Revision as of 01:36, 30 May 2010 view sourceProfessor marginalia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,362 edits →Comment from Jimbo Wales on standards for attributing views to Jensen← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:39, 16 October 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy/Archive 5, Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy/Archive 6) (bot | ||
(921 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pp-semi-indef}} | |||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | {{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{tocleft}}{{-}} | {{tocleft}}{{-}} | ||
==Adding the latest genetic research== | |||
== Deletion of edits by Captain Occam == | |||
The passage from Tucker summarised by me with page numbers from Jensen's 1969 has been removed twice by Captain Occam. The passage appears in what is a ]. This book has won three prizes, has had excellent book reviews and is published by the ]. It seems to summarise the primary source accurately - the pages numbers appear in the notes of Tucker. I have no idea why Captain Occam is suggesting otherwise. Does he some reason for thinking that the text of the academic ] is inaccurate? The sentence explicitly states "as reported by William H. Tucker". I am beginning to wonder whether Capatin Occam has decided that I am one of those wikipedia editors with the same mind-set as ] that he has criticized on the blog that he linked to his user page a few days back. Captain Occam's own personal interpretation of Jensen's article is toally irrelevant. It amounts to ] and ]. It's for that reason we use secondary sources. ] (]) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I can't speak for Occam and do not want to criticize all aspects of that passage, but let me highlight at least one issue. The section contained this phrase: "He decried the "misguided and ineffective attempts to improve lot" of blacks". Is that quote from Jensen (1969)? I can't find it. ] (]) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Separate question: What do we do when reliable secondary sources disagree? I do not have access to Tucker or Woolbridge, but Loehlin's description of Jensen (1969) seems radically different from the passage that Occam has problems with. Is there a standard Misplaced Pages policy for this? To be concrete: Are there two main theses/conclusions in Jensen (1969) or three? ] (]) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::(ec) You are removing sourced edits. The sources do not disagree, as far as I can tell. They are complementary, In this case you can add your version of what the second summary says (with page numbers), after what I added. That is normal practice. Just write "As reported by <nowiki>{{harvtxt|Loehlin|author2|author3|2020}}</nowiki>" and include what they say. It's not up to us to decide between two different secondary sources. We include both. No need to delete text in this case. Just add the material from the second source. So please go ahead and add the extra sentences sourced to the book of Loehlin, if you think they add material not covered in the detailed summary in the next paragraph. Thanks, ] (]) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Maunus has done exactly what I just suggested. Many thanks Maunus! ] (]) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Part of the problem here is that there aren't any ''secondary'' sources other than Tucker which assert this either. I'm going to quote Wooldridge's description of this, since I know you at least approve of his book as a source: | |||
::"But he felt that 'the technique of raising intelligence ''per se'' in the sense of ''g'', probably lie more in the province of the biological science than than in psychology or education': eugenic reform rather than compensatory education held out the solution to the problem of the nation's intelligence. Unfortunately, however, populations trends were dysgenic rather than eugenic. Intelligence and family size were negatively correlated; and the negative correlation was more marked in the negro than in the white population, so that the two races were drawing further apart in their average innate abilities. 'Is there a danger', he wondered, 'that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population?" | |||
::That's an accurate description of Jensen's position. According to Wooldridge, Jensen's concern was that something needed to be done about the fact that people with the lowest IQs tended to have the largest families, because he felt that this would have a negative effect on blacks by causing the difference in average IQ between them and whites to grow larger over time. That's quite different from Jensen asserting that the overall number of blacks needs to be reduced, which is what Tucker is claiming Jensen said. | |||
::This is one secondary source that you approve of which disagrees with what Tucker is claiming about this. Based on what David.Kane is saying, it sounds like Loehlin disagrees with Tucker about this also. If we must include a contentious assertion from Tucker that other sources disagree with, we need to make it clear that a lot of other secondary (and primary) sources disagree with Tucker about this. --] (]) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::It's totally inappropriate for wikipedians to pass judgement on secondary sources in this way. We simply use both, or in this case all three (if we include Wooldridge). We are complete dullards or ignorami as far as evaluation or interpretation of secondary sources is concerned. We just summarise the sentences we find in these sources, if they are reliable. Our personal views are completely irrelevant. In my case I don't have any - I haven't even read the primary source by Jensen. (There seems to be no properly paginated version available as a url.) That is the wikipedia way. ] (]) 17:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I tweaked it to alleviate any potential confusion on this. There is no significant disagreement between the sources on these two points that I can see. Tucker is a valid source, and his assessment is attributed to him. ] (]) 17:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC) --Looks like another editor made some changes and it's no longer attributed to him. ] (]) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Many thanks. Tweak away .... ] (]) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:MathSci kindly provides the key page from Tucker. Again, I think that the passage as written is unclear because it implies (or Tucker implies) that the phrase "misguided and ineffective attempts to improve lot" is from Jensen (1969) when, in fact, it is not. I don't want to edit war but perhaps someone (Professor marginalia?) could fix that. ] (]) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::True, I thought it was Jensens wording, not Tuckers, that needs to be clear.] 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::My own problem is that stating “some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce their numbers” implies that Jensen thought the ''overall'' number of minorities needed to be reduced, which isn’t supported by most of the sources being used. (Except possibly Tucker.) If we’re going to make this paragraph consistent with what’s in all of the sources, we need to make it clear that Jensen was referring specifically to the negative correlation between fertility and IQ, which applies to both blacks and whites. I think my own edit makes this clearer; I hope nobody has a problem with this change. --] (]) 17:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I think my edit set that straight. But your subsequent edit reflects maybe how you'd prefer to word what Jensen said, but that's not how Tucker did. Having read Jensen's article, I think you've understated Jensen's argument quite a bit. He was concerned that the low IQ "disadvantaged" were having large families--it's quite clear that he saw IQ to be genetic inheritance, not merely a consequence of family size. ] (]) 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::My edit is just based on the way Wooldridge describes this. And I think referring to Jensen’s fear of this having a “dysgenic” effect makes it clear that Jensen thought of the negative correlation between IQ and family size as having a negative effect in a genetic sense, since that’s what dysgenic means. If you think there’s a way for this to be phrased that’s more consistent with how it’s described by all three sources—Wooldridge, Loehlin and Tucker—could you please make a specific suggestion? --] (]) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I reverted. It's not our job to reconcile sources if they don't agree. If you think the differences among them are significant, attribute the claims each of them make to their own work. But we don't massage them to "fit" - we don't put words in their mouths. ] (]) 18:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::If we’re going to clearly attribute this assertion to Tucker, and make it clear that the rest of the sources disagree with him about it, that’s fine also. But it’s not consistent with NPOV for the article to just present Tucker’s view, and none of the sources who disagree with him, the way it currently does. | |||
::::::Could someone else (such as David.Kane) please fix this? I probably shouldn’t revert the article any more today. --] (]) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::No, it's not either our job "to make it clear that the rest of the sources disagree" with Tucker. That goes far beyond what editors can do here...we're not pundits or researchers. I fail to understand either this suspiciousness towards Tucker as a reference. He's certainly not the first or only reference that recognized those claims made in Jensen's article. My-oh-my but that paper brought about a hailstorm of attention. ] (]) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::The reason for this suspicion towards Tucker is precisely ''because'' so many other secondary and primary sources disagree with him. ] states that views should be represented in articles in proportion to their prominence in the source material. In this case we’ve got one view from Tucker, and one (different) view from everyone else. Can you understand why in this situation, presenting only Tucker’s view and nobody else’s is not acceptable? --] (]) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::What kind of primary sources disagree with him? And I'm still unclear how the other two references earlier mentioned actually ''disagree''. They may not have repeated exactly what Tucker said, but they didn't contradict him either. Jensen's paper alluded to eugenic solutions multiple times, "negative eugenics" was a term I think he used at some point. ] (]) 18:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::The papers from Gottfredson and Jensen himself (which Mathsci considers primary) disagree with this also. I don’t think you should expect them to precisely contradict what Tucker said, since the idea that Jensen wanted to reduce the overall number of racial minorities is an outlandish enough claim that I doubt anyone would bother to point out that it’s false unless they were specifically providing a rebuttal to Tucker. The description from Wooldridge is different enough from Tucker’s that I also don’t think we can just assume there’s no meaningful disagreement, and use Tucker’s account any nobody else’s. | |||
::::::::::Can’t you just accept that at the moment, there’s no consensus for this new addition to the article? You and Mathsci want it included, while David.Kane and I disapprove of it. When an editor is trying to add new content to the article, the onus is on them to gather consensus for it to be included. As long as there’s no consensus, the article remains in its pre-existing state, without the new content. --] (]) 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} I have mentioned this a couple of times above, but let me make this more clear. 1) The article currently misinterprets Tucker as quoting Jensen (1969). She must have been quoting something else since those words do not appear in Jensen (1969). 2) The article currently makes claims about two specific pages in Jensen (1969). But the two pages cited do not support those claims. Unless someone can point out my error, I will try to correct these mistakes. ] (]) 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:(ec) Ahem, the same quote from Jensen's article also appears here. The sentence quoted there is, "future generations of Negroes ... could suffer the most well-meaning but misguided attempts to improve their lot in life". I'm going to remove the URL in the text because it is not a scan of the article by Jensen (no page numbers). It is an HTML document; it does not appear to be a copy of the HER article. ] (]) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, please do. Will you also be correcting the problem I mentioned above, involving the claim from Tucker that most of the other sources disagree with, but which is presented in the article without anything to balance it? --] (]) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::See above. ] (]) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::@Captain Occam-Jensen said, and Tucker said Jensen said, that it would be advantageous to reduce the frequency of low IQ black children in the population--he didn't say he saw an advantage to reducing number of all black people across the board. Jensen clearly said this. He was concerned that low IQ people had higher than average reproductive rates. And he expressed concerns that welfare policies were encouraging higher than average reproductive rates among the disadvantaged population who he said tended to have lower IQ scores. He also discussed eugenic solutions like increasing the prevalence of "voluntary sterilization" to reduce the number of births to retarded parents. | |||
:::@David Kane-the pages I looked at do support the claims. I'll recheck the page numbers. And Tucker is accurately reflected here, although I think the quote is one of Jensen's from a 1968 paper, not the 1969. I'm not sure though-I'll try to find it too. ] (]) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::“Jensen said, and Tucker said Jensen said, that it would be advantageous to reduce the frequency of low IQ black children in the population--he didn't say he saw an advantage to reducing number of all black people across the board.” | |||
::::Okay, it sounds like maybe we’re in agreement about what view we should attribute to Jensen here. If that’s the case, the problem I have is just that the wording of the article is ambiguous. Saying that Jensen wanted to “reduce the number of low-IQ racial minorities” sounds like it might mean that Jensen wanted to reduce the overall numbers of racial minorities that had average IQs were below the white average. Can you (or anyone else) re-word this part of the article to make it clear that Jensen only wanted to reverse the trend of fertility being negatively correlated with IQ, which could involve either reducing the number of children among low-IQ people or raising the number among high-IQ people, rather than having it sound like it could mean that he just wanted to reduce the overall number of blacks? --] (]) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::@Mathsci-per the surrounding context in the ''An American Health Dilemma'' it appears that the 1969 paper followed after Jensen wrote that quotation. Clearly it is from Jensen, and if we source it to this book we dispense with the "cloud" over it concerning which paper he said it in. | |||
:::::@Captain Occam-ok, I'll try and tweak it a little more. ] (]) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks. Yes, after a further check in both sources, that quotation comes from an article in 1968 by Jensen in "Disadvantaged Child", Vol 2. I've corrected that in the main text now. ] (]) 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Professor marginalia: your new wording is definitely an improvement, but I think it also ought to be made clearer that Jensen cared about raising the birthrate among high-IQ people just as much as he did about lowering it among low-IQ people, as well as that the same concerns applied to whites also. (Even though he emphasized it among blacks, because the dysgenic trend was especially strong among them, blacks definitely aren't the only people for which he expressed concern about this.) The current wording still sounds as though Jensen was advocating some sort of selective genocide against blacks, rather than just wanting to alter the relationship between birthrate and IQ for them, and to do the same thing for whites also. Is there any way you can make this even clearer than you have already? | |||
:::::::Keep in mind that the same idea is discussed by the following paragraph also, so one other possible solution would be to merge this explanation into the discussion about the same topic there. --] (]) 20:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::"Lowering the birthrate" doesn't imply genocide. "Eugenics" is a loaded word, but it's one Jensen chose to use so no euphemisms should be applied in its place. ] (]) 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I’m not arguing against using the word “eugenics”. I explained in my last comment what my concerns are: by focusing in on only this small part of Jensen’s opinion, we’re still making it sound like as though he was advocating measures that were specifically anti-black. (While in fact, the measures he was advocating were only specifically anti-low-IQ, and would have also applied to whites with low IQs while favoring blacks with high IQs.) | |||
:::::::::Do you understand my concerns about this? It’s apparent that David.Kane has similar concerns, and in the interest of working towards consensus I think you ought to be making an effort to address them. --] (]) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Well these views of Jensen were in direct response to a pitch from the Harvard Educational Review to draft "a clear statement of your position on social class and racial differences in intelligence." His claim that the achievement gap among black students was genetic rather than environmental, and that it would widen because low-IQ blacks had higher birthrates, ''was'' widely perceived as anti-black. We're not here to repair his public reputation-we simply describe the event. Jensen's a key figure in the race/intelligence controversy during this period--it would be hard to overplay the effect his views of race disparity played in the debate. ] (]) 23:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::“We're not here to repair his public reputation-we simply describe the event.” | |||
:::::::::::I agree with this, but this principle applies in both directions. Just as we shouldn’t exclude the more controversial aspects of what he suggested, we also shouldn’t be excluding certain things in order to make his ideas sound even more controversial than they actually were. As I stated above, I think the article is committing the latter error by mentioning that Jensen wanted to reduce the birthrate among low-IQ blacks, while not mentioning that he also wanted to reduce it among low-IQ whites and raise it among high-IQ blacks. Do you understand this concern? --] (]) 23:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::When dealing with primary sources, especially those involved in controversies, we emphasize what the secondary sources emphasize. The text now reflects the emphasis placed on Jensen's arguments in the source used. Tucker emphasized this, the ''An American Health Dilemma'' did as well. Remember this article isn't about Jensen, it's about his part in the controversy. If other ''secondary'' references describing his impact do it differently, we can look at those as well. (Not primary again-wikipedians cannot use them to form their own arguments to balance the secondary sources.) But again, if there are strong differences of opinion in that area then you don't re-cast the sourced claim to say something else than what the source said. You describe the most notable of those opinions, and attribute those views to their source. ] (]) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::"we emphasize what the secondary sources emphasize" Agreed! But we do not give priority to one secondary source (Tucker) over other secondary sources (Loehlin, Flynn, Mackintosh, et cetera). Tucker is the only secondary source which claims that Jensen was more (or only) concerned with low black IQ and not concerned with low white IQ. So, the article ought to reflect that fact. I think the easiest way to do so is with something like Occam's phrasing. Tucker's views can, of course, be included, but we need to make clear that, among secondary sources, her views are clearly the minority. And, given ] it seems unwise to mention every single statement ever made by Tucker about the article. ] (]) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Tucker did not say he was "more or only" concerned with low IQ in blacks. And his view is certainly . I peered through the two Mackintosh books listed in the references and failed to find he discussed Jensen's 1969 paper at all. I don't know what Flynn reference you'd be referring to here. The Loehlin you linked above doesn't go into this question at all--it is talking about Jensen's fundamental theses-that IQ is a significant measure, its 80% genetically determined, and education can't overcome it. Loehlin does not go into at all Jensen's recommendations about reducing birthrate. | |||
::::::::::::::And I know Tucker is not at all the only one to place an emphasis on race in Jensen's claims and recommendations here. "Jensen stands by his 1969 prediction that the failure to address the dysgenic trend within the Black population will one day be viewed as 'our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans'. He remains deeply concerned about the differential birth rate in the Afro-American population, as revealed by the US census. If this dysgenic trend continues over several generations the Black IQ deficit will inevitably increase, as will the levels of crime, welfare dependency, unemployment and illegitimacy within the Black population.'' A Biographical Appraisal of Arthur Jensen'' Leslie C. Jones 2003. ] (]) 05:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::Yes this material appears in multiple books. There is no question here of ]. The article at present does not use the word "negro" as Jensen freely did in his 1968 paper. ] (]) 05:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
(Outdent) Even if we accept that most secondary sources place this emphasis on Jensen’s desire to reduce the birthrate of blacks with low IQs, I think we still should use a wording that’s at least consistent with sources such as Wooldridge that describe Jensen’s proposal as being just about low IQ in general. I have a suggestion for a compromise about this, which only differs by a single word from the current revision, but I think it accurately describes Tucker’s emphasis on Jensen’s attitude towards low-IQ blacks while still being consistent with Wooldridge’s account also. I hope a change this small won’t be contentious, but if it is, I’d like anyone who isn’t happy with it to explain why they don’t like this next wording either. --] (]) 20:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It don't quite understand why it's necessary to write a long paragraph like this to justify the insertion of one word. ] (]) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::As David.Kane pointed out at AN/I, you have a tendency to make a big deal about any edits other people make to material you’ve added to this article, and to assume they’re malicious even if they aren’t. Even if this wasn’t obvious before, I think your reaction when David.Kane tried to fix the sourcing in this paragraph makes it clear that it generally requires extraordinary effort from any of us to get you to not react this way. | |||
::That’s intended as constructive criticism, by the way. You obviously have the ability to contribute a lot of useful content to articles like these, and I think you could benefit them a lot if you could learn to resolve disputes with other editors without immediately seeking sanctions at AN/I against whoever you disagree with. I fully expect you to reply to this with some sort of personal attack trying to justify why all of the rest of us have been making it impossible for you to edit cooperatively, and I guess that’s okay: the article still ''is'' being improved; it just takes several times longer this way than it would if the person disagreeing with us were someone like Ludwigs2, who has the same opinions that you do but is easier to get along with. --] (]) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I would strongly encourage all editors to stop the meta discussion and comment only on the content of the article and not other editors or their behaviour. ] 05:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I have been ignoring most of what has been written here, because, as Maunus writes, it is completely unrelated to any content that is being added or could be added or for that matter to how wikipedia articles are written. Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Bias? == | |||
I'm not quite sure why this article is still tagged as being biased. What is the claimed bias and why does it not represent the sources used? The inflammatory article by ] does not appear to satisfy ]. It it similar to a book by John Denton Carter, which contains inflammatory statements about eminent anthropologists like ]. These statements could never be added to wikipedia. ] (]) 06:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Is it your place to say what's inflammatory and who's eminent? ] (]) 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Ahem, that is how we decide whether something is a ] on wikipedia. Statements like this by JDC are inflammatory and could not be used on wikipedia - just try inserting that material in the article ] and see what happens. Nyborg writes in a similar way about ], and including material like that would be a BLP violation. I don't know why you mention eminence. | |||
Since you're here, perhaps you could answer the question on bias. As far as I can see, almost everything has been covered neutrally and carefully. (Perhaps the use of tests by US immigration authorities might be included at some stage in the early history.) ] (]) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Fran'''k''' Boas?! lol.] 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::What are the relevant disputes over Nyborg, Boas, Luria and JDC that directly relate to the tag in this article? ] (]) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Kudos to MathSci == | |||
Kudos to MathSci for the amazing job he has done with this article. It is superb. I might have an objection to some phrasing here and there (especially with regard to the description of Jensen (1969)), but progress has been made on those disputes in the past and I hope for more progress in the future. But, big picture, 99% of the material here is just amazing and accords to the very best standards of Misplaced Pages. Indeed, perhaps it should be nominated as a featured article? ] (]) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that overall, this article is pretty good now, although I still have some NPOV issues with it also. My main objection at the moment is to the paragraph describing Jensen's interaction with right-wing groups in Europe, which seems to cherry-pick information about Jensen in order to cast him in a negative light. If this is how the sources describe this topic, the problem is probably that the selection of sources being used for this paragraph isn’t balanced enough, since three out of four of them take a very negative view of Jensen and his theories. If we're going to describe Jensen's involvement in politics, I think we should also mention the fact that he not only avoided involvement with segregationists in the United States; he also made it clear at several points that he was morally opposed to the idea of racial segregation. I also notice that Mathsci has also added Linda Gottfredson's article "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud" as a source, but none of the information in Gottfredson's article is actually presented here. I think the Misplaced Pages article would benefit from the addition of some content from this source. | |||
:None of these things should be all that difficult to change, though, as long as Mathsci can be careful to keep the article in compliance with NPOV. I agree that as long as he's being careful about this, he can produce some very good articles. --] (]) 02:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::There's a harvtxt link to the Gottfredson article. I don't see a particular reason to include any more of her political statements, unless a reliable secondary source has quoted them. The essence of her argument has been made: those that do not agree with her point of view, that there is a genetic basis for racial differences in intelligence, are lying. Isn't that what she has written? Adding more examples of such statements would be ] (it obviously isn't inaccurate), unless as I say reliable secondary sources have mentioned those aspects. But after all, isn't Gottfredson a relatively minor figure academically? By contrast ], ], ], ] or ] are not particularly well represented from the point of view of their scientific contributions to the debate or their academic eminence. That said, the article is not really very much about science. In part it charts what happens when researchers from one discipline - ] - try to use ideas from very different disciplines - ] and ] - with no formal training and with very unclear motivation. | |||
::In looking for new images (very difficult due to copyright on WP), I did by chance watch this video of Rushton talking about bushmen of the Kalahari and Australian aborigines as part of a talk he gave at the 2006 AmRen conference (he seems to have posted this video himself).<nowiki></nowiki> Right at the end he talks about Flynn "cherry picking". Is this real life imitating the talk pages of wikipedia? I'd be more interested to see a talk in front of an unconverted audience. ] (]) 10:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::''In part it charts what happens when researchers from one discipline - psychology - try to use ideas from very different disciplines - evolutionary biology and genetics - with no formal training and with very unclear motivation.'' | |||
:::This is an incredibly crass statement. In your opinion, behavioural genetics is an invalid discipline, and the article should reflect this? Do you have some kind of fundamental objection to interdisciplinarianism? I'm not actually aware of any ''valid'' criticism of Jensen's use of genetics, so why would you say this? ] (]) 11:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::A defense of interdisciplinarty sounds rather funny coming from you Mike. When I talked about how most Anthopologists rejected the Jensenist race and intelligence paradigm you were very quick to state that anthropologists opinions about genetics related subjects shouldn't count. Yesterday I presented Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidds opinions on the (in)validity of race as a biological concept and you were quick to dismiss suggesting that no authority in genetics had the same opinion (and when presented with two topnotch geneticist expressing the same opinion in several (admittedly second hand) quotes you dismissed them as well.) You are not being very consistent in your application of scientific rigour here...] 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::(ec) @Mikemikev: As far as I'm aware ] was not properly established in 1969. The first journal ] appeared in 1971. None of the researchers on race and intelligence publish or are currently classified as working in that area as far as I know. Sociobiologists do, but that's a different topic. The statement I made - a general vague meta-comment - was just an aside, not a topic for ]. Lots of biologists have criticized Jensen's use of biology - I couldn't possibly comment whether they were right or wrong. Anyway wikipedia is not about ]. ] (]) 11:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Maunus, you're confusing interdisciplinary and out of field. Whether race has biological validity is purely a question for biologists. Incidentally, I can reference a paper and a book from some apex sources where the answer is yes. Whether the racial IQ gap has a genetic component is very much interdisciplinary. ] (]) 12:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::“The essence of her argument has been made: those that do not agree with her point of view, that there is a genetic basis for racial differences in intelligence, are lying. Isn't that what she has written?” | |||
::::::Actually no, and if you read the article from her, she makes it pretty clear that this isn’t her point. Her actual point is explained in the first paragraph of the article: | |||
::::::“Social science today condones and perpetuates a great falsehood - one that undergirds much current social policy. This falsehood, or "egalitarian fiction," holds that racial-ethnic groups '''never''' differ in average developed intelligence (or, in technical terms, g, the general mental ability factor). '''While scientists have not yet determined their source''', the existence of sometimes large group differences in intelligence is as well-established as any fact in the social sciences. How and why then is this falsehood perpetrated on the public?” | |||
::::::Her point isn’t that academics are lying when they claim that there’s no genetic basis for the difference in average IQ between races, it’s that they’re lying when they claim that there’s '''no difference in average IQ between races at all'''. And then she goes on to explain how the claim that there’s no racial IQ gap is propagated, and how it affects the academic community. She also points out that the proportion of experts holding each opinion about the cause of the gap, as documented in the Snyderman and Rothman study, is also being misrepresented in the media. (Although that isn’t her main point.) | |||
::::::Something else you should keep in mind is that this article is itself a secondary source. The primary source that it’s summarizing is the Snyderman and Rothman study, which was published in its own separate book. For these reasons, I don’t think there’s any good reason for the Misplaced Pages article to not include any of what’s in Gottfredson’s article. And as I said, I think the section describing Jensen’s involvement in politics needs more balance also. | |||
::::::Are you willing to allow these things to be changed? I can try changing them myself, if I can trust you to not repeatedly revert me if I do. --] (]) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Mathsci, if you have any objection to what I'm proposing, I'd like you to please explain it now, so we won't end up having an edit war over this when I try to add it. --] (]) 01:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
How about adding it like this? | |||
::::::::Focus on secondary sources. Primary sources can be only be used here with ''extreme'' care. If this is a notable topic, secondary sources will identify ''why'' it's notable, ''what'' kinds of claims and arguments are important, and ''who'' warrants mention and to what degree. I can't help but notice from the talk page there may be some confusion about the focus is supposed to be here. This article is not to rehash the debate. It's to describe key events and issues that took place in the debate. It's not about plugging holes or reviving the debate before a new set of judges. In articles about controversial topics, if an editor is looking in primary sources to select arguments or issues to address here, 99 times out of 100 it's going too far with primary sources. ] (]) 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I agree with Professor marginalia, especially when the primary sources are controversial or polemic as is the case here. Looking at the secondary source I used (Winston), he has a footnote which discredits Gottfredson's interpretation: | |||
:::::::::{{blockquote|Rushton's (1994) notion of the "equalitarian fiction" is that Blacks and Whites are genetically equal in cognitive ability. Gotffredson's (1994) notion of the "egalitarian fiction" is that "racial-ethnic groups never differ in average developed intelligence" (p. 53). I have never seen a scholarly source which maintained that groups never show mean differences in intelligence test scores. Gottfredson gives no reference for anyone who holds this position.}} | |||
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014188</ref><ref>https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/analysis-11m-people-ties-more-thousand-snps-educational-attainment</ref> The distribution of these genetic variants across races is consistent with the environmental explanation for observed racial differences in IQ scores.<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/</ref><ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803</ref> | |||
:::::::::In other words the ''secondary source'' indicates that the ''primary source'' is making untenable assertions. That's why we use secondary sources in cases like this. ] (]) 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
*{{noping|93.149.193.190}} was blocked for edit-warring on this article on 15 September 2021. As a result the article was semi-protected for one year by ]. There have been persistent copy-cat attempts by IPs from Milan to add to the lede variants of a proposed new paragraph (e.g. just above). None of these proposals have gained consensus from regular editors. Might it therefore not be a reasonable idea to semi-protect this talk page for a brief period (one month?), as EdJohnston previously suggested on ]? ] (]) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
*:Yes I would agree with semi protection. When there are attempts to IP hop or repeatedly use different IPs to introduce the same content against consensus on the talk page, I think it is warranted for a short period. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
*::@] I would recommend ]. They may do nothing but it's at least worth a try... — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
*:::'''Done.''' ] (]) 23:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
*::::Thanks to {{noping|El_C}} for responding to the semi-protection request and logging it so promptly. ] (]) 07:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
Whats wrong with that paragraph guys. I would have thought you would love it. | |||
::::::::::As I said, Gottfredson’s paper is a secondary source; the primary source she’s writing about is the Snyderman and Rothman study, which is what originally documented the existence of this discrepancy between the views or researchers and what’s reported in the media. If you read the Snyderman and Rothman study, you can see for yourself what data this study’s conclusion (and hence Gottfredson’s conclusion) is based on. You’ve provided another secondary source which disagrees with Gottfredson’s conclusion, although apparently not commenting on the primary source which Gottfredson’s conclusion is based on, and which is about as strongly opinionated as Gottfredson’s article is. What do we do at Misplaced Pages when there are two conflicting viewpoints about a topic that both appear in the source literature? The answer is to include them both. | |||
] (]) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
:As explained, this proposal is ]/], which is against Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 23:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
It is neither and you know it. Both articles are published in reputable scientific journals. The paragraph says exactly what the articles say. The only reason you do not want the content to be included is because, even though the article says they do not, the polygenic scores in fact DO support a genetic component to the gap. And you hate the idea that people might actually check and realise what these polygenic scores mean. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::::::We’ve done this for lots of other parts of the article, such as mentioning that some sources associate Shockley with Jensen becoming a hereditarian, while Jensen himself credits Eysenck for this. What I’m suggesting is that we present Gottfredson’s view about the Snyderman and Rothman study, as well as any other views we can find also. If Winston talks about this study specifically, then that includes him. --] (]) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Not sure I understand what your meaning here. I couldn't locate what claim Gottfredson 1994 is supposedly referencing. If she's a secondary source, what claim is it referencing? The fact that someone issues an opinion i]doesn't necessarily insure it's a notable opinion. ] (]) 03:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Ideas? ] (]) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Gottfredson is summarizing the conclusions of both a 1987 academic paper by Snyderman and Rothman, and a book these authors wrote the following year in which they present the conclusions of their study as well as some additional data they’d gathered about the same topic. The original study is , which was published in Vol 42(2) of ''American Psychologist'', and the book is . | |||
==Section on free speech and free academic discourse== | |||
::::::::::::Were you just wanting me to point you to the primary sources that she’s summarizing, or did you want me to go into more detail about them? If it’s the latter, this study has ] also. --] (]) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|IP-hopping troll. See ]. ] (]) 15:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
:::::::::::::I'm sorry, I meant what claim in <u>this</u> article is being cited? ] (]) 04:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
How about we include a section on the free speech and academic discourse surrounding this issue. | |||
The firing of Noah Carl and Stephen Hsu, the stripping of honours of James Watson, the attempts to fire Amy Wax and JP Rushton, the physical violence against Charles Murray in Middlebury College, and the fact that Sam Harris said to Ezra Klein that he has scientists whose names would be well known to him, who have stellar reputations, who agree with him, and who are terrified of speaking out. | |||
Let me know and I will write the paragraph and get the references. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::::::::::Do you mean what claim in the Misplaced Pages article? Right now, nothing in this article is being cited to the article by Gottfredson, although Mathsci has added the Gottfredson article as a source. And what I’m suggesting is that now that Gottfredson’s article is being listed as a source here, we should add some content that’s actually cited to this article, because Gottfredson’s article discusses some notable and relevant topics that currently aren’t covered here. | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Reversion == | |||
::::::::::::::Do you agree that now that this article is listed as a source, it would reasonable to add some of its content to the article? --] (]) 04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::No. I don't have an opinion yet. So let me ask further, why was it added as a source? ] (]) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi, does anyone know why my contribition was deleted? ] (]) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::You need to ask Mathsci that. He’s who added it as a source, and I have no idea why he added it if he was opposed to including any information from it in the article. --] (]) 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Fair enough. But I shouldn't be the only one here asking this question. We need to focus on how to properly craft a ''wikipedia'' article, not how to shoehorn in whatever with legalisticy appeals to fine-printy-ish technical loopholes. ] (]) 05:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:My bad. I jumped the gun in assuming this edit was Fq90 (a long-term abuser who has been evading their block to push a pro-fringe POV and trying to use mentions of polygenic scores to shoehorn that POV into R&I articles). Apologies to 98.153.62.223. That doesn't appear to have been your intent at all. However the edit copies verbatim from the R&I FAQ, so would need to be attributed in the edit summary (e.g. "content copied from ] FAQ"). A much more minor point is that I'm not sure whether the content in question is necessary, but that can be discussed. Again, sorry for the false accusation. ] (]) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::You aren’t being clear about whether or not you think this information actually belongs in the article. I think it does, for the same reason as every other piece of information that’s in the article: because it’s relevant, notable, and described in several secondary sources, one of which Mathsci has already added to the article’s list of sources. If you consider this a “loophole”, or have some other problem with adding it to the article, you haven’t explained what your objection is to this. | |||
:Anyone who is curious –– and not yet familiar –– can ] and work their way down the page through subsequent threads. ] (]) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:: I see, I was wondering what the Fq90 was. The reason I came to the article is because I teach genetics and evolution and this year two black students in a row have come to me with these polygenic scores asking about how to interpret them. It looks like the latest iteration of the usual racist pseudoscience peddling we are all familiar with. I do not work in this area specifically but as a biologist, I think ] is a good part of the explanation, unfortunately, I did not find any published work making that case, although I thought the article cited in the Q&A was pretty good. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::::::::::::::If you think there’s something wrong with adding information from this source, I would like you to explain specifically what it is. ] is never a valid reason to not include something. --] (]) 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::I'm trying to be clear that we need more than yours, my, or any other wikieditor's opinion about what "belongs" because our opinions in "history of race/evolution controversy" don't count. What "counts" is what published reference materials indicate "counts". After two run-throughs all I've gathered is a) Mathsci added Gottfredson 1994 to the biblio and b) you say it's secondary to Snyderman-Rothman. Well, Snyderman - Rothman I don't see sourcing any claims anywhere in the article. All I have found is that it was added as a ''See also'' by a soon-after banned sock account. Neither auspicious perches from which to launch ''notability'' defenses, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a mind-reader. So make a case why her opinions in this article are notable here? ] (]) 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Bird 2021 is indeed a good paper. And hearing more about what brought you here makes me want to apologize once again. For reference, this is what that long-term abuser posted on my user talk page just the other day (referencing polygenic scores): . But that doesn't excuse me for jumping the gun like that. To save you some time, here's how I explained why discussion of that paper doesn't belong in the Race and intelligence article in one of those past discussions I linked above: {{bq|The reason is that it's not clear that the views this study refutes are notable for inclusion in the article. If there were multiple reliable independent sources like this refuting those views then the situation would be different. The recent history is that an overtly racist IP argued for adding it after their more direct strategy of POV-pushing failed. It seems they figured they could use this study as a Trojan horse to justify presenting hereditarian arguments in more detail or something of that nature. Regardless, the basic issue is that this study does not appear to be DUE for inclusion when the views it refutes have so far not been considered to be. Further, if it were to be included, it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading. And it's not at all clear that such a detailed presentation would be DUE.}} Anyway, I'm open to being persuaded but that's the background. "DUE" in that quote refers to our core policy of presenting views in relation to ] weight. Cheers, ] (]) 02:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::The reason why nothing in the article is cited to the Snyderman and Rothman study (or the accompanying book) is because Mathsci considers Snyderman and Rothman a primary source, and therefore won’t allow it to be cited here. Well, if we can’t discuss this study while citing it directly because it’s a primary source, then the obvious solution is to discuss this study while citing it to some of the secondary sources that discuss it, just like we do for any other topic in this article. One of those secondary sources is Gottfredson’s article. It isn’t her views themselves that are notable, it’s the study itself; and her paper happens to be one of the several secondary sources we can use to discuss it. | |||
::::Thanks for the welcome! I am very sorry about that creep. It is obvious from just a cursory reading of their posts that they do not know the first thing about genetics. This is precisely the problem in this area, racists jump on data they do not have the qualifications to interpret and impose their pre-existing biases on it. I think we should be prepared to set the scientific record straight, and I am afraid we are not doing enough to counter the spread of this pseudoscience. I have not seen more peer-reviewed papers specifically addressing educational attainment. However, there is a lot of literature on why polygenic score comparisons between different ancestral populations are invalid. Maybe we can include these as well.<ref> https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222</ref><ref> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01549-6</ref><ref> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28366442/</ref>] (]) 03:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::If you need to be convinced that the Snyderman and Rothman study itself is notable, look at some of the sources discussing this study that are cited by the article about it. Several proponents of the hereditarian hypothesis have brought up this study as demonstrating that their ideas aren’t as controversial within their field as the media makes them out to be, while opponents of the hereditarian hypothesis such as Ferguson, Kouyate and Taylor describe this study as meaning that racism is common among psychologists. This study is at least as notable as some of the other topics presented in the current article, such as statement from the Association of Black Psychologists. --] (]) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::I would like to see a writeup of your proposed addition of the Gottfredson material, that would make it easier for me to determine whether I think it would be an overall benefit to the article or give undue weight to certain viewpoints. Apriori I don't see why a secondary analysis of a survey of opinions from psychologists should not be includable, but it would of course depend on how it is used in the article.] 07:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
(ec) Captain Occam seems not to be reading what I have written. If we add a quote that is used in a secondary sourcce, we add the secondary source plus the primary source from which it came. We do not add our own additional comments on what we think the primary source says, or even pick quotes. An example of that occurs in the "early history" section where the writings of ] are discussed. Captain Occam or Slrubenstein might have strong feelings about some of the things written in that primary source, but we have to take all the analysis from the secondary source. The writings of Gottfredson on this topic are similar. Captaub or Slrubenstein might have strong feelings about some of the things she writes, but if they have not been voiced by a secondary source, we simply cannot comment. This has been the pattern of editing in this article from the beginning. But if some new wikipedian, say EvaLaPen, came along, took a look at the 1933 tract of Cattell, thought it was all absolutely ], just like her favourite work ], and starting adding her summary of those sentences as if they were ], we'd be in trouble, wouldn't we? That's of course an exaggeration, but it makes the point rather clearly. I don't see how we can distinguish between the primary sources of ] or ]. That's why we use secondary sources in the case of controversial articles. To avoid confusion, I have added the exact contents of Andrew Winston's footnote as a footnote to the wikipedia article. ] (]) 07:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::These are all really helpful explainers on polygenic scores! They may be useful if we need to further substantiate the R&I FAQ at some point, or in our main article ] (the second one is cited several times there but the others are not). However, when it comes to this article, we'd be running up against another one of Misplaced Pages's core policies, ] which means we can't cite articles that do not mention intelligence or I.Q. to make claims about intelligence or I.Q. We have to leave that kind of synthetic argumentation to scholars publishing out there in the world, and only once those publications are published can we report on what they say. The specific part of that policy that's relevant here is called ]. So if you're interested in applying the insights from those papers to the topic of race and intelligence, I would suggest trying to get something published, ideally in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal (as a rule of thumb, never add a ref you've written yourself but you can always bring it to other editors' attention on the talk page). Obviously publications like that take a ton of time and effort, but that really is what's required. ] (]) 03:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Mathsci, ]. Gottfredson’s article '''is''' a secondary source, which is summarizing a primary source. (The primary source is the Snyderman and Rothman study.) And there are also other secondary sources which discuss this primary source, so Gottfredson doesn’t have to be the only secondary source about it that we use about it. Maunus understands this, and wants to see a proposed addition to the article summarizing this study using secondary sources such as Gottfredson’s article. Can you accept that? --] (]) 08:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::No it's a primary source from which the quotes in the secondary source have been taken. That has been standard ediitng practice in this article, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that, ]. A footnote has been added, which you seem to have ignored. I don't see any point in discussing a controversial primary source. I should wait to see what the others think. It would be nice if you could find a way of discussing content that did not continually involve arguments that involve violating wikipedia editing policies. Just to make my point again, the article of ] is also a primary source. Your line of reasoning - that he is discussing other articles in his article - would make it a secondary source. So your argument just looks like wikilawyering to me. ] (]) 08:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Hi, sorry I thought your last reversion was a mistake, since all of the articles are about race and intelligence. Could you please be more specific as to what claims in my last contribution are not in the sources?] (]) 01:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Mathsci, what’s your definition of a secondary source? Is it the same as Misplaced Pages’s? This is Misplaced Pages’s definition: | |||
::::::: I reverted that, the content is objectively not synthesis. GeneralRelative should read the articles cited, they are all about Race and Intelligence.] (]) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::“Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.” | |||
:::::::: Thank you, I made an effort to find articles specifically on race and intelligence because I found out why those black kids were asking me about those polygenic scores, it turns out an anonymous facebook user was posting them in a campus debate group and using them to promote racist pseudoscience. I was glad to see that actual scientists have already comprehensively rebutted this in the peer-reviewed literature.] (]) 03:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::You haven’t even attempted to explain how Gottfredson’s analysis of the Snyderman and Rothman study is a primary source rather than a secondary one. Unless you do, your argument is nothing but ] and ], with a few personal attacks thrown in for good measure. --] (]) 08:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
:::::I think we are confusing some things here, a source can be primary and secondary at the same time. And we are allowed to use primary sources, when we agree that the way we use them is unproblematic. Gottfredson is a primary source of her own opinion and a secondary source of Snyderman & Rothman's conclusions. I think Mathsci is worried that Gottfredson's analysis of Snyderman & Rothman is not necessarily congruent with other analyses of that source since she evaluates it from one a particular viewpoint. That is however not a problem of Gottfredsson being a primary source, but rather a problem of whether she is a sufficiently objective source to be used for making objective second hand claims about other studies. This problem can be avoided by making it clear that the viewpoint included is an expression of her own personal analysis. The question then becomes whether her opinion is notable and/or requires balancing by a second opinion. That is why I don't think there is an apriori reason that we shouldn't be able to include her opinions about Snyderman & Rothman's study, but I need to see a concrete example in order to see whether it can be done in a neutral way and whether it contributes valuable information to the article. I'd be concerned whether her evaluation of the studies can be seen as sufficiently neutral not to require a second opinion for balance, in which case it might be preferable to include a third more neutral opinion or not to include opinions about the study at all.] 09:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Please read ] and wait until ''after'' a consensus about this has been reached here before reinserting disputed content. Thanks. ] (]) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't agree in this case in using Gottfredson, for precisely the reasons you give - see below. The correct thing to do in this case, if details of the Snyderman and Rothman study are to be included, would be to find reliable secondary sources that discuss the report (not too hard). That is how that kind of editing would go. Preferably a disinterested commentator not directly involved in any of the debates from a historical perspective. Graham Richard perhaps? In the 1970s there were plenty of petitions and letters to newspapers by lobbying groups from the right and the left, which have not been discussed in detail. Anyway here the right approach is to look for neutral secondary sources if the S&R report is to be mentioned. ] (]) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::(ec) There is no reason for any wikipedia editor to discuss a primary source like Gottfredson's paper. Gottfredson is another player in the Bell Curve debate, in the same way that ] was. In Tucker's 2002 book on page 180, he gives his summary of her 1994 article, written in the full heat of the Bell Curve furore: | |||
::::{{blockquote|Linda Gottfredson, professor of education at the University of Delaware, and codirector, along with Gordon, of the Project for the Study of Intelligence in Society, argued that the socioeconomic inequality between races was the expected outcome of lower black intelligence and insisted that much "current social policy" was based on a "collective fraud", perpetuated by scientists who refused to acknowledge the intellectual inferiority of blacks.}} | |||
::::In his footnotes (page 265), Tucker references page 53 and 55 in Gottfredson's article. We can obviously use a paraphrase of any of the above. It's enough using secondary sources. For example it's quite esay to locate secondary sources describing how in print Gottfredson claimed that another Pioneer grantee ] had no connections with the far right (Tucker, page 206, wikilinks my own): | |||
::::{{blockquote|Particularly absurd was Gottfredson's assertion that Roger Pearson—one of the most important figures in the post-war Nazi movement, who boasted knowning "on good authority" Hitler's own words, created and published the ''New Patriot'' dedicated exclusively to anti-Semitic diatribes, and corresponded openly with leading figures in the ]—had refused to have any contact with ] after learning that his devoted assistant had been a party member. And, according to Gottfredson, Pearson's '']''—in which his pseudonymous contributions maintained that the tendency to "distrust and repel" members of other races was a biological imperative and that interracial marriages were a "perversion" of natural instincts—was merely a "multicultural journal" interested in "diversity ... as an object of dispassionate study."}} | |||
::::Perhaps that's something useful to add to the article: it has an attached primary source, a 1990 letter from the ] archives. What do you think? ] (]) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
If the disputed content is rewritten so that it directly represents the sources (that is, if the ] issue is resolved), then a second task is to make the text accessible to readers. Please see ]. Perusing the proposed text, I see the terms ''genome-wide'', ''genetic loci'', ''population structure'', ''assortative mating'', ''population substructure'', and ''polygenic''. I'd wager that most Misplaced Pages readers who do not have specialized training in genetics or related fields would have no clear understanding of what any of those terms mean. Those terms can and should be translated into commonly understood English. ] (]) 11:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree that Gottfredson would be a primary source about the debate over The Bell Curve, since she was directly involved in it. However, the information I’m wanting to add to the article is not about The Bell Curve, it’s about a 1987 study that Gottfredson had nothing to do with. As Maunus pointed out in his comment, it’s possible for a source to be primary about some topics and secondary about others, and on this topic she’s a secondary source. | |||
:Agreed. IP 98.153.62.223: I am not categorically opposed to including content broadly similar to what you're seeking to add, but I think we need to carefully unpack what each of these sources is claiming and how it relates to the topic of race and intelligence. As is stands, I see only two of the sources you've mentioned as being transparently germane to the topic. The first, Bird et al. , has already been discussed. My views on that one should be clear. The second, , is more dodgy, notably because one of the co-authors is a notorious (around here) racist pseudoscience promoter. See . That doesn't mean it can never be considered DUE for inclusion, but the bar is certainly higher. The other four sources you've cited appear to me to represent SYNTH because they are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page, i.e. purported group-level differences in intelligence intelligence between racial groups. One discusses how polygenic scores may be useful when assessing propensity for intelligence among ''individual'' African Americans, a group which had previously been poorly represented in such studies, but which does not discuss the idea of purported group-level differences between races. Another source discusses polygenic scores in relation to intelligence but does not discuss race at all. A third mentions the word "intelligence" in conjunction with educational attainment but does not make any positive claims about how the two concepts may be related, and indeed, in the bit you quote from they are talking about the latter rather than the former. Finally, the ''Nature'' article you've cited does not mention intelligence at all. So it's not at all clear to me how these sources add up to a non-synthetic argument about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page which is DUE for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I hope that makes sense. ] (]) 12:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::If you think Gottfredson isn’t neutral enough, then that’s an entirely separate issue. However, as Maunus said, the solution to that is just to make it clear that what she’s expressing is her own opinion, and provide other sources to balance it. Can you agree to what Maunus is suggesting? --] (]) 09:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::Brief sentences on opinion polls and opinion pieces/lobbying could be added if reliable secondary sources are found providing appropriate context. We're not not here to establish ]. Best to try to look for secondary sources that give an uninvolved historical commentary. Certainly wikipedians shouldn't try to write history themslves by a "he said, she said" method. That leads to poor or misleading wikipedia articles. As for example can be found at ] which I have also tagged (and mentioned several times before). ] (]) 10:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: & Oh, ok, I did not know the authors of the paper, I just assumed it to be reliable because it came from Cambridge University press. This paper though does not make any racist claims, just the opposite. Perhaps the author is changing his mind on account of new evidence. | |||
:::::::Would you consider ] an acceptable secondary source about the Snyderman and Rothman study? He’s written about it also. --] (]) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: I think you are just splitting hairs with this one, this one is precisely about differences in educational attainment polygenic score predictive power between blacks and whites. It is clearly about race and intelligence | |||
:::::::I've found one other source about this that I'm hoping you'll consider acceptable: Myron Lieberman's book ''Public education: an autopsy''. If you don't have a problem with either of these sources, I'll add some information from them about this study to the article. (I'll also mention Gottfredson's analysis, but make it clear that this is her own personal opinion, following Maunus's suggestion.) --] (]) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: does discuss race, they just call it ancestry, see the quote I provided: | |||
::::::::Please put comments about S&R below in the next section with the exact source. It's impossible to tell what you mean by a link to a wikipedia page of an author. Anyway what we do is look for all possible sources, hoping that there is some neutral historical account, not yet another person expressing a point of view about a multiple choice survey. I would allow a few days because wikipedians are very busy in real life. There is no rush. ] (]) 11:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Given that greater than 70% of GWAS participants are of European descent (Need and Goldstein 2009; Popejoy and Fullerton 2016; N. A. Rosenberg et al. 2010), the implications of this problem of portability are that PGS for EA and IQ are more likely to misidentify the outcomes of individuals of non-European ancestry who were historically and are currently disadvantaged in American classrooms. | |||
:::::::::All I’m asking is whether you think John B. Carroll is sufficiently uninvolved in this issue for you to consider him neutral. Since your problem with using Gottfredson as a source is that you consider her to be too heavily involved in this debate, which is independent of any specific paper from her, you should be able to answer this question about Carroll without me having to tell you what paper from him I’m hoping to use. --] (]) 11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Moot, now. In future please (a) respond in the new section on this topic below as requested (b) providing precise references when requested. I did my own exhaustive literature search, and looked at everything available using citation indexes. I chose Jencks, Flynn and Sternberg as academics who seem to be undisputed leaders in the subject of psychometry. I added Gottfredson since she has written so many articles on this matter and seems to have become the spokesperson for the hereditarian school. ] (]) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::How is it moot? ] (]) 15:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: When you said: | |||
== ] == | |||
:::mentions the word "intelligence" in conjunction with educational attainment | |||
::did you mean to say “race” rather than “intelligence”? I think you may have a typo there as in the literature “intelligence” and “educational attainment” are used interchangeably. EA is what is known as an instrumental variable for intelligence, as intelligence cannot be directly measured. | |||
There is already a wikipedia article - but it is completely ureliable because it has been extensively rewritten fairly recently by {{user|Varoon Arya}} to remove all criticism. Here is an old version, before the POV-pushing: | |||
::If you did mean race, did you read the article or just the abstract? The article is all about race and intelligence. | |||
::The Nature article does mention intelligence, it just calls it cognitive performance, and has this to say about how it relates to race and racism: | |||
Here is an account (opinion piece?) published in ] by ] (pronounced "wire") of the ]: | |||
:::In our analysis of possible relationships between average phenotypes for worldwide populations and average polygenic scores for those populations, we chose to examine height because it is easily measured and because factors affecting height (e.g., nutrition) are also relatively easily quantified. In contrast, research on other variables such as weight, smoking status, psychological symptoms, and cognitive performance requires more careful control for environmental confounders (including variables like social status), which are often correlated with ancestry and therefore may also be correlated with global principal components and polygenic scores (as currently calculated). This means that confounding of environmental and genetic effects is likely. For example, social experiences such as being subjected to racism are prime candidates for confounding in genetic studies.] (]) 14:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
::::I agree with 98.153.62.223 all of the articles are clearly about race and intelligence. There is no synthesis here. Regarding the issue of technical language, that is why I included their links to their respective articles ] (]) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree with both the IPs. Racist pseudoscientists have been twaddling about this since at least 2014… watch this one from 40:35 . We cannot allow them to continue to have a monopoly on this data. The content seems very well written to me, and clearly it is not SYNTH. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Have you looked at that talk page for that article, Mathsci? The criticism that was removed had been tagged as synth for over a year, because all of it was from sources that ''did not actually mention the Snyderman and Rothman study''. Both Varoon Arya and Ramdrake have searched for criticisms of this study published in reliable sources that specifically discuss this study, and all of the criticisms they’ve been able to find which aren’t synth have been included in the article. If you can find any other criticisms that aren’t synth and which have been published in reliable sources, though, you’re welcome to suggest them. --] (]) 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::IP: 98.153.62.223: To answer in brief, yes I did read each of them, quite carefully; no I did not mean to write "race" instead of "intelligence"; and no, you cannot simply assume that when authors speak about "educational attainment" they mean "intelligence" (that is quite a leap). ] (]) 16:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Firstly, Ramdrake has been in hospital for several months since November and seems only to have come out fairly recently. I hope everything is going well for him at the moment. | |||
::I'm not interested in editing that article - it seems unneutral, unbalanced and written as some kind of synthesis. Both it and ] are pushing a point of view which is probably not mainstream and therefore ]. They are certainly both unreliable for any purposes here. But finding properly sourced historical commentary for this article is another quite separate matter. | |||
::We should be hunting for reasonable historical commentaries in neutral ]. ] (]) 10:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: I do not think it is "quite a leap" I think this is, like 98.153.62.223 woudl say, hair splitting. The word education is used 56 times in this article. While we are here splitting hairs hate mongering groups are misusing this data to spread their poison, and people who come to this article leave with no ammo to counter it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Archive == | |||
::::::I share your concerns, but Misplaced Pages is not in the business of supplying ammo. See e.g. ]. And of course one person's "splitting hairs" is another person's, ya know, stating their case. I will be very happy to collaborate with you to find text that does convey these arguments in a way that is consistent with policy if we can find a way to do so. And if we can, I'd be even more happy to add it to the main article ], where more eyes will see it. But we cannot play fast and loose with policy in order to right great wrongs, and we must certainly not treat public discourse as a battlefield –– even if that's how it feels sometimes. ] (]) 23:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
This page seriously needs to be archived. The scroll bar is 5 pixals tall! ] (]) 10:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::It is indeed a huge leap to say that we can substitute ''intelligence'' for ''educational attainment'' in wikivoice. That would mean that anyone with a PhD is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone with a Masters, anyone with a high school diploma is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone whose formal education was cut short, and so on. There's no consensus, either among the general public, among Misplaced Pages editors, or among scholars that ''intelligence'' means the same thing as ''educational attainment''. ] (]) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
== BLP related deletion about Jensen == | |||
:::::: No it would not mean that that would mean that anyone with a PhD is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone with a Masters, anyone with a high school diploma is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone whose formal education was cut short, and so on, because this is a correlation, not a one to one correspondence. You do not need to think everyone who smokes will get lung cancer to acknowledge that there is a correlation between somking and lung cancer. And no one is arguing that EA and intelligence are the same thing. All I am saying is that scientific papers have to deal with quantifiable phenomena. There is no single number you can give to assess a person's intelligence. You can however, give a single number saying how many years of education they have, and that gives you some idea how intelligent they are in certain areas. Since we are only commenting on this article now, are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis? ] (]) 22:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
I have deleted a controversial sentence that we have argued about before. It was: "He also concluded <ref>{{harvnb|Tucker|2002|pages=148,255}}</ref> that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs, particularly in the black population, and that as students they should be taught by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote, not through conceptual explanation.<ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|1969|p=95,115}}</ref>" An uninvolved editor at ] pointed out that he could not verify it. I agree. See there for the full discussion. Summary: When making extreme claims about a living person, the standard of proof is higher. You can't claim that Jensen made eugenics claim relating to the black population without clear evidence that he did so. Tucker saying so is not enough. (I will also note that the references to Jensen (1969) are false. Pages 95 and 115 say nothing of the sort. (Please read ] for background.) ] (]) 16:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Educational attainment correlates with a lot of things, for example parental income. But we could not in wikivoice make a statement about parental income sourced to an article that talks about educational attainment and doesn't mention parental income. | |||
:::::::::You mention smoking. I think that, at least in the US, educational attainment also correlates with non-smoking. So would we make a statement about non-smoking sourced to an article about educational attainment? ] (]) 02:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{tq|are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis?}} No. See my comment above of 12:06, 7 October. ] (]) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: <small>] removed. ] (]) 23:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC) </small> | |||
:That's absolutely, completely absurd. This is a very weak objection to raise here. Where has Jensen even disputed that he said this in that article? He '''''clearly''''' said it. ] (]) 16:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: I agree, there is no reason this article should ignore the last decade of genetic research over editors who claim a piece of content is SYNTH when it clearly is not. ] (]) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Even if he didn't say it there are so many independent reliable sources that have interpreted his statements in that way that it cannot possibly be a BLP issue. NPOV requires that we present Jensen's own version and that the views of his opponents are attributed as being theirs. Nothing more. ] 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::This isn't a vote, and edit warring by new editors like this in an area that is under sanctions (as well as a very frequent target of sockpuppet edits by long term abusers of Misplaced Pages) is a terrible idea. ] (]) 23:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: If it is not a vote, how is consensus established then? I am sorry some abuser agrees with us that we should add this, but that is no reason for not adding it, Hitler was against smoking I believe, but that does not mean smoking is good. ] (]) 23:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::1) Professor marginalia: Please quote the exact sentence in the article where he said it. 2) I encourage anyone involved here to participate in the conversation at . The only two uninvolved editors (] and ]) to comment there have agreed with me. Summary: Claims about living people require very high standards. It is not enough to note that Tucker (or whoever) said X. 3) "so many independent reliable sources"? Really? Other than Tucker, I am unaware of any other sources that report that Jensen was wanted to reduce the birthrate "particularly in the black population." Can you provide a citation? ] (]) 17:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::You can read about that at ]. This article recently came off of a 1 year protection. Since IP edit warring has resumed, I have requested that protection be restored. - ] (]) 23:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Thanks MrOllie. Unfortunately it seems like that may be necessary. ] (]) 23:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Could you at least explain in light of what I said in response to Generalrelative, why the content is synthesis, I am sorry but I genuinely do not understand, Generalrelative says "The other four sources you've cited appear to me to represent SYNTH because they are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page", but I think I have shown clearly that they are.] (]) 23:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::You were involved when this was previously discussed on the talk page so I don't understand why you're re-raising the dispute here again. Jensen has a section titled, "Genetic Improvement of Intelligence" in which he advocates a "negative eugenics" approach. "There is little doubt that in the long run the surest way of changing the biological basis of intelligence is through genetic selection," he says, but he says it's unlikely to happen because popular attitudes would oppose it. He says though that "at present" a "negative eugenics" approach is a "reasonable answer," discouraging traits that "all humane persons" would agree are "human misfortunes" to be avoided if at all possible, and quotes at length some position of Elizabeth and Sheldon Reed to elevate sterilization rates among the mental retarded. He then goes on to delve into birthrates in the low income "Negro" population which '''clearly''' is of particular concern to Jensen, who repeatedly addresses the implications of links between IQ, academic and economic performance in the context of this population in particular throughout the paper. The disproportionately high birth rates in the lower income (suggestive of lower IQ, Jensen asserts) black population poses the risk, he says, of "the genetic enslavement of a substantial segment of our population". Jensen's cite for this concern is another paper focused on this population by Hill and Jaffee called, "Negro fertility and family size preferences" and published in ''The Negro American''. Jensen writes, "Our failure seriously to investigate these matters may well be viewed by future generations as our society's greatest injustice to Negro Americans." Even Jensen has been more forthright about what he's really said than his defenders at wikipedia seem willing to be. ] (]) 18:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::You are pretty obviously combining multiple sources to make points that no individual source makes explicitly, that is synthesis. ] (]) 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::IP 98.153.62.223: I agree with MrOllie. You simply haven't convinced me that my objections were off base. That said, I really do want to collaborate with you on this. I meant what I said on your talk page that I think you could be a very valuable contributor to this project. But there is a learning curve here. We all run into it once we start to get involved with topics we're passionately connected to. I strongly encourage you to register an account and to continue to contribute in areas relevant to your expertise. ] (]) 00:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} MrOllie: Would you please state the point he is making that is not explicitly in the sources? | |||
::::: "You were involved when this was previously discussed on the talk page so I don't understand why you're re-raising the dispute here again." First, my previous involvement helped to correct a major (?) mistake: asserting that Jensen (1969) said something which, in fact, it did not. Perhaps MathSci's error in that context should have caused me to look more closely. I apologize for my tardiness in revisiting this topic. Second, because I am not an experienced editor, I had never read ] closely before. I just did today. I now understand that a much higher level of proof is called for as long as Jensen is still alive. Third, this is not an open-and-shut case, on either side. That is why I brought the topic to ]. As you can see there , MathSci has received zero support from uninvolved editors. Read the discussion for the details. My summary: You can't claim that something extreme about Jensen unless you can show, directly, that Jensen said it. You can't simply rely on person X saying it. I encourage you to participate in that discussion. | |||
Generalrelative: Why is MrOllie claiming the problem is that he makes a point not in the sources, do you agree with that or do you stand by your claim that the problem is that the sources are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page? You made several false statements to back up that claim, 98.153.62.223 provided exact quotes were the articles discuss the topic of this Misplaced Pages page explicitly. Are you telling us not to believe our lying eyes? ] (]) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:It's the same problem. One way to tell that synthesis is occurring is that the citations are not about the same thing. - ] (]) 02:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::As to the substance, I am happy to believe that all your quotes from Jensen (1969) are accurate. But I don't see how you get from there to what we used to have in the article. You are making a major leap. You can't make such a leap when dealing with a living person. Let me remind you, also, that you claimed above about "so many independent reliable sources." Please provide them. As best I can tell, these claims about Jensen come from Tucker alone. ] (]) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Precisely. ] (]) 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::: It is not the same problem. I take it since you did not provide an example of any points made in the content that are not explicitly in the sources, that you granted that the claims are in the sources, you just agree with Generalrelative that the problem is that the sources are not about race and intelligence. Correct? if not do provide the point you think is not in the sources. ] (]) 02:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::What "leap"? And I didn't say anything about "so many independent reliable sources". It's like the target keeps moving in here...'''where's the beef'''? What do you think the article here claimed that Jensen doesn't? ] (]) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::David.Kane, whose edits yesterday were self-declared to be agnostic, today has made edits that seem to be ]. Not only can the statements of Tucker be read directly in the HER paper, but there are plenty of other primary and secondary sources. There's the 1987 book in which Jensen reiterates these claims. There is his book on Genetics and group differences form 1973. And most directly there is this interview in LIFE magazine which seems fairly unambiguous: . It's not a good sign that RegentsPark disgarees with David.Kane's point of view. ] (]) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Professor marginalia: Apologies! I mistakenly attributed a quote from Maunus to you. My mistake. MathSci: Please provide the exact quote(s) from these sources which justifies this sentence in the article. I agree with you that Tucker makes this claim. I see no other source which makes this claim. ] (]) 21:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You say Tucker said "it". You also agree with what I quoted from Jensen about what ''he'' said, but disagree it agrees with what the claim ''here'' said. To me, all three agree. So once more what, exactly, was ''different'' about how it was formulated here from how it was formulated in Tucker or Jensen? ] (]) 22:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} Professor marginalia: Let me quote the objectionable sentence and take it apart bit by bit. I believe that much of it is fine. The problem is that, taken as a whole, it misleads about Jensen's writings. | |||
*"He also concluded<ref>{{harvnb|Tucker|2002|pages=148,255}}</ref> that some kind of eugenic intervention was needed to reduce the birthrate of those with low IQs . . . " Does Jensen actually write this? Again, I am not denying that Tucker says that he did, but I have trouble coming up with a citation in which Jensen writes: "People with low IQ should be sterilized." or "People with low IQ should be given monetary awards to not have children." Are you aware of such a quote? Again, I could easily be wrong about this. Perhaps Jensen does write something exactly like that. If so, it should certainly be included in the article. | |||
*" . . . , particularly in the black population," I highly doubt that Jensen ever wrote this. He '''may''' have written something claiming that eugenics was "needed" for low IQ people, but he never said that this need was particular to the black population. It may be that, once this clause is removed, the sentence is fine. | |||
*"and that as students they should be taught by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote, not through conceptual explanation." What does the "they" refer to in this sentence? If it is all low IQ students, then I think it is reasonable. Jensen certainly believed that different teaching methods should be used for students of different IQ. But I don't think he ever said (nor do Tucker's citations support that he ever said) that this claim applied more to black low IQ students then it does to Hispanic low IQ students or white low IQ students. | |||
Thanks for taking a look at this. I do not think that you and I, at least, are too far away on what a good sentence would look like. ] (]) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Jensen wrote that "There is little doubt that in the long run the surest way of changing the biological basis of intelligence is through genetic selection. It is a fact that many different behavioral traits, including those we would identify as intelligence, can be changed through selective breeding in lower animals. There is no reason to believe this does not also hold true for the human species. But I doubt that we will see any move in this direction of systematic eugenics in the foreseeable future for several reasons......The reasonable answer, I believe, is to think at present only in terms of <u>negative</u> eugenics rather than in terms of <u>positive</u> eugenics." A secondary source (Tucker) characterizes Jensen's asserting this as a "reasonable answer" to elevating IQ as "advocating". Whereas you are worrying about any "implication" that suggests Jensen would apply this to blacks but not Hispanics is reading too much into it. Jensen himself concentrates on black white differences because (he in other interviews has pointed out) that's the data available. It would be ''false'' to apply this to Hispanics because he didn't in this paper. And it would be ''false'' to pretend that he saw no distinction between black and white remedies. He emphasized the differences themselves, noting the "disparity" between black and white birth rates in what he called the "disadvantaged" class, and he was concerned that continuing on that path would result in even greater black and white group differences. In other words by reducing the low IQ births of blacks the academic/economic gap between blacks and whites in society would lessen. ] (]) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
<= I have added some completely new content and a new secondary source (one of many available), so that the direct quotes of Jensen could be expanded. I realized, on rereading Wooldridge's summary, that I'd left out a significant bit at the end, which has now been inserted. I changed the subclause in the lede and gave a new direct quote from Tucker's 1996 book. Everything is sourced. As other editors have said, the Tucker quote is accurate and is reflected in numerous secondary sources. ] (]) 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::No, but have fun arguing with that straw man. ] (]) 02:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:MathSci: ] clearly requires us to reach consensus before contentious material about a living person is added. Why do you continue to violate this policy? I may have no choice but to revert some of your changes. ] (]) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::What contentious material? Isn't this just a repetition of the discussion you just had above with Professor marginalia? | |||
:: Just as a matter of interest, why do you think Jensen gave an interview to American Renaissance in 1992 ? (Not something that needs to be mentioned in the article since it's not described in a secondary source.) ] (]) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I have no idea. ] (]) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} Professor marginalia: We are arguing over a single sentence that begins "He concluded" and that, given the context, is clearly a reference to Jensen (1969). Agreed? So, in that context, any evidence you provide to support that claim must be quotes from Jensen (1969) or from secondary sources discussing Jensen (1969). Agreed? '''But some of the quotes you provide are not from Jensen (1969).''' Can you provide quotes from Jensen (1969) to support the sentence? (If you wanted to move the sentence elsewhere and make clear that the "concluded" referred to some other article/book/speech, that would be a different matter. ] (]) 13:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::David.Kane, this is exasperating. '''All my quotes were from Jensen 1969.''' All of them. "He concluded" is not only sourced to Tucker, it is a perfectly adequate assessment of Jensen's own statement - to quote again, "The reasonable answer, I believe, is to think at present only in terms of <u>negative</u> eugenics rather than in terms of <u>positive</u> eugenics." | |||
::::It's been very frustrating to nail the '''focus''' here. Let me lay it out this way: | |||
::::*Why isn't Tucker sufficient? Because Jensen is a BLP? | |||
::::*If Tucker is insufficient because this is a BLP and the claim is allegedly "contentious", <u>how</u> is it contentious? Does Jensen dispute it? Or does he concede to it? Do other references dispute Jensen concluded this? Or do they agree he did? More directly, for the sake of argument here, if even Jensen's own quotations confirms ''the same thing'' post 1969 (as you seemed willing to allow above) then isn't it disingenuous to argue that the claim is only narrowly "contentious" in the context of this one paper?! | |||
::::So focus. It isn't our job to "vet" the strengths or weaknesses of Tucker's claims. He's the authority-we aren't. So if Tucker's to be given extra scrutiny here, by what rationale? Thanks. ] (]) 16:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, perhaps I have been using a bad version of Jensen (1969). This is the one I have looked at. Do you have a better one? I do not see your quote about "But I doubt that we will see any move in this direction of systematic eugenics in the foreseeable future for several reasons" or some of the others there. Am I searching poorly? This is clearly at the root of much of our disagreement. Apologies if this is my fault somehow. ] (]) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Leaving aside the issue of exactly what is in Jensen (1969), let me address your questions about Tucker. Imagine Tucker has written "Jensen argued in his 1969 article that the moon is made of green cheese." Now, Tucker is, we all agree, a reliable source. But that hardly guarantees that everything in Tucker is correct. If Tucker makes a clearly false claim (as above), then surely, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages, even though it appeared in a reliable source and even if we wrote it as "Tucker concluded that Jensen argued . . . " If Jensen were dead, then I would have less of an objection to what I see as clearly false material. (And, again, this debate originally involved a mistaken interpretation of Tucker.) But, because Jensen is alive, we must be sure that claims in Misplaced Pages, even if found in a reliable source are correct. I admit that this is a subtle issue that is not currently addressed clearly by ]. In this case, the claim is "contentious" in the sense that I (and other editors) think it is clearly false. Tucker is claiming that Jensen (1969) says X when, in fact, Jensen (1969) does not say X. We are doing the contending. Now, if this were some minor issue, we would probably not care. '''But this is a major issue.''' Tucker believes that Jensen argued that '''all blacks''' should be educated differently than '''all whites''' while, in fact, Jensen argued that '''all low IQ students''' should be educated differently, regardless of race. ] (]) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::: Give us the claim(s) not in the articles then. ] (]) 02:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Comment from Jimbo Wales on standards for attributing views to Jensen == | |||
{{od}} FYI IP 98.153.62.223 has opened up a discussion on this matter at ]. Let's see if others feel like weighing in. ] (]) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
Going forward, we should probably keep in mind from Jimbo Wales. | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is '''almost''' certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.--] (]) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
== More illustrations? == | |||
Would anyone disagree with that sentiment? ] (]) 13:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Some illustrations I randomly found on Wikimedia Commons in the last few weeks: | |||
:Well I'm actually exchanging emails with Jimbo at the moment, so I think you should wait until that's done with. Meanwhile I have added a slightly sdifferent summary of half the statement from Joan Freeman (in ]); and the content of the famous "eugenic foresight" quote is summarised in many other places. So I should just wait to see how things pan out. Of course Jimbo is unaware of the long and faithful summary with as many quotes (always taken from a secondary source). I am not dead set by the way on keeping the Tucker quote. I am quite happy to break it up into two halves. But just let's wait and see for the moment. ] (]) 14:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
No replies required; maybe somebody wants to add one of these in the future. ] (]) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Bell Curve and Heritability == | |||
::It's a red herring to pose the question here isn't it? I can't find any trace of a dispute here over the statement "Jensen recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." We could do with more focus and less bluster to sort through these disputes. It's clearly adding confusion to an already challenging topic. So if you're thinking that you can conveniently apply some broadly expressed "philosophical point" to the content disputes raised in the last few days here, no. It doesn't apply. ] (]) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
* race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper | |||
:::No. There are disputes about Jensen related points in both this article and another. Wales added his comment after both had been brought up in that thread. Read the history. In fact, a different editor complained about the lack of support for the eugenics claim that I have tried to remove from here that thread. Anyway, the main point is fairly obvious. "Contentions claims require exceptional citations" when it comes to living persons. Do you disagree with that sentiment? ] (]) 15:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
I recall the lead author of ''The Bell Curve'' saying just the opposite of that: i.e., that only half of the IQ gap is due to heredity or that it's impossible to estimate the percentage: | |||
::::Sorry, but that doesn't work. There is nothing "obviously" contentious about "the eugenics claim" to anyone who knows about Jensen because Jensen has been surprisingly consistent about on this for decades. That's why we need to focus exactly on the particular claims in each and every case here and it's '''not''' helpful to try and airbrush claims about him with a broad brush rationale that the topic is "contentious". Virtually everything Jensen has said in the last 40 years has been contentious. The article is about the "controversy", of which he plays a '''key''' part for the last 50 years. ] (]) 17:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. | |||
And | |||
:As Herrnstein and Murray concede, children from very low socio-economic status backgrounds who are adopted into high socio-economic status backgrounds have '''IQs dramatically higher than their parents.''' | |||
Moreover, ] thinks it's entirely due to culture (see '']''). ] (]) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: I do think Wales's comment is of marginal relevance here. Beyond which, he is just one more editor and his view doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's (although his experience and understanding of policy is probably pretty good). | |||
::::: My complaint was with the initial phrasing that Jensen articulated a "need" for eugenics, which I felt implied a level of advocacy that wasn't well-sourced. The new text said that he found "the solution" in eugenics, without clearly defining the problem being solved, which I feel is also a (much weaker) implication of advocacy. I've and slightly reworded. It seems pretty clear that Jensen thought eugenics could prevent what he perceived as a growing racial IQ divide; I think the new wording stands on its own and there's little of value to be gained by strengthening it to imply advocacy. ] (]) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: That works for me. Jensen sees eugenics as a far more effective remedy than education, but he's not an "advocate" in any ''realpolitik'' sense of the word. Pro-eugenics advocates do cite Jensen's work, but he's relatively passive. In his own words, he's resigned to the fact that it's so unpopular it won't happen so it's pointless to dwell much on it. He does think there's every chance that totalitarian regimes will implement eugenics programs and he predicts that by doing so they'll "pass up" those countries or cultures that don't. ] (]) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Well, I think we are making progress. The current version is much better than what we started with. I would ask Professor marginalia to keep in mind that there is a difference between making a claim about what Jensen believes now (or believed over the course of his career) and what he "concluded" in a specific article. If you want to claim that, '''in a specific article''' Jensen said X, it is not unreasonable for I or Rvcx to ask for a citation in that article which supports that point. ] (]) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::No, that's not quite right. We don't overrule sources. We take extra care to use ''good'' sources. If something is obviously erroneous, polemical or inconsistent, yes of course it's legitimate to look more closely. If other sources contradict it, if it's an obscure cite rather than a widely accepted source, etc., these factors also into the decision. And the claims have to be faithful to the source. But the disputes here tend too often to go round in circles like this: "The article says 'In 1969 Jensen came out with an explosive paper that claimed the moon is made of green cheese.' That's a controversial claim so <u>we</u> need to be sure he said it in 1969. I'm not satisfied, so I reverted it." Then we waste considerable amount of time over texts where he consistently says it from 1970-2010, but because it's a ''controversial'' claim, the secondary sources are overruled. But of course, ''only'' secondary sources are sufficient to source controversial claims (We can't go cherry picking for favorites of our own. Secondary sources are absolutely critical to source controversial claims.) There is nothing controversial about whether he said it in 1969 or 1970. That's a detail that we should take care to be as accurate as possible, but it's the ''green cheese'' that's controversial, not the date. And with sources and Jensen consistent on that very point in other years, we ''correct'' such details--we don't dispense with the controversial issue altogether. That's why we need to sharply focus and express ''exactly'' what's wrong with something in order to fix the real problem. ] (]) 01:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:39, 16 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article History of the race and intelligence controversy, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adding the latest genetic research
How about adding it like this?
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations. The distribution of these genetic variants across races is consistent with the environmental explanation for observed racial differences in IQ scores. 93.149.193.190 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014188
- https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/analysis-11m-people-ties-more-thousand-snps-educational-attainment
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803
- 93.149.193.190 was blocked for edit-warring on this article on 15 September 2021. As a result the article was semi-protected for one year by User:EdJohnston. There have been persistent copy-cat attempts by IPs from Milan to add to the lede variants of a proposed new paragraph (e.g. just above). None of these proposals have gained consensus from regular editors. Might it therefore not be a reasonable idea to semi-protect this talk page for a brief period (one month?), as EdJohnston previously suggested on WP:ANI? Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I would agree with semi protection. When there are attempts to IP hop or repeatedly use different IPs to introduce the same content against consensus on the talk page, I think it is warranted for a short period. — Shibbolethink 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathsci I would recommend WP:RFPP. They may do nothing but it's at least worth a try... — Shibbolethink 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to El_C for responding to the semi-protection request and logging it so promptly. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathsci I would recommend WP:RFPP. They may do nothing but it's at least worth a try... — Shibbolethink 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I would agree with semi protection. When there are attempts to IP hop or repeatedly use different IPs to introduce the same content against consensus on the talk page, I think it is warranted for a short period. — Shibbolethink 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Whats wrong with that paragraph guys. I would have thought you would love it. 93.149.193.190 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- As explained, this proposal is synthesis/original research, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Skllagyook (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It is neither and you know it. Both articles are published in reputable scientific journals. The paragraph says exactly what the articles say. The only reason you do not want the content to be included is because, even though the article says they do not, the polygenic scores in fact DO support a genetic component to the gap. And you hate the idea that people might actually check and realise what these polygenic scores mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.71.31 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Section on free speech and free academic discourse
IP-hopping troll. See this. Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How about we include a section on the free speech and academic discourse surrounding this issue. The firing of Noah Carl and Stephen Hsu, the stripping of honours of James Watson, the attempts to fire Amy Wax and JP Rushton, the physical violence against Charles Murray in Middlebury College, and the fact that Sam Harris said to Ezra Klein that he has scientists whose names would be well known to him, who have stellar reputations, who agree with him, and who are terrified of speaking out. Let me know and I will write the paragraph and get the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:50F5:133D:B6CD:D3A6 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
Reversion
Hi, does anyone know why my contribition was deleted? 98.153.62.223 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- My bad. I jumped the gun in assuming this edit was Fq90 (a long-term abuser who has been evading their block to push a pro-fringe POV and trying to use mentions of polygenic scores to shoehorn that POV into R&I articles). Apologies to 98.153.62.223. That doesn't appear to have been your intent at all. However the edit copies verbatim from the R&I FAQ, so would need to be attributed in the edit summary (e.g. "content copied from Race and intelligence FAQ"). A much more minor point is that I'm not sure whether the content in question is necessary, but that can be discussed. Again, sorry for the false accusation. Generalrelative (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone who is curious –– and not yet familiar –– can start here and work their way down the page through subsequent threads. Generalrelative (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see, I was wondering what the Fq90 was. The reason I came to the article is because I teach genetics and evolution and this year two black students in a row have come to me with these polygenic scores asking about how to interpret them. It looks like the latest iteration of the usual racist pseudoscience peddling we are all familiar with. I do not work in this area specifically but as a biologist, I think linkage disequilibrium is a good part of the explanation, unfortunately, I did not find any published work making that case, although I thought the article cited in the Q&A was pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.153.62.223 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Bird 2021 is indeed a good paper. And hearing more about what brought you here makes me want to apologize once again. For reference, this is what that long-term abuser posted on my user talk page just the other day (referencing polygenic scores): . But that doesn't excuse me for jumping the gun like that. To save you some time, here's how I explained why discussion of that paper doesn't belong in the Race and intelligence article in one of those past discussions I linked above:
Anyway, I'm open to being persuaded but that's the background. "DUE" in that quote refers to our core policy of presenting views in relation to WP:DUE weight. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)The reason is that it's not clear that the views this study refutes are notable for inclusion in the article. If there were multiple reliable independent sources like this refuting those views then the situation would be different. The recent history is that an overtly racist IP argued for adding it after their more direct strategy of POV-pushing failed. It seems they figured they could use this study as a Trojan horse to justify presenting hereditarian arguments in more detail or something of that nature. Regardless, the basic issue is that this study does not appear to be DUE for inclusion when the views it refutes have so far not been considered to be. Further, if it were to be included, it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading. And it's not at all clear that such a detailed presentation would be DUE.
- Bird 2021 is indeed a good paper. And hearing more about what brought you here makes me want to apologize once again. For reference, this is what that long-term abuser posted on my user talk page just the other day (referencing polygenic scores): . But that doesn't excuse me for jumping the gun like that. To save you some time, here's how I explained why discussion of that paper doesn't belong in the Race and intelligence article in one of those past discussions I linked above:
- Thanks for the welcome! I am very sorry about that creep. It is obvious from just a cursory reading of their posts that they do not know the first thing about genetics. This is precisely the problem in this area, racists jump on data they do not have the qualifications to interpret and impose their pre-existing biases on it. I think we should be prepared to set the scientific record straight, and I am afraid we are not doing enough to counter the spread of this pseudoscience. I have not seen more peer-reviewed papers specifically addressing educational attainment. However, there is a lot of literature on why polygenic score comparisons between different ancestral populations are invalid. Maybe we can include these as well.98.153.62.223 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- These are all really helpful explainers on polygenic scores! They may be useful if we need to further substantiate the R&I FAQ at some point, or in our main article polygenic scores (the second one is cited several times there but the others are not). However, when it comes to this article, we'd be running up against another one of Misplaced Pages's core policies, "no original research," which means we can't cite articles that do not mention intelligence or I.Q. to make claims about intelligence or I.Q. We have to leave that kind of synthetic argumentation to scholars publishing out there in the world, and only once those publications are published can we report on what they say. The specific part of that policy that's relevant here is called WP:SYNTH. So if you're interested in applying the insights from those papers to the topic of race and intelligence, I would suggest trying to get something published, ideally in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal (as a rule of thumb, never add a ref you've written yourself but you can always bring it to other editors' attention on the talk page). Obviously publications like that take a ton of time and effort, but that really is what's required. Generalrelative (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry I thought your last reversion was a mistake, since all of the articles are about race and intelligence. Could you please be more specific as to what claims in my last contribution are not in the sources?98.153.62.223 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted that, the content is objectively not synthesis. GeneralRelative should read the articles cited, they are all about Race and Intelligence.70.113.252.247 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I made an effort to find articles specifically on race and intelligence because I found out why those black kids were asking me about those polygenic scores, it turns out an anonymous facebook user was posting them in a campus debate group and using them to promote racist pseudoscience. I was glad to see that actual scientists have already comprehensively rebutted this in the peer-reviewed literature.98.153.62.223 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD and wait until after a consensus about this has been reached here before reinserting disputed content. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If the disputed content is rewritten so that it directly represents the sources (that is, if the WP:SYNTH issue is resolved), then a second task is to make the text accessible to readers. Please see WP:MTAU. Perusing the proposed text, I see the terms genome-wide, genetic loci, population structure, assortative mating, population substructure, and polygenic. I'd wager that most Misplaced Pages readers who do not have specialized training in genetics or related fields would have no clear understanding of what any of those terms mean. Those terms can and should be translated into commonly understood English. NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. IP 98.153.62.223: I am not categorically opposed to including content broadly similar to what you're seeking to add, but I think we need to carefully unpack what each of these sources is claiming and how it relates to the topic of race and intelligence. As is stands, I see only two of the sources you've mentioned as being transparently germane to the topic. The first, Bird et al. , has already been discussed. My views on that one should be clear. The second, , is more dodgy, notably because one of the co-authors is a notorious (around here) racist pseudoscience promoter. See . That doesn't mean it can never be considered DUE for inclusion, but the bar is certainly higher. The other four sources you've cited appear to me to represent SYNTH because they are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page, i.e. purported group-level differences in intelligence intelligence between racial groups. One discusses how polygenic scores may be useful when assessing propensity for intelligence among individual African Americans, a group which had previously been poorly represented in such studies, but which does not discuss the idea of purported group-level differences between races. Another source discusses polygenic scores in relation to intelligence but does not discuss race at all. A third mentions the word "intelligence" in conjunction with educational attainment but does not make any positive claims about how the two concepts may be related, and indeed, in the bit you quote from they are talking about the latter rather than the former. Finally, the Nature article you've cited does not mention intelligence at all. So it's not at all clear to me how these sources add up to a non-synthetic argument about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page which is DUE for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- & Oh, ok, I did not know the authors of the paper, I just assumed it to be reliable because it came from Cambridge University press. This paper though does not make any racist claims, just the opposite. Perhaps the author is changing his mind on account of new evidence.
- I think you are just splitting hairs with this one, this one is precisely about differences in educational attainment polygenic score predictive power between blacks and whites. It is clearly about race and intelligence
- does discuss race, they just call it ancestry, see the quote I provided:
- Given that greater than 70% of GWAS participants are of European descent (Need and Goldstein 2009; Popejoy and Fullerton 2016; N. A. Rosenberg et al. 2010), the implications of this problem of portability are that PGS for EA and IQ are more likely to misidentify the outcomes of individuals of non-European ancestry who were historically and are currently disadvantaged in American classrooms.
- When you said:
- mentions the word "intelligence" in conjunction with educational attainment
- did you mean to say “race” rather than “intelligence”? I think you may have a typo there as in the literature “intelligence” and “educational attainment” are used interchangeably. EA is what is known as an instrumental variable for intelligence, as intelligence cannot be directly measured.
- If you did mean race, did you read the article or just the abstract? The article is all about race and intelligence.
- The Nature article does mention intelligence, it just calls it cognitive performance, and has this to say about how it relates to race and racism:
- In our analysis of possible relationships between average phenotypes for worldwide populations and average polygenic scores for those populations, we chose to examine height because it is easily measured and because factors affecting height (e.g., nutrition) are also relatively easily quantified. In contrast, research on other variables such as weight, smoking status, psychological symptoms, and cognitive performance requires more careful control for environmental confounders (including variables like social status), which are often correlated with ancestry and therefore may also be correlated with global principal components and polygenic scores (as currently calculated). This means that confounding of environmental and genetic effects is likely. For example, social experiences such as being subjected to racism are prime candidates for confounding in genetic studies.98.153.62.223 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with 98.153.62.223 all of the articles are clearly about race and intelligence. There is no synthesis here. Regarding the issue of technical language, that is why I included their links to their respective articles 70.113.252.247 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with both the IPs. Racist pseudoscientists have been twaddling about this since at least 2014… watch this one from 40:35 . We cannot allow them to continue to have a monopoly on this data. The content seems very well written to me, and clearly it is not SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.88.210 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP: 98.153.62.223: To answer in brief, yes I did read each of them, quite carefully; no I did not mean to write "race" instead of "intelligence"; and no, you cannot simply assume that when authors speak about "educational attainment" they mean "intelligence" (that is quite a leap). Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think it is "quite a leap" I think this is, like 98.153.62.223 woudl say, hair splitting. The word education is used 56 times in this article. While we are here splitting hairs hate mongering groups are misusing this data to spread their poison, and people who come to this article leave with no ammo to counter it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.88.210 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I share your concerns, but Misplaced Pages is not in the business of supplying ammo. See e.g. WP:RGW. And of course one person's "splitting hairs" is another person's, ya know, stating their case. I will be very happy to collaborate with you to find text that does convey these arguments in a way that is consistent with policy if we can find a way to do so. And if we can, I'd be even more happy to add it to the main article Race and intelligence, where more eyes will see it. But we cannot play fast and loose with policy in order to right great wrongs, and we must certainly not treat public discourse as a battlefield –– even if that's how it feels sometimes. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is indeed a huge leap to say that we can substitute intelligence for educational attainment in wikivoice. That would mean that anyone with a PhD is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone with a Masters, anyone with a high school diploma is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone whose formal education was cut short, and so on. There's no consensus, either among the general public, among Misplaced Pages editors, or among scholars that intelligence means the same thing as educational attainment. NightHeron (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- No it would not mean that that would mean that anyone with a PhD is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone with a Masters, anyone with a high school diploma is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone whose formal education was cut short, and so on, because this is a correlation, not a one to one correspondence. You do not need to think everyone who smokes will get lung cancer to acknowledge that there is a correlation between somking and lung cancer. And no one is arguing that EA and intelligence are the same thing. All I am saying is that scientific papers have to deal with quantifiable phenomena. There is no single number you can give to assess a person's intelligence. You can however, give a single number saying how many years of education they have, and that gives you some idea how intelligent they are in certain areas. Since we are only commenting on this article now, are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis? 98.153.62.223 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Educational attainment correlates with a lot of things, for example parental income. But we could not in wikivoice make a statement about parental income sourced to an article that talks about educational attainment and doesn't mention parental income.
- You mention smoking. I think that, at least in the US, educational attainment also correlates with non-smoking. So would we make a statement about non-smoking sourced to an article about educational attainment? NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis?
No. See my comment above of 12:06, 7 October. Generalrelative (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- No it would not mean that that would mean that anyone with a PhD is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone with a Masters, anyone with a high school diploma is necessarily "more intelligent" than someone whose formal education was cut short, and so on, because this is a correlation, not a one to one correspondence. You do not need to think everyone who smokes will get lung cancer to acknowledge that there is a correlation between somking and lung cancer. And no one is arguing that EA and intelligence are the same thing. All I am saying is that scientific papers have to deal with quantifiable phenomena. There is no single number you can give to assess a person's intelligence. You can however, give a single number saying how many years of education they have, and that gives you some idea how intelligent they are in certain areas. Since we are only commenting on this article now, are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis? 98.153.62.223 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, there is no reason this article should ignore the last decade of genetic research over editors who claim a piece of content is SYNTH when it clearly is not. 70.113.252.247 (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote, and edit warring by new editors like this in an area that is under sanctions (as well as a very frequent target of sockpuppet edits by long term abusers of Misplaced Pages) is a terrible idea. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- If it is not a vote, how is consensus established then? I am sorry some abuser agrees with us that we should add this, but that is no reason for not adding it, Hitler was against smoking I believe, but that does not mean smoking is good. 70.113.252.247 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can read about that at WP:CONSENSUS. This article recently came off of a 1 year protection. Since IP edit warring has resumed, I have requested that protection be restored. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks MrOllie. Unfortunately it seems like that may be necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can read about that at WP:CONSENSUS. This article recently came off of a 1 year protection. Since IP edit warring has resumed, I have requested that protection be restored. - MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- If it is not a vote, how is consensus established then? I am sorry some abuser agrees with us that we should add this, but that is no reason for not adding it, Hitler was against smoking I believe, but that does not mean smoking is good. 70.113.252.247 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you at least explain in light of what I said in response to Generalrelative, why the content is synthesis, I am sorry but I genuinely do not understand, Generalrelative says "The other four sources you've cited appear to me to represent SYNTH because they are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page", but I think I have shown clearly that they are.98.153.62.223 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are pretty obviously combining multiple sources to make points that no individual source makes explicitly, that is synthesis. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP 98.153.62.223: I agree with MrOllie. You simply haven't convinced me that my objections were off base. That said, I really do want to collaborate with you on this. I meant what I said on your talk page that I think you could be a very valuable contributor to this project. But there is a learning curve here. We all run into it once we start to get involved with topics we're passionately connected to. I strongly encourage you to register an account and to continue to contribute in areas relevant to your expertise. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are pretty obviously combining multiple sources to make points that no individual source makes explicitly, that is synthesis. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could you at least explain in light of what I said in response to Generalrelative, why the content is synthesis, I am sorry but I genuinely do not understand, Generalrelative says "The other four sources you've cited appear to me to represent SYNTH because they are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page", but I think I have shown clearly that they are.98.153.62.223 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
MrOllie: Would you please state the point he is making that is not explicitly in the sources?
Generalrelative: Why is MrOllie claiming the problem is that he makes a point not in the sources, do you agree with that or do you stand by your claim that the problem is that the sources are not about the topic of this Misplaced Pages page? You made several false statements to back up that claim, 98.153.62.223 provided exact quotes were the articles discuss the topic of this Misplaced Pages page explicitly. Are you telling us not to believe our lying eyes? 72.17.88.210 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's the same problem. One way to tell that synthesis is occurring is that the citations are not about the same thing. - MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Precisely. Generalrelative (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the same problem. I take it since you did not provide an example of any points made in the content that are not explicitly in the sources, that you granted that the claims are in the sources, you just agree with Generalrelative that the problem is that the sources are not about race and intelligence. Correct? if not do provide the point you think is not in the sources. 72.17.88.210 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, but have fun arguing with that straw man. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Give us the claim(s) not in the articles then. 72.17.88.210 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI IP 98.153.62.223 has opened up a discussion on this matter at NORN. Let's see if others feel like weighing in. Generalrelative (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
- https://academic.oup.com/emph/article/2019/1/26/5262222
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01549-6
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28366442/
More illustrations?
Some illustrations I randomly found on Wikimedia Commons in the last few weeks:
No replies required; maybe somebody wants to add one of these in the future. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Bell Curve and Heritability
- race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper
I recall the lead author of The Bell Curve saying just the opposite of that: i.e., that only half of the IQ gap is due to heredity or that it's impossible to estimate the percentage:
- It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.
And
- As Herrnstein and Murray concede, children from very low socio-economic status backgrounds who are adopted into high socio-economic status backgrounds have IQs dramatically higher than their parents.
Moreover, Thomas Sowell thinks it's entirely due to culture (see Black Rednecks). Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles