US
• deal with them in a new article on how the popular media and politicians appropriate views that within science are fringe, and make them centers of controversy that are notable not for scientific but for cultural and/or political reasons.

I am not sure which one or combination of any of these is the best way to go but I do see a need for more than two articles and at least one of the above would suffice to cover mjaterial left out of the two scientific articles, that nevertheless should be covered in Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein. Thank you for your reply. I had already been told about the article Genetics of intelligence, which at the moment seems like a properly written encyclopedia article. As you suggest a second article on Environmental factors and intelligence on IQ and SES would also be good. I would hesitate to have the word "race" in any of these titles as it seems just to be misleading. Why not simply start a separate article on "Environmental factors and intelligence"? Then, with two articles covering genetics and SES in existence, it will become clearer what to do with the remaining controversial fringe material. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we split the article into "Race, Genetics, and IQ" and "Race, Environment, and IQ"? --Jagz (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about an article on "Race and Races"? It will discuss how blacks excel in sprints. --Jagz (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Does the domination of sprinting by those of West African ancestry upset you? --Jagz (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We can call it "Race, Races, and Intelligent Design". --Jagz (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic under discussion, which involves intelligence and IQ tests. Athletics is a quite different topic: discussing athletics here amounts to trolling. Was that your intention?

Returning to the main point, anybody can now start an article on Intelligence and environmental factors, independently of this discussion, since no such article exists already. Slrubenstein has already supplied a valuable starting set of references. Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

There is no need to create an article on ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLIGENCE as it already exists: it was created in June 2007. There is also an article on Nature or nurture, another public debate, but this time involving academics. There therefore seems to be no point in discussing variants of yet another article on "environment and intelligence" as Slrubenstein has been proposing. All a bit of a storm in a teacup really. Mathsci (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fix

Please fix the Charles Murray wikilink. Disambiguate to Charles Murray (author). Thanxs. =) Jumping cheese 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the article

There are already articles on the Genetics of intelligence and Environment and intelligence. Racial aspects can be briefly discussed in those articles. We should be able to begin the process of deleting the current article. --Jagz (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue of differences in average intelligence between the races, regardless of causes, is important. I think there needs to be an article on wikipedia discussing the current state of knowledge on that issue, seeing as how most people in the general population are convinced there isn't any difference at all. Aron.Foster (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal to not have an article with the name "Race and Intelligence" won 6 to 4. --Jagz (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope my vote was counted in favour of your proposal :) Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A More Recent Version of Snyderman and Rothman 1988?

From the current page: In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" Template:AYref

Intelligence, HereditIntelligence, Heredity, and Environment.

Ed Robert J Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko y, and Environment. Ed Robert J Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko

Which is counter to the claim that the 'environment and genetic' viewpoint is fringe. At least for 1988. I assume the numbers have changed since then; does anyone know a more recent study that collected this information? Yes, I know science isn't done by majority rule, but I believe this is relevant to the 'is it a legitimate view or pseudo-science' discussion. Aron.Foster (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very helpful - thank you for bringing it to our attention. What follows is not so much a criticism as a different point. I question the ultimate value of surveys that ask whether it is all environmental, all genetic, both or neither etc. because the questions themselves define the terms of the "debate." Now, it may well be that if we did a survey of all major articles in the popular press over the past 20 years we would see that they actually do present the debate as "nature versus nurture" or "genetics versus environment." But what do the scientists doing the actual research think? I am not asking for another questionnaire because my point is that one cannot even ask the right questions unless one already knows something about how they think (otherwise, one ends up putting one's own biases into the questionnaire). For me the answer to my question would come from reading the most notable books and scientific articles to see how the scientists themselves frame the issue. We might discover that there is a major controversy these scientists are debating and it actually is not about genetic versus environmental causes for the IQ gap at all, but something else. What? i have no idea - that is my point, let's not make any assumptions. How do we know what are the best books and articles? I have a few suggestions that are meant to generate a list of publications we can all agree are notable among scholars: see if we can get syllabi for graduate school courses on the topic and see what books and articles they assign. See what books are published by university presses, and see if they were well-reviewed in the major relevant journals (in psychology, anthropoloogy, sociology, biology). Then see what other books and articles these books cite as authoritative. See what articles have come out in major peer-reviewed journals, and see what books and articles these articles cite as authoritative. I know one needs access to a good library to do this kind of research ... but I think this is the kind of research one must do to write a great encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this particular question not also just one aspect of the academic debate on nature or nurture for which there is already a large literature? Would the article on "nature and nurture" not be an appropriately neutral place to give a thorough discussion of this question? Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Which question? It looks like you are responding to Aron and not to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually both. At present there is not a proper discussion of the ongoing academic debate about the significance of genetics vs environment in the development of intelligence in the article on nature and nurture. It mentions chess and music, but does not at all give a proper balanced account of the full scientific debate: at present it reads like an excerpt from a childcare magazine. This debate would, as I have indicated, also include a discussion of Aron.Foster's question. "Nature and nurture" at present seems just to be a stub and what you are talking about seems to be what it should be about, possibly with a slightly modified title, although "Nature or nurture" is quite good since it immediately suggests that it is a topic of public debate (as W,M. O'Quinlan has pointed out). It seems like the correct context and your proposed content could change "nature and nurture" from a stub into a proper encyclopedia article. Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat my point: instead of starting with a point of view (e.g. "there is a debate over nurture versus nature") and looking for sources, we should start with reliable sources and see what notable views emerge out of them. I think one problem with Misplaced Pages is a systematic bias for items that are available on the web (as opposed, in this case, to books published by academic presses and peer-reviewed journals). This means we cover notable views in cultural and political, or otherwise popular, debates ... and fail to cover, or misrepresent, academic debates. For example, I think that the "nature versus nurture" controversy is notable in major publications like Time Magazine and some popular science writers like Steven Pinker. But in most current, important research in psychology, anthropology, and so on, it is a non-issue. I believe that psychologists, population geneticists from biology and anthropology, as well as cultural anthropologists and sociologists, who research race or intelligence are not for the most part concerned with "nature versus nurture." I believe that they are concerned with other questions and the most notable views make sense in terms of other debates. What are these other debates? i repeat my main point: instead of assuming that we know (or assuming that scholars debate the same issues as Time magazine journalists), one would have to go to peer-reviewed journals and other academic publications to find out. I repeat: start with reliable sources and then find out what the notable debates, questions, and related views are, rather than the other way around. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: you seem reluctant to suggest a completely neutral but accurate and informative title that could discuss all these issues. If you propose a first approximation to such a title (rather than six or seven), people could work from there. You yourself already seem to have rather clear ideas about what such an article could contain in view of your preliminary summary of the literature. I think it would be valuable if you took the intellectual lead and, using a rough preliminary synthesis, suggested a retitling of this article, given the prior existence of the two articles on environment/genetics and intelligence. This title should be neutral, not assuming any particular stance and not restricting the subject matter. If it wasn't quite right, or somebody thought of something better later on, it could easily be changed by consensus. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not know to what issues you refer. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have even less idea what you have in mind. It remains nebulous unless you produce some kind of concrete proposal. Also in real life and even on WP it is very rare that initial drafts of articles are written by committees. A first approximation of whatever you have in mind would be extremely useful. I have not advocated using the web or the media for writing WP articles. Somebody has to to compile a representative list of sources, describe roughly which areas might be covered and then suggest a possible title. Since two articles already exist on genetics and intelligence/environment and intelligence, it is unclear what the present article should contain. Personally I don't see the point of having an encyclopedia article on the "popular debate" because it does not appear to have been properly documented in books or published articles. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is slightly different than the nature versus nurture page because we're assuming partial heritability of intelligence between individuals. Instead, many of the conflicting opinions are on the causes of the difference in IQ between races. You could describe the arguments about race/IQ as a nature/nurture debate, but I see this as more of a subcategory of the wider nature versus nurture topic—and I think that the question is intelligence heritability a factor in the race/IQ gap is better answered on this page (whatever we name it) than the nature versus nurture one.

In keeping with the tradition of bringing up another point that's only tangentially related, what about the liberal bias in Academia? Many of those who write of the existence (and some who write of a possible existence) of a genetic component to the gap also write of the reluctance of many peers to support that view—not because it's bad science but because of negative pressure: fear of bing labeled a racist, losing their job, etc. Though it's our goal to present the views of experts in the field, what's to be done if there's a bias of the experts in the field? That question of course begs the 'creationism/evolution' analogy, but I'd argue that it's entirely within the realm of possibilities that both "the Earth is 4.5 billion years old" and "there is a bias against the genetic component of the IQ gap that leads to underrepresentation in academic journals" could be true statements. Aron.Foster (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Most scientists I know of will readily agree that intelligence is largely heritable. I do not see how this is a racist or even political argument. It does not lead to any specific political position - no more than saying eyesight is heritable does. Politics as I see it enters into policy debates that follow from this: should the government pay for or subsidize eyeglasses for people who need help? Should government mandate braile on elevators, and stuff like that? I suppose on these questions one can be liberal or conservative .... Slrubenstein | Talk 11:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this debate not on "Factors affecting intelligence"? Would this title not cover everything? As in summary articles (I have experience with Europe), areas covered in detail elsewhere can be summarised with wikilinks to the main articles; and all other topics, if backed by a suitable body of published literature, would find their place. Slrubenstein has produced literature already on this page. So far what has appeared has been the two schools of thought on genetics and environment plus the controversy as to whether there is accepted scientific evidence on averages of IQ scores among ethnic groups, however these were defined by the investigators. Aspects of this have already appeared in WP articles with sources, for example here.

There are already articles on academic censorship and Race and genetics, which is where some of the tangential points you make are discussed. Can you supply properly documented evidence of what you claim? It seems now to be uncontroversial and widely accepted by researchers that there is a genetic component to intelligence; its possible relation to ethnicity, however that is determined, does appear to be controversial. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mathsci: I thought my proposal was very clear: stop the BS of picking a POV we hold or that is popular in the press before looking for sources to illustrate them, and instead, start with reliable scientific sources and then from those sources work out what is the important debate/question/issues.

To start us off, I propose we look at these articles:

• Bouchard, Arvey, Keller, Segal, 1992, Genetic Influences on Job Satisfaction: A Reply to Cropanzano and James,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77(1): 89-93
• Devlin, Daniels, Roeder 1997 “The heritability of IQ” Nature 388: 468-471
• Jacobs, Van Gestel, Derom, Thiery, Vernon, Derom, and Vlietinck, 2001, “Heritability Estimates of Intelligence in Twins: Effect of Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 31(2): 209-217
• McCartney, Harris, and Bernieri, 1990, “Growing Up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metanalysis of Twin Studies” Psychological Bulletin 107(2) 226-237
• Phelps, Davis, Schwartz, 1997, “Nature, Nurture and Twin research Strategies” in Current Directions in Psychological Science 6(6): 117-121
• Plomin and Loehlin, 1989, “Direct and Indirect IQ Heritability Estimates: a Puzzle” Behavior Genetics 19(3): 33-342
• Race, Townswend, Hughes, 285-291, “Chorion Type, Birthweight Discordance, and tooth-Size Variability in Australian Monozygotic Twins” Twin Research and Human Genetics 9(2) 285-291 (no, not about IQ – but as it is about other clear phenotypic traits it provides a good benchmark for assessing the value of twin studies and the various factors one must also take into account)
• Reed, Carmelli, Rosenman, 1991, “Effects of Placentation in Selected Type A Behaviors in Adult males in the national Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Twin Study,” Behavior Genetics 21(1) 1-19
• Segal, 19999, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell us About Human Behavior
• Sokol, Moore, Rose, Williams, reed, and Christian, 1995, “Intrapair Differences in Personality and Cognitive Ability Among Mynozygotic Twins Distinguished by Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 25(5) 456-466
• Stromswold, 2006, “Why Aren’t Identical Twins Linguistically Identical?” Cognition 101(2): 333-383

Many are by geneticists or in genetics journals. Do any of them discuss a "nature versus nurture" debate? Is it notable, for them? I do not know - because I am not pushing a POV one way or the other. Let's find out what issues they are debating and from there decide what articles we need. I invite others to help search for other prominent scientific journal articles on this and related themes, in order to find out what the real scientific debates are. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a neutral title like "Factors affecting intelligence" comes with a "BS", media-fed rag-bag of presuppositions? It is unclear what POV such a title would be pushing. (I personally have no point of view to push: I will, however, come clean with you and admit that I find certain aspects of racism abhorrent. I hope you don't mind me writing this.) It is disingenuous of you to suggest that the scientific literature can be trawled for articles, without any clear idea of what type of article is being looked for. Above you seem to have selected articles on genetics and intelligence; nobody could object to them.

Where you have a clear point is that where no significant body of scholarly literature exists supporting a particular hypothesis, a proposed subject should probably not be given undue weight on WP. Also it is absolutely correct that WP should attempt to reflect trends in current research whenever possible. I just read a chapter on race and IQ in a recent book by Joseph L. Graves, cited as an undergraduate textbook; it gave a very interesting well-written historical overview, but perhaps might not be regarded as an undisputed source. With no prior familiarity with the vast body of literature, is it fair to to presume that this corpus of academic research can be assessed by non-experts with no formal training in the area? At least on WP some mathematics articles are written by experts; I'm not sure that applies here. Again that is another fundamental problem with this encyclopedia.

If on the other hand there are editors with expertise in biology (eg wobble/alun) or anthropology, their advice and suggestions should be listened to carefully. Mathsci (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take your paragraph that begins "Where you have a clear point" as a starting point because at least there we understand and agree with one another. I am saying it is premature to come up with a title until we have trawled the literature. I also think we have enough people who know enough to know how to do this, even before knowing what the right titel for an article would be. We are concerned with the following key words: "race", "intelligence", "genetics", "environmental" and either "SES" or a proxy (social or status would probably work). I suggest anyone with a good library and therefore a good reference librarian request a search for articles with these keywords in the major relevant journals. These would be:

• Interdisciplinary

• Critical Inquiry
• Public Culture
• Social Science Research
• Social Text

• Anthropology

• American Anthropologist
• American Ethnologist
• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Cultural Anthropology
• Current Anthropologist
• Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power
• American Journal of Physical Anthropology

• Communications (includes media studies)

• Communication Theory
• Human Communication Research
• Public Opinion Quarterly

• Education

  Review of Educational Research

• Educational Psychology

• Child Development
• Education Psychology
• Education Psychology Review
• Journal of Learning Science

• Genetics

• American Journal of Human Genetics
• Annual Review of Genetics
• Genetics and Development
• Genome Research
• Nature Genetics
• Nature Review Genetics

• History

• American Historical Review
• Comparative Studies in Society and History
• Journal of Modern History
• Journal of Social History
• Past and Present

• Sociology

• American Journal of Sociology
• American Sociological Review
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Journal of Historical Sociology
• Law and Society Review

• Psychology

• American Psychologist
• Annual Review of Psychology
• Behavior Genetics
• Behavioral Brain Science
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Psychological Bulletin
• Psychology Review

I have provided a long list of journals precisely in an attempt to capture a wide range of approaches and views. However, I bet many of these journals have not had any relevant articles in the last few years. So while I realize this is a lot of journals, I bet if we restrict searches to all keywords, I bet the results would be managable. I am pretty sure I got the leading journals in these relevant disciplines but yes, it would be great if there were other editors who could sy "no, this is not a respected journal" or "Add the following to the list ..."

A keyword search of these major journals would not I think assume or imply any particular point of view. As I said I think that if we use enough keywords, the results will be managable but perhaps someone can suggest a way to further limit it (for starts, we can ask the reference librarian to search just the past three years. I bet that won't turn up much and we will want to expand it to the past five or even ten years.

Just a suggestions! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't standard electronic tools for searching academic databases not be used? Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think Annual Reviews (what you posted before) is good. As for other electronic tools - I think they are fine as long as they include the leading journals. And I think this depends on the library. Some search engines do not include all the leading journals for proprietary reasons. Another problem with standard academic search engines is they include many journals that are not highly ranked. This is not a problem (indeed, can be a good thing) for someone doing academic research. But if the task is to do a quick survey of the most notable views, a search engine that covers ALL journals will swamp us with data much of which is not appropriate. By the way, I selected the journals above based on their ranks in citation indices. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the heritability of intelligence isn't too politicized, but for whatever reason people who say "the gap between IQ scores of blacks and whites could be partially based on genetics" are labeled racist. When I read the summary of the American Psychological Association's 1995 report, it struck me as odd how they stretched to say it could be all social.

It is clear, however, that these differences—whatever their origin—are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors.

(which to me begs the question "Aren't they also well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental and genetic factors, too?") And when they do talk about possible genetic factors, they only mention Eyferth, 1961 (the WWII soldiers/children study); a study whose results haven't been reproduced and one that doesn't seem to account for selection bias in the military (Flynn, 1980). Forgive me for not having a worldview on the issue, but I know in America that black intelligence is a politically charged issue, with tabula rasa on the left and "significant differences exist between groups and are important" on the right.

Briefly, on some other points above:

• I think policies derived from the race/intelligence differences should be left out of this article: unless it's really notable by itself, "what to do about it" is exclusively a matter of personal opinion.
• "Factors affecting intelligence" doesn't give due weight to the focus of this article, namely the race/IQ gap. I've read title arguments above, but I still believe that "Race and Intelligence" is fine.
• Slrubenstein, your hope of an unbiased analysis of all literature in the field prior to forming an opinion might be a pipe dream. It's a fine idea, but I for one don't have the energy, resources, time, or drive to be so well read in the field. The people who do that are the ones publishing reports, not editing Misplaced Pages. I'm not opposed to trawling through some of the journals you mentioned, but I don't think a full analysis of every study and paper is required for intelligent, informed discussion on this issue.
• "Just a suggestions!"... chuckle... Aron.Foster (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aron.Foster, in mathematics mathscinet is a useful tool for self-teaching; I don't know whether you use it. Similarly the ISI Web of Knowledge and other electronic tools can be used to search other academic databases and for example to examine your assertion that there is an immutable race/IQ gap. Here is one paper I found just searching for race and intelligence:

• JF Fagan, CR Holland Racial equality in intelligence: Predictions from a theory of intelligence as processing, INTELLIGENCE 35 (4): 319-334 JUL-AUG 2007

« African-Americans and Whites were asked to solve problems typical of those administered on standard tests of intelligence. Half of the problems were solvable on the basis of information generally available to either race and/or on the basis of information newly learned. Such knowledge did not vary with race. Other problems were only solvable on the basis of specific previous knowledge, knowledge such as that tested on conventional IQ tests. Such specific knowledge did vary with race and was shown to be subject to test bias. Differences in knowledge within a race and differences in knowledge between races were found to have different determinants. Race was unrelated to the g factor. Cultural differences in the provision of information account for racial differences in IQ. »

Anyway I think, with reliable academic databases and unbiased searches on two or more key terms, it should not be hard to build up a set of articles in the way Slrubenstein has suggested. A biased search using for example "IQ gap" and "race" produces very few articles; but the ones that turn up are by the much quoted authors in the current article. I now agree that Slrubenstein's method might indeed be the way forward if we can agree on academic databases. (I used a university account to access the abstract quoted above.) Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For Mathsci: I appreciate the vote of confidence — and acknowledge that my proposal can be improved upon. I think you get the idea I was trying to explain and the one example you came up with is indeed an example of what I am after. Now, you came up with one article. If, through whatever means, we came up with ten or twenty articles that are very frequently cited, or that appear in major journals (meaning, those that score high in citation indexes - I looked at both immediacy index and impact factor), we would be in a good position to say "Misplaced Pages needs an article on topic (or debate) x or "The most accurate title for an article that looks at current research on variance in IQ scores would b y" or "An article on this topic ought to have sections a, b and c, and be sure to include points of view x, y, and z." My idea is to get at as unbiased a method as possible for determining not just what are the notable views on a given debate or question, but what actually are the notable questions and debates in current research. The titles of articles themselves have to be well-informed and if the article is going to be on a topic that is currently being researched, we need to know something about the current research before we know what the best-informed and appropriate titlefor an article would be (and we may discover we need two articles instead of one, or we may discover that there is a better way to parse an issue into several articles than the ones previously proposed). And we want our sample of current research to be both notable and unbiased by prior assumptions about the nature of the research (this is just standard research design - if the question we ask is "What are the dominant questions and debates among current researchers," we shouldn't phrase the question in a way that will bias the results). Matchsci and I now seem to agree on a rough strategy and I am sure it can be refined and improved upon. Perhaps s/he can even articulate/explain it better than I can at this point! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For Aron: Well, it may be a pipe-dream, but (1) we could divvy up the work and (2) my intention was to get a sense of how researchers frame the question and debate. One would not actually have to read through entire articles to find out whether their research is meant to contribute to some ebate on nature versus nurture or some other debate; indeed, this may be popssible from reading just the abstract or if not the first few and last few paragraphs. My point: I am proposing this just as a means of discerning what questions and debates researchers are actually engaged in. When it comes to actually writing a Misplaced Pages article I certainly wouldn't expect even a group of people working togethr to read all articles. In short: you are right that a full analysis of ever study and paper is not required!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to putting in some research, reading, and brainpower to be part of a group that has the whole issue covered. Although I'm not going to put in much work until after the holidays. :) Aron.Foster (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Per request at my talk page, I have removed the protection status on this article. Please discuss controversial edits before making them on this talk page. If the article becomes embattled again, please let me know at my talk page or register another request for protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. --Moonriddengirl 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wooohoo!!! Edit War!!!  :) Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Err...how about we try to avoid that?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my point, actually. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I guessed as much. I was just translating for those who might be humour-challenged. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

YEEEHaw! futurebird (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that those of us who have cooperated here should agree to revert all undiscussed edits no matter whether we agree with them or not. Bold is good, but in the spirit of cooperation, let's move forward with a plan and consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I think Kevin makes a very constructive and important point. Slrubenstein | ] 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• A stalemate is a better word than cooperation. If every edit is going to be discussed, it will take years before there is a decent article. The discussion about the future of the article has been going on for over a month without action or a definitive game plan. Just use good faith in the edits and revert if there is a significant problem like in all the other articles I have been involved in. Slrubenstein has been involved with the article for several years but seems to be unable to provide the leadership necessary to move the article forward. --Jagz (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jagz, I think that you bring a good balance to the discussion, but your actions have been questionable and you tend to polarize your opposition. Chill-out; pissing on people's legs won't convert people, it just makes them wetter and smellier opponents. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check back in in a few months then as I can find better ways to waste my time. --Jagz (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you hang around and be patient. I think that you really have done some good research. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to say congratulations to the group here. We have had great cooperation in stemming the tide of first day edits, and especially thanks to the two editors who reverted their edits at my request in the spirit of gainig consensus. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes revisited

For balance, although I regard it as in extremely poor taste, I concocted the following extra stereotype, which uses the same method of sources (media and popular culture) as the other stereotypes. It has been carefully designed to be equally pointless, offensive, inaccurate and unencyclopedic:

American intelligence stereotypes

The American people are often stereotyped by the British as brash ignorant loud-mouthed rednecks. . Other unflattering characterisations can be found in the novels of Evelyn Waugh and Max Beerbohm, whose Rhodes Scholar Mr. Abimelech V. Oover in Zuleika Dobson cannot prevent himself from spouting pompous long-winded neologisms .

The section on stereotypes is disgraceful and has no place on the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with at least a cleanup, but have felt that it is off-topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be desirable to know how this article can in fact be edited. Does every edit require a vote? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems premature to fine tune what is likely to undergo major shifts in organization and message. I'm asking that we (a) discuss major changes and (b) postpone fine-tuning. I'm thinking that we should build a list of proposed changes and see where we can establish consensus. I didn't oppose unprotecting the article since our efforts to work in a sandbox have so badly stalled, but as Morrridden warned, she will clamp this down at the first signs of battle. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, with that understanding I will revert the article to the bad version, as is customary on WP. However, this section is appalling: who calls themselves English these days? I suppose some editors at some stage must have added this spicy savoury to balance the unpalatable pseudoscientific hors d'oeuvres :) Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of proposed changes

(please discuss the changes in a separate section so the list is readable -- comments will be removed from the list.

1. Restore the missing reference section. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Remove the stereotypes. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Remove the Media Portrayal section up to but not including the sub-section "Portrayal of research by the media" --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Remove the Race section --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Remove the Intelligence section --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Condense from 4 & 5 a brief discussion of both Race and Intellignce sufficient to the context of this article and with links to the WP articles --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on proposed changes

• Removal of sections is fine. However Kevin Murray's suggested new material does not take into account the consensus developed by Slrubenstein about how to proceed in changing the article. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

S/he suggested that we must gather source literature to determine possible content in an unbiased way. Please read the discussion above. Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we discussing my item 6 above? If so I am suggesting a section which summarizes and condenses from the sections removed in my proposals 4 & 5. There is two much disjointed discussion above to refer to a consensus without being more specific. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an satisfactory response. Please read what Slrubenstein has said, searching for "unbiased" if necessary. What you are proposing is going against consensus. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus on that point. But, I do not feel strongly about item 6. I would be satisfied with the removals described in items 4 & 5, and then see if there needs to be some reference to the topics in summary. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I already added "replacing references" at the head of the list. Putting them back to replace the dead wikilink is hardly what MRG meant by a "controversial change". Why don't you go ahead and just restore it? (P.P.S. I shall be editing from Berkeley, California instead of France from next Monday :)) Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see us get consensus as a matter of form. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot participate in any discussions unless I have some wayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28References%29&diff=168535151&oldid=166472527 of accessing the references. Where are they? Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you plan to restore them, then I assume that you know where to find them. I don't see the urgency that requires action before a few other people comment. Other than that, you will have my support in restoring the references. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I found them. User:thebainer performed a redirect instead of a proper merge in November . Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Bainer chose redirects so we could still access the old files easilly for reference etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"He" for what it is worth, and Mathsci, with respect, I think we need more discussion before we can say we have consensus although of course I feel strongly that some form of what I suggested is the only effective way to proceed when working on an article on a controversial topic. I know Aron is concerned about the amount of work involved, I wonder if Kevin has any objections to the method Mathsci and I, at least, agree would be most productive? perhaps if others consider my reasons and suggestion more, they can come up with more effective ways to do it.

But for now I will restate my main issue: I think that this article was - with very good intentions and hard work by some editors - poorly conceived and designed from the start. "Poorly" in this sense: over the past several years most major edits to this article have either exacerbated NPOV disputes or has made the whole structure and content overwrote. I thinnk most people would agree with me; I am just adding that I think this owes to the original conception and design which means an effective solution means revisiting the basic conception and design. I do not see a point to discussing any specific edits until we have. I fear tht if we continue as usual, we will just produce an article that is either more overwrought, or that someone, certainly within the next year, will consider seriously POV and in need of major edits. The method I proposed above is meant to avoid this by providing a firm - meaning, fully compliant with NPOV, V and NOR - foundation by providing us with a conception of the scope and section of the article that is not based on original research and does not advance the views of any of us editors. I think the method I proposed will result in enough reliable, verifiable sources from multiple points of view, especially views not our own, that we will then be able to work our way out of the black-hole of an article (which has swallowed up so many editors over the past several years, some of them to disappear forever) that this had been.

In short, let's try to reach consensus on process for researching the article rather than content and structure of the article - and let the process dictate the eventual content and structure. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record I am also "he" (I used s/he because that is how you referred to me earlier). After first deciding on databases and searching over pairs of key words, we can compile a list of observed themes and then proceed from there. I suspect that very little academic literature is devoted to the so-called IQ gap, although we'll just have to wait and see. I was quite struck between the difference in the universally positive academic reaction to the scholarly book on Race and intelligence produced in the 1970's, designed as a data source without itself drawing any conclusions, and the raised eyebrows in mainstream academic circles generated by Lynn's recent book on Race and intelligence (2006). Again this is irrelevant at the moment. Having decided on scholarly electronic databases, we can proceed from there. You have already provided a set of key words, which at the moment I believe are

intelligence/IQ and genetics/ environment/race/socio-economic

I haven't covered all search terms such as psychometric or other standard terms that might emerge from the academic literature in the search. Again the number of returned articles from these searches could be important, even if only a few articles are selected in the end. I'm not sure about using citation indexes, unless inordinately long lists are produced when pruning might be useful. I agree with your implicit statement that it is not appropriate to start drawing up lists of what to change. I have so far simply queried the disapppearance of the references and the presence of the offensive, pointless and unscholarly stereotype section. (It is hard to see how this could survive in the future article or articles that replace this one.) Is what I am saying roughly what you had in mind? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SL, I support the idea of establishing critera for our sources here as a first step. Can you draft a set of citeria is succinct bullet points. It becomes difficult to follow some of the prose. Just the facts please. We know what the problems are. Less why and more how. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts:

• find a reference librarian who will help us do a search of the journals listed by me above, or use an academic search-engine that includes the journals I listed above (note: I sought to list the most prestigious journals in a wide array of related fields)
• search for articles with the keywords of (either intelligence or IQ) and (one or more of the following: race, genetic, environmental. socio-economic status)
• start with the past five years; if the result is under twnety articles, expand it to the past ten years.
• compile a list of those questions and debates that are explicitly central to the research design (introduction) and/or significance (conclusion) sections of these articles
• use this list of questions and debates to determine (1) how many articles on this area we need (i.e. to maximize content forks and minimize POV forks); (2) what they should be called and (3) how they should be organized (i.e. what subsections each article should have)

That is in brief my proposal. Matchsci, can you improve upon it? I know Wobble has done University-based research, perhaps he too can improve it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems basically fine, although I don't think it is a good idea to limit the period of research: that method has obvious flaws, is unscholarly and arbitrary. (When I make mathematics searches I sometimes have to explore the early 20th and late 19th century using Jahrbuch für die Fortschritte der Mathematik , a standard academic database, so far completely off WP's radar.) There are also references found in references: standard collections of raw data like the one compiled in 1976. One can then look at the papers that cite them. To do this exercise properly takes time and patience. I have my own professional research to do - closely linked to my WP contributions in mathematics - and a graduate course to prepare for the UK, so I have limited time. But I will try to generate preliminary lists. Mathsci (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My only reason for a time limit is that it is as you say an arbitrary 9and thus unbiased) way to limit the number of articles we come up with. Now, personally, I wouldn't want to limit it to articles more than fifteen years or twenty years old which believe me covers a tremendous amount of research. But others have already criticized my proposal because of the amount of work it generates. It isn't any good if it generates so many citations no one will look at them! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring references

• The references need to be restored urgently, because the article is at present unreadable. Although it's hard to tell at the moment, it does seem that the 2006 book of Lynn, Race differences in intelligence, has been used as a source. A review of this book by a reputed scholar has drawn attention to Lynn's manipulation of data, some of it data gathered by the reviewer. Such books cannot be used unquestioningly as reliable sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that N. J. Mackintosh is the critic. A G-search yields little info on him, though what I see hints at his good reputation. In many cases good biographies here at WP have been built while evaluating sources. Perhaps we could build an article on Professor Macinitosh. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lynn might be a reasonable inclusion in a reference list or other reading section, but not inline citations. I can see discussing his work, but not relying on it as a source of fact. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He has a home page . Google actually reveals quite a lot: he is an animal behaviouralist, amongst other things; he has written IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998. 429 pp. ISBN 0-19-852368-8; his initials stand for Nicholas John; he became a fellow of King's College, Cambridge in 1981; he was made FRS in 1987, etc, etc. (To be fair I used extra inside information here.) Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that we can build an article on him? If you can give me the references etc. If you are busy, I can build and you can fine tune. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

His name should certainly be added to the list of Fellows of the Royal Society and you could start a biographical stub, in the hope that it would be fleshed out by some expert in his field. I do know people who probably know him fairly well, but that route is out of bounds. His bio must be sketched in one of his books, viewable on google, amazon or in the flesh. Otherwise there might be a Royal Society Biography available on demand. Here's his entry from the International Who's Who that I retrieved. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MACKINTOSH Nicholas John DPhil, FRS

British professor of experimental psychology

Date of birth: 9 July 1935

Parentage: s. of Dr Ian Mackintosh and Daphne Mackintosh

Family: m. 1st Janet Ann Scott 1960 (divorced 1978); one s. one d.; m. 2nd Bundy Wilson 1978 (divorced 1989); two s.; m. 3rd Leonora Caroline Brosan 1992; one s.

Education: Winchester and Magdalen Coll., Oxford

Career: lecturer, Univ. of Oxford 1964–67; Resident Professor, Dalhousie Univ. 1967–73; Professor, Univ. of Sussex 1973–81; Professor of Experimental Psychology and Professorial Fellow of King’s Coll., Cambridge 1981–2002; Resident Fellow, Lincoln Coll., Oxford 1966–67; Visiting Professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania 1965–66, Univ. of Hawaii 1972–73, Bryn Mawr Coll. 1977; Ed. Quality Journal of Experimental Psychology 1977–84

Publications: Fundamental Issues in Associative Learning (ed. with W. K. Honig) 1969, Mechanisms of Animal Discrimination Learning (with N. S. Sutherland) 1971, the Psychology of Animal Learning 1974, Conditioning and Associative Learning 1983, Animal Learning and Cognition 1994, Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? 1995, IQ and Human Intelligence 1998, papers in psychological journals

Procedural issues

As per a request from Kevin Murray, I've reverted my minor changes on the main page. Now, I reverted because I don't want to cause conflict, but I don't think formatting changes really need discussion. So now we arrive at the big question: do we require every change to be discussed here on the talk page, or do we set some bar below which changes don't require discussion? I'd like to suggest that we set the bar at changing sentence structure is ok, as long as it doesn't change the tone (positively or negatively). Changing the tone, adding or removing sections, etc. should be discussed here.

My changes were the removal of a dead picture link, and deletion of an unnecessary semi-colon and comma. Thnughts? Aron.Foster (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• In any other article I would agree. I suggest that we just discuss and ask one person to make the changes. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using the guidance provided by the template shown below. --Jagz (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

I don't see a problem with using this template. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that someone start making changes to the article. It seems to be in a holding pattern. Editors will lose interest. --Jagz (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What I found: Please name the top 3 sources in this list and explain your reasons

I did a google scholar search for the most recent articles with key words "race" and "IQ" These are the first few results with my commentary. How should we sum these up?

• The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains (Psychological Science 2006) J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen
  • Everything these two guys write is regarded as controversial.
  • Basic position seems to be that the gap has narrowed in a century.
  • Article isn't available for free on line (costs $44) but this proof can give us the gist of the content.
  • The article criticizes the results of Fynn who showed that the gap was closing.
  • Depending on how one accounts for SES factors the gap can be shown to be closing, or remaining the same.
  • No mention of genetics.

• The association of dental caries with blood lead in children when adjusted for IQ and neurobehavioral performance (Science of The Total Environment 2007) Martin et. al.
  • Fairly non-controversial article about the impact of lead exposure on IQ mentions the fact that black children are exposed to more lead. Suggests this may play a role in the gap.
  • This shows that these kind of findings continue to be published.
  • only came up in the search because race is one of many factors considered. There is a lot of research along these lines, but the focus is not on race. Doing this kind of research isn't controversial.
  • Not about genetics.

• The Bell Curve: On Race, Social Class, and Epidemiologic Research C Muntaner, FJ Nieto, PO'Campo - American Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
  • I didn't look in to this as it seems to be a book review.

• Testing the genetic hypothesis of group mean IQ differences in South Africa: Racial admixture and cross-situational consistency J. Philippe Rushton
  • Rushton, again.
  • The paper shows that mixed-race people in South Africa have IQ scores that are about the average of scores of whites an blacks.
  • No mention of genetics in the abstract.

• Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Nisbett - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005
  • Strong criticism for Rushton and Jensen

• Intelligence, race, and genetics RJ Sternberg, EL Grigorenko, KK Kidd - American Psychologist 2005
  • Criticism for Murray and Jensen

• Race and intelligence: The fallacies behind the race-IQ controversy
  • Book review for a book from 1973? I skipped it.

• Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability Rushton Jensen Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005
  • Asserts that a genetic cause cannot be ruled out.

• Race and IQ RS COOPER - Am. Psychol, 2005
  • This is a really solid source and it covers a lot of ground. It's published in a "good" journal. This is one of the articles that looks at the debate as a whole rather than focusing on particulars.

• IQ variations across time and race are explained by literacy differences D Marks - 2007 - precedings.nature.com
  • Rejects the idea that nutrition or health factors are the primary cause (so the paper about lead levels is a little controversial after all!)
  • Links IQ to education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Genetic Differences and School Readiness William T. Dickens The Future of Children, 2005
  • The author considers whether differences in genetic endowment may account for racial and ethnic differences in school readiness. While acknowledging an important role for genes in explaining differences within races, he nevertheless argues that environment explains most of the gap between blacks and whites, leaving little role for genetics.

• Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective Hiroko Arikawa and Donald I. Templer, Intelligence Volume 34, Issue 2, March-April 2006
  • Try to assert that people from colder climates have evolved to higher IQs
  • There is a fair amount of criticism of this one:
  • Major sources cited are Lynn, Jensen and Rushton

• Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real A Smedley, BD Smedley - American Psychologist, 2005
  • pretty much what the title says.

• Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons (2004) International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14 (3), 278–287.
  • Says tests are still biased.

There are, of course, more in this search. Questions: Which sources are the highest quality? Which are the least controversial? Please name the top 3 sources in this list and explain your reasons.

futurebird (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As already discussed, could you please use an academic database to compile a list of sources? If, like Aron.Foster, you are a math graduate student, you will have access to academic search machines, as discussed above. Google scholar is unacceptable: it does not search scholarly literature in a systematic way. Please learn about these search machines like ISI Web of Knowledge and then use them. (They are analogous to the search machines like mathscinet and Zentralblatt MATH, which are probably be known to you as the two prinicipal search machines for mathematics articles - Google scholar is no substitute.) What you have produced above is not at all what is required. Please read what Slrubenstein has said about bias before attempting further literature searches. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci - Google scholar is an imperfect tool. I am certain that there are many more articles on this set of topics or some major aspect of them in many of the journals I named above. That Google Scholar returns practically no journals from the list suggests to me that it is missing most of the current research. In any event, I stated my position above:I give more weight to articles in the journals I listed. I made this claim without knowing anything about the content of such articles but rather on the basis of the influence and notability of the journals themselves, which to me is the least biased way to proceed, if what we are after are notable views among researchers. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check out the Library at some latter date. I'm still working on my last finals so... there isn't much time I sort-o hoped there was an easy solution to all of this. futurebird (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a somewhat hectic time of year. The electronic resource I used with a UK academic proxy was here . I haven't investigated what happens if I use a US academic account, but that shouldn't be too hard to figure out, either directly from a university web site or by finding a user-friendly librarian in a central university library. Good luck and happy hunting, Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Old reference/bibliography page

I've copied the old reference/bibliography list to Talk:Race and intelligence/references. This was slated for deletion at AfD, and thus blanked and redirected here. I'm wondering why this is not properly reinstated as it is way too long to be appended to an article. It seems like a good resource. If we agree on reinstatement we can asking the Admin who closed the AfD for permission to revert his blank/redirect. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin, that is an excellent idea. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Caste

Ye gods, this looks like a horrifically contentious article, and with good reason, no doubt. Reading the 'caste' section, however, there are problems from a neutrality point of view. It seems to make implicit assumptions about race being a 'social construct' and suchlike: which while it is a major and important viewpoint, is not the only one, and it is certainly not the place of the article to endorse it (or any other viewpoint) as the right one.

I have added a 'converse' interpretation to the section, and will look for a proper citation for that when I get the chance. Until then, I hope that my addition can remain as it is what the Germans might call 'offensichtlich': so glaringly obvious a fact that it doesn't need a citation (when I say a 'fact', I mean that it is a fact that the data could be interpreted like that, not that it is a fact that that interpretation is the correct one).

Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions I would be interested to hear them.

I have doubts that we should even use the word caste, which has a precise definition. However, absent a citation, I have removed the following:

The converse explanation would be that if intelligence is positively correlated with ability and performance, and if intelligence is genetically determined and differs across racial groups, that these differences in intelligence are the reason for caste differences; in other words, groups with higher average intelligence are likely to acquire higher social status.

in part because it looks like original research and in part because it is so obviously an inappropriate explanation, by which I mean not that it is simply wrong, but wrong in a way that contradicts the very terms of what it seeks to explain. If we can liken say African Americans in the US to a "caste" it is because of historically documented acts of political violence - slavery and Jim Crow legislation - that no one denies as factual. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily: the very fact that certain groups could be dominated or exploited through slavery and Jim Crow legislation is possibly explicable through a difference in ability between them and their exploiters. Hence, while a correlation would seem to be established by the data between low IQ and low social status, the causal link (if indeed there is one) may be in either of the two directions. The 'converse' view, that low IQ may lead to low social status, is essentially the main argument of the Bell Curve book by my understanding, as well as a pretty standard hereditarian line (which the lovely little table does little to refute, because the data tell us nothing of causal links).

In any case, the argument presented at the moment is dubious, because while it may be that IQ tests (designed primarily by European males etc.) are biased against low status groups in those societies in which the IQ test designers operate, it's a little weird that they simultaneously manage to discriminate against low social status groups in every country, while giving high scores to the 'elites'. Indeed, the argument undermines itself quite drastically, by alleging that ethnicity is a 'local social construct' while still allowing for IQ tests to globally distinguish between (ethnically divided) social status groups in totally unrelated cultures.

I'm quite happily agnostic about this particular debate, but I would be very surprised if someone hasn't written a formal critique of the 'caste' argument as it is presented here; if not, and if there are no other researchers writing in support of the argument either, I would argue that the entire section should be removed as a relatively unimportant contribution to the debate, which has attracted little critical attention in either direction: surely an encyclopedia article cannot, and should not, include every researcher's (or group of researchers') opinions on the matter, but only the most influential, since the literature in this field is somewhat bloated. Additionally, the main source for the section seems to be a chapter synopsis of a book, which scarcely amounts to proper research since the arguments of the authors are not present to be evaluated.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly about the word 'caste' being inappropriate here, and have taken the liberty of replacing it with the more accurate 'social status'. The fact that the authors of the source use the word 'caste' in that manner also indicates a perspective that is perhaps, to be charitable, idiosyncratic.

Good faith

If the editors are going to continue to revert changes in this below par article then they need to demonstrate a good faith effort at improving the article. There has been no discussion recently about improving the article. There has been zero progress made in actually improving the article since the editors adopted the policy of reverting substantial changes. Habitually reverting the article is soon going to be looked at as disruptive behavior that stymies progress instead of being part of a good faith effort to improve the article. --Jagz (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlogical conclusion

The fact that there is a relation between High status and low status and High test scores and low test scores, does not necessarily mean that the low status races have to have low scores because they are low status, nor those it mean that these groups would have a higher score if they were high status. With all likelyhood, they have low status because they have low scores. There is a reason why one group has a high status and the other does not. Its that nature thing again-were the strongest survives, witch is the smartest in this case. The high status group is the high status group just because of this differences in test scores. The low scores group are low status because they are low score. There is a reason why the high stutus group is the high status group, they are smarter, or superior, witch is proven by the tests. The fact that the charts are the same should be a "well da'ah". It proves the fact that darwinism exists in societies as well, infact, in all of the societies tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.153.168 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles