Misplaced Pages

Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:33, 17 February 2012 view sourceAcadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs)4,651 edits →Broadening/updating views← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,966 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 104) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{talk header|search=yes}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} {{Race and intelligence talk page notice}}
{{trolling}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = AFD
Line 6: Line 8:
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence
| action1result = kept | action1oldid = 14746008 | action1result = kept | action1oldid = 14746008

| action2 = PR | action2 = PR
| action2date = 2005-06-24 | action2date = 2005-06-24
Line 12: Line 13:
| action2result = reviewed | action2result = reviewed
| action2oldid = 14796977 | action2oldid = 14796977

| action3 = FAC | action3 = FAC
| action3date = 2005-07-18 | action3date = 2005-07-18
Line 18: Line 18:
| action3result = failed | action3result = failed
| action3oldid = 18607122 | action3oldid = 18607122

| action4 = GAN | action4 = GAN
| action4date = 2006-08-25 | action4date = 2006-08-25
Line 24: Line 23:
| action4result = failed | action4result = failed
| action4oldid = 71769667 | action4oldid = 71769667

| action5 = AFD | action5 = AFD
| action5date = 2006-12-04 | action5date = 2006-12-04
Line 30: Line 28:
| action5result = kept | action5result = kept
| action5oldid = 91697500 | action5oldid = 91697500

| action6 = AFD | action6 = AFD
| action6date = 2011-04-11 | action6date = 2011-04-11
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination) | action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (3rd nomination)
| action6result = kept | action6result = kept
| action6oldid = 423539956 | action6oldid = 423539956
| action7 = DRV
| action7date = 2020-02-24
| action7link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12
| action7result = overturned
| action8 = AFD
| action8date = 2020-02-29
| action8link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)
| action8result = kept
| currentstatus = FGAN | currentstatus = FGAN
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{annual readership |scale=log}}
<!-- This comments out the FAQ, which no longer reflects current consensus after the ArbCom case--discuss on talk page to establish new consensus for August 2010 and beyond
{{Press
{{FAQ|small=no|collapsed=no}}
| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed
-->
| org = ]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
| date = 18 July 2013
| accessdate = 18 July 2013
| author2 = Doug Gross
| title2 = Wiki wars: The 10 most controversial Misplaced Pages pages
| org2 = ]
| url2 = http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/24/tech/web/controversial-wikipedia-pages/index.html
| date2 = July 24, 2013
| quote2 = "Circumcision and 'race and intelligence', both with obvious controversy attached, made the list, alongside a possibly more surprising page: a list of professional wrestlers on the roster of World Wrestling Entertainment."
| archiveurl2 = http://archive.is/ZRDW3
| archivedate2 = July 27, 2013
| accessdate2 = July 27, 2013

| title3 = Misplaced Pages wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets
| url3 = https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets
| org3 = ]
| author3 = Justin Ward
| date3 = March 12, 2018
| accessdate3 = March 17, 2018
| archiveurl3 = https://web.archive.org/web/20180312150230/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets
| archivedate3 = March 12, 2018
| quote3 = "In the article on 'race and intelligence', relatively equal weight is given to the two sides of the debate — hereditarian and environmentalist — though environmentalism is the mainstream perspective in psychology."
|author4 = Shuichi Tezuka
|title4 = Introducing Justapedia
|date4 = December 11, 2023
|org4 = ]
|url4 = https://quillette.com/2023/12/11/introducing-justapedia/
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = December 11, 2023
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 90 |counter = 104
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive index |mask=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive index |mask=Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
}} }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
<!-- This comments out the additional archives, which were last updated in June 2006 and don't reflect the results of the ArbCom case in August 2010

{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
! align="center" | Additional archives
----
|-
|''']''' (last updated June 2006)
|-
|
]

]

]

|}

end of commenting out old additional archives -->
{{New discussion}}
<!-- Please: place new messages at bottom of page. -->

== Last &para; of lede ==

Made more general, comprehensive, able to have easily sourceable support added. The first alternative should have genetic, heritable factors combined with cultural/epigenetic ones, but leaving that for the editors supplying such support. ] (]) 17:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

:My comment on the fracas here, suggestion for resolution. That there are effective group differences is far beyond dispute. Suggest you just cull everything that goes beyond reporting those objective facts. A really unfortunate complication is that some academics who have made a career on the topic are in fact racists. Nonetheless, the phenomenon in question is so heavily documented that it would be easy to redact their contributions to a small mention instead of a pervasive viewpoint. My position on the topic in the "Form" section of my POV page. ] (]) 08:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

== Caste-like minorities ==

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today. Any thoughts? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Caste-like minorities ==

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. It has also been the richer part with less unemployment etc. for quite some time. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today and the elite was mainly French speaking. Any thoughts? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The Flems are Germanic. All you need to know. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Race ==

{{hat|reason=]}}
What's a race anyway? One thing abundantly clear is that some types of people are brighter than others, and the genetic basis is plain obvious. Roma gypsies for example. While hostile statements about broad groups is not fashionable, the fact is that Roma gypsies tend to have low intelligence and engage in criminal behaviour. If there's no genetic basis for this then there's no genetic basis for Roma gypsies as a distinct group - it's who they are. ] (]) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Suggested Solution To Article Structure To Accomodate Disputes ==

Some critical observations about this article followed by a suggested solution drawn from the Introduction section.

'''OBSERVATIONS'''<br />
1) The quality of this article has declined over the past five years to the point where, aside from perhaps the introductory section, it is all but meaningless. It certainly informs the reader about one thing: that there is confusion among editors. But it does not inform the reader as to the state and reasons for the dispute over the correlation between race and intelligence test results. This debate is old, and murray and pinker and others have certainly popularized the debate, so without the historical context of this debate and a section that denotes the political consequences of any discussion is either accidentally or intentionally misleading. (The need for race neutrality in government, and the fear of consequences of abandoning race neutrality in policy.)

2) The article does not state that intelligence as used in testing -- general intelligence or (g) -- is an empirical concept that measures the rate at which individuals are able to incorporate and utilize patterns of increasingly abstract relations into their memories. Furthermore, it is factually inaccurate to state that there is no agreed upon definition for intelligence. This is a confusion in terms. There is an entirely agreed upon definition for (g) general intelligence in the intelligence testing community. And it is that quantitative expression that is argued to be correlated with race. Not "intelligence" in the broader colloquial sense, by which humans mean "ability to act successfully and advantageously as a member of society". There may be other faculties that are commonly bundled under the category of 'intelligence' which are normative - used on casual conversation, but by definition a scientific concept is not normative - it just is either arithmetically correlative or not, or argumentatively causally related or not based upon the empirical measures. (And I won't get into apodeictically certain arguments here). And IQ, which is an expression of general intelligence is a scientific not normative concept.

3) There is a frequent and extremely unscientific concept of normative or 'general' opinion used in this article that confuses popular opinion, or even the opinion of 'public intellectuals' (ie: people who write or communicate for a living for the purpose of persuasion) with empirical evidence. Using opinions, studies and data from unrelated fields is simply unscientific - an attempt to mislead the reader. It does not matter what the anthropological (soft science) community says about a scientific (empirical) concept that is outside of their field. It is worth noting that political bodies are quoted in the introduction, but no body that manages, or conducts testing is quoted, despite the fact that there is a vast and highly empirical body of work on the subject that can be found by spending little more than twenty minutes on Amazon. (The American Psychological groups are not exactly free from political coercion.) Work outside the field of psychometrics is always questionable. For example, the brilliant evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould wrote a popular book on intelligence (The Mismeasure of Man) which despite his otherwise valuable career-making insight into the existence of punctuated equilibrium of evolution, his book on measurement of races turns out to be entirely false. But in general, while normative usage can determine moral content or linguistic meaning, (contractual concepts) widespread opinion on scientific matters (true/false concepts) is in fact, generally relegated to the expressed ideas of a small number of experts. (See Kunh on the Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.) ie: popular opinion is meaningless. See the climate debate for example, or any debate over the impact of monetary policy.

4) As someone who is familiar with the vast literature on intelligence testing, as well as the methods involved, I can find no dispute in the field of intelligence testing, over the correlation between race and intelligence. (Although they tend to avoid talking about the subject.) All disputes come from unrelated or marginally related fields. There is no dispute in the empirical testing end of the field over whether there is a correlation or not. There is plenty of conjecture over whether race is a meaningful concept, and whether (g) is a sufficiently valuable means of testing "demonstrated practical intelligence in life". There is no dispute over whether intelligence is inherited, only over the ratio between heritability and environment in determining intelligence. Furthermore the article does not reference either the meaning of (g) or of intelligence testing, or the organizations and methods by which intelligence tests are gathered. It reads like a collection of newspaper clippings from popular press about the popular disputes over intelligence.

For example, abstract intelligence tends to benefit the individual by advancing him above his group. Empathy tends to be used to understand and develop consensus (usually downward - conservative). Verbal skill is largely a function of enabling persuasion which is necessary to get people to allocate their resources, time and energy (Habermas) (which is usually upward - progressive). All three are valuable skills. In this era of industrialization which has led to the disintegration of the family unit as the primary economic, and the rise of the individual as the primary economic entity, analytical skills are held at a higher premium than they were in our past. However, there are times in history where consensus and persuasion are more useful and important strategies (during systemic external pressures.)

5) Even outside the field of intelligence testing is is apparent that Empathy (which helps us understand others and therefor helps us adopt norms), Verbal reasoning which helps us articulate increasingly subtle ideas, and Spatial reasoning which allows us to create and compare abstractions - as well as forecast in time, are present in people to different degrees. (They are present in different races to different degrees. ie:The relative weakness of verbal and relative strength of spatial reasoning in asians, the strength of ashkinazim in verbal, the strength of spatial/verbal in northern (caucasian/germanic) europeans, the weakness of verbal and spatial in sub saharans, the weakness of verbal in the south asian pacific islander distribution, and the extraordinary weakness of verbal in amerindians. Even so, these strengths and weaknesses describe different distributions, not absolutes. Furthermore Empathy is generally higher in females and can be increased or decreased in both genders by the introduction of hormones (drugs), and the male development process significantly hinders their emotional development (for evolutionary reasons that are as yet subject to various means of conjecture.)

6) I would argue that NOT stating these different facets of the argument is by definition either a demonstration of confusion by the authors, or an attempt to politicize or mislead the reader. SO:

'''SUGGESTION:'''<br />
Organization:
I suggest that this article be broken into four sections outlining the four different positions as is suggested by the introduction:<br />

'''a)''' Differences in measurable intelligence (g) reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. <br />
'''b)''' Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. <br />
'''c)''' Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. <br />
'''d)''' Either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.<br />

'''DEFINITIONS''':<br />
Explain and link to Multiple Intelligences - so that the reader understands that there are different concepts of intelligence.<br />
Explain and link to Intelligence Quotient (IQ) - so that the reader understands that IQ is a statistical aggregate with a long history.<br />
Explain and link to (g) Factor (General Intelligence) - so that the reader understands that (g) is a sort of catch-all but with specific meaning.<br />
Explain and link to Race (classification of humans) -- so that the reader understands 'Race'. Which, by the way, is a reasonably well written article, and treats the subject better than this article.<br />
Explain and link to Identity (social science) -- which is why race has meaning in society - because people use it for decision making (environment).<br />
Explain and link to Signaling_(economics) -- which is the economic reinforcement for race - because people within races have different signals (environment).<br />

'''SUMMARY'''
It is not possible to convey a neutral point of view across four dimensions of an argument over what is effectively a matter of metaphysical value judgements at present - because a neutral point of view requires value judgements that summarize the different positions in relation to one another, and thus advance or demean an argument. And this argument is too politically charged for anyone to abandon his preferred position.


This approach would allow the reader to choose his bias or at least understand the four positions. This would be more satisfactory (more neutral) given that the reasons for the correlation between race and intelligence (g) remains an open question, and the subject is highly politicized. Each case could be made under each general section.

'''GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION'''<br />
This graph could be used to show the positions of the different researchers on the matter.
]

CLOSING
The only NPOV is to give voice to all four dimensions of the argument. What is not a NPOV is to rely on confused definitions of intelligence, or questionable sources while ignoring the empirical sources, and the political consequences, and the social consequences, that give rise to the dispute.

I have no problem drafting this if anyone would support the effort. The community has all but abandoned this page and written it's own sections rather than refer to this page due to the degradation of the content over the past few years.

Thanks for your time.
] (]) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for your input: but we do not base articles on the unsourced assertions of a single contributor. ] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything other than a recommended change to the structure of the body of the article to reflect what is clearly a disorganized and ill managed page that reflects a history of competing interests and does not suit them. Instead, I am arguing that the summary section of the article adequately illustrates the state of the discourse, yet the remainder of the article is a complete mess. So, Andy, I don't think your objection is relevant. ] If the introduction suits the article, clearly structuring the article to reflect the arguments positioned in the introduction is a solution to the inadequacy of the body of the article.

<s>:99.224.27.14, your suggestions seem excellent. Of course you do not need sources to suggest article structure, although saying this it is clear you have drawn upon your comprehensive knowledge of the field to make this suggestion. Why not be bold and do some editing and see how it pans out? ] (]) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)</s>

== This is ridiculous ==

{{hat|collapse per ]}}
"A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association, reject any genetic contribution to the black-white gap, or to any difference amongst races."

These are often the same "researchers" that have hidden political motives. Often times people of this view point say the same about longevity and disease, that they are both only influenced by environmental factors and no genetic evidence is present. There are thousands of peer reviewed medical journals showing that when environment is taken into consideration there are persisting inequalities between races in longevity, general health and intelligence. The worst thing one can do is pretend too different things are equal. ] (]) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Fringe tag ==

An editor has removed the fringe tag from this article. I find this problematic, as on it's face, this article massively overweights the fringe views of one J. Philippe Rushton. ] (]) 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:The article should not have both a point of view tag and a fringe tag, that's just tag bombing with the same sort of thing. ] (]) 14:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

: Rushton's views, such as they appear in reputable academic publications (aka ]), are not "fringe". Some editors seem to think that the definition of a fringe view is "something I disagree with". That's not quite enough.--] (]) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:: An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. This is not done. ] (]) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The article already has loads of NPOV tags in it. FRINGE is just a subset of NPOV. ] (]) 15:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: Look, that's fine, but trying to say there's not a FRINGE problem is a different argument than "this tag is duplication." I'm not finding fault with duplication, I'm finding fault with "no fringe problem." ] (]) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You also deleted cited material. NPOIV is not a reason in itself to deleted cited material, it is a reason to look around for something to balance it. I don't think deleting things at random so you get some percentage of rightness of balance is a course supported by policy. ] (]) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

: "Cited" is not enough for inclusion. You've demonstrated how FRINGE is a unique problem here - Rushton writes something in a journal or a book, it's totally ignored by the mainstream, and it goes in our article. Because Rushton is ignored by the mainstream (you know, because they think he's just a racist), there's no balance to be had, but because you can verify that he said it, you put it in. That's a FRINGE violation. If you were giving the fringe views on "Regression toward the mean" due weight, they would not be in the article. ] (]) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

::I think there's quite enough psychologists around interested in this stuff to write refutations. It isn't as this is something scientists are uninterested in like UFOs or telepathy. Just removing stuff when a search should be made for balance does not strike me as right. Have you evidence for what you say? ] (]) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Review the section above, titled "Regression toward the mean section." This is exactly like something that scientists are uninterested in - more specifically, review what Professor marginalia wrote at 18:00, 14 December 2011 and 00:54, 16 December 2011 about how the entire approach to the article (which is written as a he-said-she-said between the far-fringe and everyone else) needs to be completely redone. Would you be amenable to reverting the article to the pre-Miradre version? ] (]) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:::: Hipocrite, you just proved yourself wrong, below. Contrary to what you claimed, dozens of researchers have been interested in the regression to the mean argument. Rushton is a tenured professor who has published extensively in mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journals. His articles have been cited thousands of times, and he sits on the editorial board of the leading specialist journal in the field of intelligence research. Your "fringe views" argument is nonsensical.--] (]) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

::::: Things are being confused again. Although the section is so badly written one can't know without for sure ''what'' was intended there, the "regression to the mean" is clearly from Jensen and Rushton's list of 10 categories of evidence-it's a ''particular'' regression to the mean argument in that context. Regression to the mean discussions also appear in Jensen for different kinds of analysis besides his "10 categories of evidence". But it's inappropriate to view it as a catch-all for every regression to the mean analysis ever performed in studies pertaining to this topic. Quick google searches are going to #fail for this reason. But as debates rage over whether or not the section should be tagged or improved with more content from naysayers, I'd like to hear a sensible case for keeping ''any of it'' there as it's written now. It's garbled gibberish. ] (])

:::::: In the context of race and IQ research, what other regression to the mean arguments are there besides the one about blacks regressing toward a lower mean than whites? Jensen first proposed it in the late 1960s, I think, and it has always been the one and same argument. Flynn discusses this specific argument in his 1980 book, as do many of the sources cited by Hipocrite, and Jensen & Rushton discuss it in their 2005 review article.--] (]) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::::That isn't what the article says, and it isn't what Jensen says. And regression to the mean is used for all kinds of analysis-including all kinds of connections with this topic! Flynn looked at them in context of the generational rise in scores. Jencks and Phillips used them to illustrate pitfalls in analyzing the IQ gap shifts longitudinally, as test subjects grow older. These aren't all. It's a common analysis used for variation from purely random outliers too. Jensen uses it in his 10 categories of evidence for a particular analysis derived (it looks to me) from Galton's regression to the mean in height inheritance. ] (]) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::: Regression toward the mean of course applies to all sorts of data, but to my knowledge there is only this particular argument from Jensen about regression toward the mean when it comes to race differences in IQ. What he did was that he matched a sample of whites and blacks for an IQ of 120, and then looked at the mean scores of the ''siblings'' of those subjects, finding that the white sibling average was 113, while the black sibling average was 99. Jensen argues that no purely environmental theory could have predicted this result, even if ex post facto environmental explanations have been offered for it. He discusses this argument also on pp. 470-471 of ''The g Factor''. All this could be explained more clearly in the article.--] (]) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Could someone please find an independent secondary source that lists Rushton's line of "regression to the mean" reasoning as particularly relevant to the race and intelligence debates? So far all we have is Rushton and fellow Pioneer Fund grantees promoting this, and no one else. Is there anyone outside this clique of researchers who finds it in any way relevant? Is proper sourcing really too much to ask for here? ] (]) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Victor Chmara - well at least two of the 18ish independent citations turned up in the google search allude to different iterations of the argument from Jensen over time. (Flynn's "no sane person" quotation is a paraphrase of a Jensen's claim, btw-in Flynn's "History of the debate" section.) The claim in the article says, "Jensen argues that if the average racial IQs are different, then due to regression toward the mean the average IQs of relatives to blacks and whites with the same IQ should be different." And that is not a significant claim he's making today, or being challenged on. Hello!! If the racial IQ gap were 100% environmental there would ''still be regression to the mean'', and the only disagreement to the claim would come from those claiming the IQ gap itself is not real. Jensen doesn't claim that they "should" regress to different means today (as would be predicted if there were indeed two distinct means). He argues that because they regress to two different means that is evidence for genetic rather than environmental causes for the two different means. (The obfuscated "given" in this claim is some ''given'' IQ is genetic and ''given'' that it's polygenetic, where the potential effects of genetic recombination of IQ are ''more reasonable'' to "plug" than would be the potential effects of environmental "recombination".) So the article claim makes no sense as written, as a regression to the group mean finding. (As I said, same outcome would be predicted for 100% environmental causation).
::::::::::::@aprock The problem is whether or not that simply because Jensen/Rushton said it that makes it relevant. I think it does, given appropriate proportion, because although they are the in the minority as far as overall acceptance goes, they are the go-to authorities for this minority. I would agree that this argument of theirs is among those their critics dismiss most resoundingly, practically routinely. ] (]) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: I'm not still not sure what other regression arguments you're talking about, marginalia. Anyway, whether the same outcome would result from purely environmental causes depends on the model of environmental causation one adopts. If your model is one where environmental effects perfectly mimic the "behavior" of additive heritability, then the same outcome is expected. If, on the other hand, the theory is (for example) that individual IQ differences are largely a function of differences in home environments and have no race-specific causes, then the expectation is not that the siblings of high-IQ (or low-IQ) whites and blacks regress toward different means. In any case, it's not our job to decide whether Jensen's argument is correct. What matters is that it's notable.--] (]) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The point isn't whether or not Jensen's argument is correct. The point is that his argument isn't cogently described here. (And quoting Jensen himself, "But it cannot be regarded as a proof of a genetic difference between two populations, since the lower population of the Negro group, it could be claimed, is a result of a uniform environmental disadvantage or test bias in the Negro population...A strictly environmental explanation of the mean population difference is not ruled out by this evidence...It could be all environmental, or all genetic, or anything in between.") ] (]) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:I reckon any topic where the second sentence quite correctly says anything like "''There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia''" is a very strong candidate for the label ''Fringe''. ] (]) 03:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{hat|closing per ]}}
:: By that standard all the social sciences are "fringe", as are much of the life and physical sciences. The beauty of IQ research is, however, that IQ can be measured very reliably compared to most constructs in social science. Similarly, race, at least as far as the major races are concerned, can be very reliably operationalized in America.--] (]) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

::: I would support renaming the article to ], but there has been a general resistance to that, so we're stuck with the caveat that intelligence is an ill defined concept. Even if we limit consideration to IQ, the tests are only as reliable as the methodology used, which for the most part has been poor at best. ] (]) 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:::: "Poor at best"??? Compared to what? Atomic clocks?--] (]) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure what you're referring to here, as atomic clocks are not a methodology. I'm referring to methodologies like non-uniform tests, arbitrary normalization techniques, using IQ proxies like verbal ability, and averaging scores of population groups. It would be one thing if researchers were exclusively using ] for data, but that is the exception, not the rule. ] (]) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::: All IQ tests correlate highly with each other, and there are so much data from different sources, all showing the same trends, that those are not serious concerns. Why would averaging the IQ scores of all people in a group be any more problematic than averaging, for example, their personal incomes or heights? ] has nicely summarized the status of IQ research among the social sciences:

:::::: {{quotation|Intelligence is the best-understood and most powerful variable in the social sciences. Sophisticated psychometric methods, developed largely for intelligence tests, are used to construct and assess modern tests. A substantial commercial industry has grown up around the development and sale of tests. Intelligence can be measured with better reliability than any other social science variable. Huge amounts of data have been collected using the tests and these data span the last century providing a database unavailable in most other areas in the social sciences. Data from individuals show strong relationships to many important social outcome measures including educational achievement, occupational success, income, and death, to name a few. The data collected also provide important information about the genetic, biological, and environmental origins of intelligence. Relationships at the country level have also been investigated showing that countries with higher mean IQs show a greater gross domestic product per person, are less religious, and show higher levels of democracy. In short, by any objective standard, intelligence is the social science success story of unrivaled proportions.}}
::::::--] (]) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Not having a clear idea what to do with this rabbit hole, I think it's time to collapse it. But I do thank you for your unique thoughts on averaging population scores as a viable methodology. ] (]) 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Regression toward the mean section (take two) ==

The section is based entirely on primary sources from Rusthon, and does not represent anyone's opinion besides his own. Reading the Nisbett source only supports that conclusion. Including the view is entirely unjustified by the sources. ] (]) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose removal''' You should go and try and find some other sources about it then. You have not produced anything to support your argument, it is a Misplaced Pages editor against a cited source at the moment. ] (]) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::I've done so, and come up empty. The idea that you would insist on inclusion of undue material until ''other'' editors can dredge up something is nothing but disruptive. I'll take this moment to highlight the finding of fact from the arbitration: '''' At first blush, it appears that you're pursuing (iii), while pushing the envelope on (ii). It may be that you're trying to be constructive. If so, I suggest you consider a different tack beyond reverting and demanding non-existent or hard to find sources from other editors. ] (]) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::You don't see yourself as coming under (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; when you delete cited sources without giving any verifiable reason? ] (]) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Diffs please. ] (]) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::<s> point of view pushing.
::::: edit warring
:::::I don't see how pretending things don't exist is a good way to write an encyclopaedia. And as to the point of view pushing this is of peripheral interest to me and I know you'll be here long after I'm gone still doing your thing to it and you'll get your changes in by sheer persistence. The most I can do is try and point out that what you are doing is not how everybody on Misplaced Pages thinks things should be done.</s> see below ] (]) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::: You appear to be engaging in ] behavior - specifically, attributing actions to Aprock that were actually taken by me. Can you not tell the difference between us? ] (]) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::You're right I didn't distinguish between the two of you. Very sorry about that, should have checked the history better.
:::::::Anyway as far as the section is concerned do you really think that not finding stuff giving an opposing side is a good reason for deleting it? As I said it is not as though very few people are interested in the topic. The policy about POV says various ways it might be rephrased to show it is a partisan view and probably some of it could be removed but is burying one's head in the sand really the way to develop an encyclopaedia that prides itself in not being censored? ] (]) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support removal''' per Aprock's argument. The only secondary source in the section is Nisbett, which does indicate that these are primary sources of marginal relevance. So it's a simple violation of ]. To Dmcq, please note that the burden of proof is on those adding contentious material. So actually, you're the one who needs to "go and try and find some other sources about it then", not others. Nevermind on Dmcq's general confusion as to editors identities and motives.] (]) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*::] is about verification. Burden has been satisfied. ] (]) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*::Are you saying by PRIMARY that none of the sources are peer reviewed? If that's so then that would be a reasonable basis for removal. ] (]) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*:::'Primary' means exactly what it says: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided". The 'Regression toward the mean' section seems to be based purely on primary sources. ] (]) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*::::Are you saying peer reviewed sources are primary or are you saying the sources are not peer reviewed or what? ] (]) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
*:::::Of course a peer reviewed source can be primary. In the case of scientific research, almost al primary sources are peer reviewed. ] (]) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think I see where you're coming from. It really needs a secondary source that talks about it to show that it is worth including and give some secondary view. Okay so I just tried out google scholar with "Educability and Group Differences" +Jensen "regression to the mean" and got about 35 results back a number of which do look like secondary sources talking specifically about this. Some sources amongst these are the sort of thing you think are needed is that it? ] (]) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Potentially. Can you provide some actual text or at least a link to one of these sources.] (]) 20:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I just tried having a look and I can't access many because I don't have access. There's a number by Rushton and Jensen which are accessible but they just back each other up. I think a couple by Flynn though seem to discuss the topic a bit and do show notability. It really needs someone with better access as just getting stuff that is publicly accessible isn't a good selection criterion. ] (]) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Most of the articles this search finds seem likewise to be primary - what we need is something like this: "'''Secondary sources''' are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". For example, your search finds an article entitled "Fallacious Use of Regression Effects in The I.Q. Controversy" . From the abstract, it seems to argue that "regression to the mean" in relation to I.Q. is a statistical artefact, and the conclusions drawn regarding 'racial differences' are thus invalid, and a misuse of statistics. Now,a review article that discussed both Rushton's and this paper, within the broader context of the debate, would be a secondary source. (incidentally, this particular abstract mentions Eysenck and Jensen, but not Rushton - so we don't know the extent to which it actually relates to Rushton's particular argument at all). ] (]) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' There seems to be difficulty finding secondary sources for this section, so another secondary source I recommend using is Flynn (1980). I think the most notable perspectives about this are Jensen and Flynn (Rushton and Nisbett are just summarizing Jensen and Flynn's earlier arguments). I oppose removing the section but I support adding Flynn to make the section more balanced.] (]) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:Didn't you get topic banned from race and intelligence topics?] (]) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::I don't believe so. R&I topic bans are logged ], my name isn't listed there. Hipocrite tried to get me topic banned at AE, but the thread was closed with no conclusion. I hadn't realized before that being an SPA is in itself grounds for a topic ban, so starting now I'm going to broaden my interests at Misplaced Pages to avoid that.] (]) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I don't think characterizing that AE discussion as "closed with no conclusion" is accurate. All three admins in the results section supported a topic ban so a conclusion was in fact reached. It just didn't get implemented cuz you pulled the "I'm leaving Misplaced Pages" trick.] (]) 21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:This "Regression to the mean" section isn't undue weight by itself, but a manifestation of a larger problem with the article. The "Regression to the mean" is one of ten (10) categories of evidence that Rushton and Jensen cite in support of their thesis the gap is primarily genetic in origin. (When Rushton and Jensen aren't publishing jointly, they're citing each others' - and their <u>own works</u> - exhaustively. They receive less thorough attention in more independent secondary sources.) And I'm not sure there's a case to be made that some of these 10 are more relevant to describe here than the others since they explicitly discuss them as a set when defending the thesis. The problem is that these two (Jensen and Rushton) tend to dominate the '''whole''' article, not merely a subsection devoted to their own arguments supporting their hereditarian hypothesis. ] (]) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::::: I ran your google search, and also got 35 hits. I reviewed each of the 35 (that's a step you skipped. Please don't do that).
# Jensen - no
# Rushton - no
# Rushton - no
# Mackkenzie - "The assumption that these factors are relevant and that they support a genetic account is criticized as a "hereditarian fallacy.""
# Jensen - no
# Brody - "In this paper I review the evidence cites in support of this hypothesis and I explain why I do not find it persuasive."
# Rushton - no
# Dickens - I reviewed his summary at . "How could solid evidence show both that environment was so feeble (kinship studies) and yet so potent (IQ gains over time)? Dickens has proposed a model that we believe solves the paradox. It assumes that people who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched with superior environments for that trait; and that genes can derive a great advantage from this because genetic differences are persistent."
# Vetta - 1977
# Tizard - 1976
# Murray - no
# Munsinger - "Any study that compares the central tendency of adopted children's IQs with a group mean of 100 IQ points for a normal population cannot be taken seriously until several methodological criteria have been met ... careful attention to early separation and placement of children, and (e) elimination of practice effects and regression to the mean artifacts."
# Mackenzie - "Regression to the population mean in I.Q. scores has been taken by H.J. Eysenck, A.R. Jensen, and other writers to provide evidence for genetic determination of individual and racial I.Q. differences. However, regression is a purely statistical phenomenon, and as such provides no evidence for either genetic or environmental determination of I.Q. "
# Rushton - no
# Block - 1974
# Weiss - at - "Hence we can characterize regression to the mean as a consequence of error of measurement; in our case here simply as error of classification. In pure homozygote genetic crosses, and not considering the effects of minor genes, there should be no regression to the mean." and "(compare Jensen, 1973, p. 171, showing the distribution of the Terman gifted offspring, in which case, considering a cut-off score of IQ 140 for one parent, a heavy regression to the mean could be expected, because according to major gene theory, IQ values above 130 have the same genetic true score as the IQ 130 itself.)"
# Nichols - 1978
# Rushton - no
# Horn - "Regression to the mean of high or low measure of IQ in one class of people (e.g., children) relative to similar measure on another class of people (e.g., parents), does not support claims that the measures are genetically determined (nor does it threaten such a theory)."
# Jensen - no
# Flynn - "(4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 SDs (3×.33=1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that."
# Vernon - "But in fact regression to the mean is merely a necessary consequence whenever two sets of scores, such as parent and offspring IQs, are imperfectly correlated."
# Rushton - no
# Goldsmith - no access
# Collingridge - no access
# Vining - No mention (false search duplicates follow:)
# Kaplan - duplicate
# Nurcombe - "Normal distribution and regression are therefore consistent with the genetic theory of intelligence"
# Daly - duplicate
# Kurland - duplicate
# Flynn - duplicate
# Weinrich - duplicate
# Macphail - duplicate
# Sternberg - duplicate
# Williams - duplicate

So, what exactly are we supposed to talk about, except for "Jensen said something, everyone knows he's wrong?" ] (]) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:Well that is exactly what the complaint was about in the first place wasn't it that there weren't mainstream sources to balance the stuff? Now you've got some. That's far better than just ignoring notable stuff by removing it isn't it? ] (]) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:: Any attempt to balance this article swiftly results in edit warring. You will see, shortly. ] (]) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::This may help some, but it's still not enough imo. Regression to the mean is a significant line of argument for Jensen and Rushton-whose position is probably notable enough to describe here. But's how the argument is presented - and cited - which is all wrong, giving it undue weight. And it's just one of many examples. I've said this before here, but the "Jensen sez and Nisbett sez not so" - I think this style of presentation is contributing to the UNDUE weight to the minority povs here. But why does this argument warrants its own section anyway? (Besides-it's very confusingly written.) ] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::It could be chopped down to just summarize the bits that anybody else has noticed without any great loss I think. ] (]) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

== Whattamess ==

I apologize in advance if this simply creates more drama, but ........... .

Disputes raging in this article went through arbitration, with a decision handed down in Aug 2010. As I compare the state of the article then to now I can't see any improvement. It strikes me as worse, if for no other reason than it's more far more confusing just trying to read it than before. It seems more "padded" with pointless who said what type empty assertions that don't really describe anything--because the '''''content itself''''' was omitted. Lots of this padding was window-dressing, so as to provide so-called "balance" (or appear to), so poorly sourced or described that either the editor didn't understand what s/he was reading or they were simply mechanistically trying to behave as a NPOV editor, going through the motions, with no real investment in authenticity. And surprise, surprise....more often than not the "revision history search" to identify claims and/or references that don't exactly jive point me to SPA editors and suspected proxies.

I'm just a part-time part-timer on wikipedia. It takes me HOURS of work sometimes to verifiably eliminate bunkerooney pumped in articles-the "diversionary" bunkerooney from SPA to pretty up edit histories just makes the problem worse.

I don't know how this is fixable unless every editor here is on alert to '''double check''' whenever possible the cited sources and to be extra vigilant to the proxies. The proxies have made the problem worse because they consume so much time! ] (]) 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:I completely agree and sympathize. To fix this article would take a lot of time, which I, nor apparently others, have at the moment. The thing that I've limited myself to doing for now is keeping an eye on things to prevent even more SPA nonsense from being added.] 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

::Yes, the state of the article is a mess. My suggestion above () was to dump it and begin anew. If done, we should probably start with contemporary secondary sources (in the last 10 years) which handle the topic in some detail. I expect that sort of project will be met with significant resistance. Since arbitration, most of the work has been done by {{User|Miradre}} with some pruning back and copy editing by various editors. Very little has been done to the structure. ] (]) 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Examples: a new claim sourced with two refs, neither of them adequately verify the statement that I could see The Nisbett cite was first introduced here, then distorted further. (Bizarrely the same editor later attached the citation needed tag that's there now.) Nisbett did make arguments along those lines in his book-but not the appendix, which is the cite the article gives and links. And the Rushton/Jensen cite has just one extremely tangential passing mention, a very backhanded "we find it very hard to disagree" that school reforms should be based on successful experiments in teaching methods, only to turn right around and dismiss the effort as unlikely to make much difference anyway. So why use these cites here? I'll tell you why. Nisbett's book is completely passed over in this article while his appendix there has 15 citations-because it's in the appendix where Nisbett focuses on '''''hereditarian''''' claims. I don't think the editor's consulted the book at all. Just the appendix, and the Rushton/Jensen article <u>rebutting</u> the appendix which has been cited 16 times! Rushton/Jensen was used again here from sheer force of habit-as if Rushton/Jensen were the only views that really matter in the article anyway so why bother looking any further. There's fluff and dust like this throughout, trivializing the issues. ] (]) 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:::I notice Miradre hasn't contributed since 29th November. I argued a while ago against a load of articles they set up which I couldn't see the point of but I didn't manage to convince others about that. Perhaps there's some room for others to edit things a bit more now and lean things up a bit. ] (]) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::I, formerly known as Miadre, am live and editing. If anyone has any questions regarding the literature and my edits I would be happy answer them. To summarize, the question of genetics in racial IQ differences is unsolved and will likely be so until there is direct genetic testing which may not be that far in the future. In principle this is the only thing that needs to be said because I think few people are likely to want to learn more about the scientific disputes and if they do then they will learn that the issue is undecided. More interesting are actually the IQ differences themselves, and the practical effects these differences have, and implications for society, and how to affect known environmental factors such as nutrition and diseases, and how to help those with low IQ in an increasingly complex world. I think the article should concentrate on that.] (]) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

== Please comment! ==

People who watch this page ought to comment on a race & IQ matter ] | ] 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== Ashkenazi Jews IQ ==

The problem with the studies that measured Ashkenazi Jews IQ is that they were often deemed to be unrepresentative of their population (because of the extremely small sample size or other reasons). Moreover, if you read Lynn's analysis which conclude that the Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ of 110, you'd realize that there are a lot of methodological problem with his analysis, one being that three of the studies being analyzed administered Verbal tests. Using the same logic, we'd conclude that women are more intelligent than men as they have higher verbal IQ than men. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Some of the Nobel laureates who are labelled as being "Jewish", sometimes happen to only have 1/4 Jewish ancestry and 3/4 European ancestry, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== American Anthropological Association Statement in the Intro ==

Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located ''above'' the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important. ] (]) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. For people who complain about the lack of 'race' in the 'race and intelligence' article, there is a simple reason for it. No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ, the question is their cause. Now IQ can be environmental, but race obviously can't, so thus the debate is on the cause of IQ differences, not on what the cause of people being different races are. I mention this because someone ''may'' say that the statement is needed to bring some anthropological opinion in the article.

:Actually, a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ, not least because (as people who actually study the subject of 'race', rather than just making generalisations about it), they are aware that 'race' is a complex social construct, rather that a simplistic biological 'fact'. Actually, I suspect many would argue that the same can be said for 'intelligence' too. ] (]) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::Do you have a cite for "a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ"? ] (]) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Do I need one? Do you have a cite for "No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ"? Actually, you can't have one (or at least, one that has any basis in reality), because I've just disputed it. The AAA likewise have disputed it, for that matter:

::::'''WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, ''Homo sapiens'', and

::::'''WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),

::::'''THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people".

:::This looks clear enough to me... ] (]) 04:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::It looks like a policy statement to me rather than a scientific statement so should be in he policy section. Policy is a very important part of the debate but yes one doesn't need to repeat. Their argument when applied to cats simply says that cats should be treated properly not that there aren't any Siamese cats. The scientific bit includes things like who is being compared to who, is there statistically significant difference and is it of a size that makes any real difference, what factors might affect any differences if any found, and rather importantly here are the studies being conducted properly. Policy includes what action should be taken of and difference or non difference results or should one just try suppressing any research in this area in the first place. ] (]) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::::'differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific' is a statement about science, not about policy. As for suggesting that the AAA is 'suppressing research', that is a ridiculous allegation, and frankly has no place whatsoever on a Misplaced Pages talk page. ] (]) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Anthropologists in different nations differ greatly in regards to race and the rejection by many US anthropologists is one end of the spectrum with anthropologists in many other nations being more supportive: Even in the US, "forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races". ] (]) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::In as much as your statement is true (which is difficult to determine from the abstract you present - which incidentally seems to refer only to 'physical anthropologists', and therefore tells us nothing particularly useful about the opinions of anthropologists in general), it is irrelevant. The OP argued that the opinions of the AAA had nothing to do with this debate, and that is just plain wrong. In as much as the concept of 'race' has any scientific credibility at all, it is as an anthropological concept, and to suggest that anthropologists opinions on the matter are irrelevant is nonsensical. Would you discount the opinions of geologists when discussing rocks?
::::::::The article should not be US-centric. A NPOV presentation should also mention the view of anthropologists outside the US as well as the opposing views by anthropologists inside the US. Furthermore, anthropologists are not the only ones with views on race. For example, a study of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races. This was not appreciated by authors doing the study but it certainly shows that race is not rejected in anatomy. ] (]) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If you can find a source citing the opinions of anthropologists outside the US on the validity of 'race' as a useful concept in studies of variations in intelligence, we can of course consider it for inclusion in the article. What we ''cannot'' do is decide for ourselves what we think those opinions would be, based on what anatomists think regarding anatomy. ] (]) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I was pointing out that the statement by AAA is not a scientific consensus among all anthropologists or other scientists. I agree with Dmcq that it looks like a policy statement. ] (]) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Have you got any sources that suggest that ''regarding the subject of race and intelligence'', there is no consensus amongst anthropologists? ] (]) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::The rejection of race was the reason for rejecting race and intelligence in the quote you gave above. I am not aware of any survey that have asked anthropologists regarding racial differences in intelligence so the opinion of anthropologists on this is likely unknown. ] (]) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The opinion of the AAA on this is known, and cited. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't cite the opinions of experts in a field solely because we don't know for sure whether other experts agree with them? This is going to make finding sources rather difficult... ] (]) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Seems we are going in circles now. See my earlier replies. Let us see what others think. ] (]) 15:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Andy. We have a cited notable fact. If there are other cited notable facts worth discussing, present them. That you don't like the cited notable fact is not a reason to remove it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:What they were talking about was the repetition in detail in the lead, not about removing it entirely. Also whether it was a scientifivc finding or a policy statement. I consider it obviously a policy statement as scientific statements always talk about more research whereas this one is all about stopping anything like that never mind the actual contents are unscientific in tone and about a better society and then strangely talks about respecting diversity after basically saying there was no such thing. ] (]) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:: I would support compressing the three statements in the lead to read "professional associations reject that there is any documented genetic racial contribution to intelligence." Attempts to do this have been reverted by individuals who don't want this fact documented clearly. ] (]) 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I would support that with the condition that it's moved to the ''bottom'' of the intro at earliest, and the AAA statement is mentioned only once. On a related topic, isn't the 1988 survey as important, so perhaps the statements should just be in history or the survey should be in the intro. ] (]) 05:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: It is obvious (now) that this is not your first foray here. What earlier accounts have you used? I do not agree that this should be marginalized. ] (]) 13:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Let's also clear up some mis-statements here. The AAA is homed in the US but its membership includes European, Asian, African, Australian, and Canadian and Latin American anthropologists. Anthropologists from around the world publish in AAA journals. The AAA does not issue policy statements, but like most scholars its members are educators as well as researchers and they do often issue statements and publish material meant to explain scientific findings to the general public, which certainly makes their statements very relevant and useful for this article. ] | ] 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::The 1994 statement does not cite any supporting scientific evidence and thus it is hard to argue that it is anything except a policy or political statement. Scientific statements cites evidence. Compare with the APA's statement regarding race and intelligence that did cite numerous sources. The APA's statement is scientific; the AAA's is not. A later 1998 statement about race cited Lewontin's famous argument. However, this is proven wrong both theoretically (see, ]) and empirically (for example, see this study that found "essentially perfect" agreement between 51 self-reported populations of origin and their genetic pattern. In other words, one can exactly determine a persons ancestral home from their genetic make-up. Or even simpler: people from a particular ancestral region have similar genetics that is different from that of people from other ancestral regions.) ] (]) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That is pure conjecture. It is of no relevance whatsoever, as you well know. ] (]) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::That the AAA race and intelligence statement does not cite any scientific evidence is not conjecture. That Leowontin's argument has been severely criticized on theoretical grounds and is empirically invalidated is not conjecture either. ] (]) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::It is still irrelevant. The AAA issued their statement. They have not retracted it. It doesn't cite Lewontin (not that Lewontin has actually been "empirically invalidated" in any case). Your endless efforts to suggest that a leading body (with 11,000 members) are somehow unfit to comment on the very subject of their expertise (the reality of 'race' as a scientific concept) is nothing more than POV pushing of the most blatant kind. ] (]) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Please do not misrepresent me. Obviously the AAA can issue a statement on this. I am just pointing out that neither of the two AAA statements cite any scientific sources unlike the APA's statement that did so in great detail. The later statement most likely refer to Lewontin's argument but if not then what is the evidence for the statement's claims is even less clear. Regarding the validity of Lewontin's argument, see the link and source given above. ] (]) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::The IPCC would look pretty silly if they said the world is warming but we won't give any sources! Even creationists point at the Bible. As science I think the AAA statement comes under ]. ] (]) 23:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hipocrite, will you actually address what I say rather than asking pointless questions about my background? Also, your final sentence is just a statement of your opinion without any reason for it. ] (]) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:Given the nature and history of this topic area, Hipocrite's question is quite pertinent. I note that you evaded it.] 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}None of these scientific position statements cite sources either. The question to consider is whether or not AAA statement has notability. Obviously it does. For those that enjoy opinionating about the relative merits of the AAA and Lewontin, take it to a messageboard. This isn't a forum. And don't try to pull this again here, Acadēmica Orientālis. You've tried to shoehorn this elsewhere and it won't work this time either. These anatomy textbooks have absolutely no relevance to this topic. None. ] (]) 11:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:The first one is a scientific opinion explicitly references the IPCC report and saying they agree with it. The second one references the National Research Council study. The third one, the AAAS resolution on Intelligent Design Theory, would be what I call a straightforward policy statement. The fourth one is also a policy statement though it does have a scientific opinion component in saying they agree with others that intelligent design is pseudoscience. The fifth by the AAA calls for more research into the problems. The sixth is interesting as the claim is that it represents mainstream science on intelligence, however there is no way to judge the weight since there is no listing of how many people were asked to sign it and refused, and quite unsurprisingly to me the whole business has been picked to death. Personally I would have called it a policy statement but it has a bit of science weight because of the personal signatures of the people as representing their scientific opinion. Note also the bit at the end about implications for social policy so it obviously was meant for that purpose.
:We are expected to use some tiny amount of commonsense and trying to push things as being science when they obviously are not is simply not reasonabe. The statement about race and intelligence has some weight as a scientific opinion but it is obviously meant as a policy statement. It contradicts itself in talking about diversity so it contains doublethink where social policy is given higher precedence than dispassionate science. ] (]) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry, Dmcq. We aren't arbiters sitting in judgment of the quality of the AAA statement. We're Just Some Guys spending some of our spare time on the internet. The article now identifies the statement as the AAA's "official position", and has done for quite some time. I don't see much difference myself between calling it their "position" rather than their "statement". Obviously the "statement" communicates their "position". Our satisfaction with their science or citations, and/or lack of, is irrelevant. This is the AAA, after all, not some fringe outfit operating below the radar of the scientific mainstream. ] (]) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Sure, we should mention it, but three times as is currently done in the article? And if mentioning it in the intro should we not also mention there that anthropologists both outside and inside the US disagree with it? There is also an one-sided dismissal of genetic cluster analysis which is simply wrong because current cluster and other statistical analysis can do what is supposed to be impossible: exactly determine a persons ancestral home from their genetic structure because the genetic structure from a particular ancestral region is systematically different from that of other ancestral regions. ] (]) 13:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Three times is hardly excessive, but the middle one (re ethics) should be eliminated. It doesn't source the claim it's attached to. And while I have no idea what you're referring to about now being able to supposedly "exactly determine ancestry", imo there may be too much space given to cluster analysis here now anyway. ] (]) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Nevermind re the ethics cite. I see a second statement was attached as well. I'd leave it for now but I'll look for a third cite more assertively expressing the AAA's ethical stand in the study of race and intelligence. This one is bordering on synth there. ] (]) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, how on earth is it relevant? I avoided it because answering encourages people to do so again, and thus go off topic. To go back to the issue at hand, has the AAA done ANYTHING to do with this debate apart from this statement? ] (]) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:And we are under no obligation to consider a statement as a scientific opinion when its avowed aim is evident in 'Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation.' It is just wikilawyering to try and say we have to accept that as anything except a policy statement. Next we'll have a statement saying they want a better coffee machine called a scientific opinion. The AAPA statement is more the sort of thing you expect for a scientific opinion, I have big problems with it too just quoting an old UNESCO statement but at least it acknowledges some sort of reality. And they don't try and suppressd things but just say 'Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends', that is a policy statement but not an anti-scientific one. ] (]) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::That is ''your'' opinion. Can you find any sources that express the same one? ] (]) 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::This seems like a pointless discussion. I cannot see where in the AAA statement it says that it is a policy paper. And Dmcq, it is not for us to judge what is truth or reality. We report reliable sources and significant views; the statement of the AAA counts as both. Are you just here to soapbox? A bit of cheap advice: take a little break and read our NPOV and V and NOR policies, so you can learn how we decide on content here (which I will tell you already, is ''not'' based on an editor's personal opinion.) ] | ] 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::::It is pointless. Nothing in what is written here is "obliging" anyone to conclude anything but that this is the position taken by the AAA. It isn't labeled a "scientific opinion" in the article, so let's be more careful before pointing fingers over wikilawyering. ] (]) 20:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::The issue is not whether to include the statement. The question is why it should be mentioned three times and mentioned without the opposing views regarding race by for example anthropologists outside and inside the US in the intro. ] (]) 21:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Here is an opposing view by Rushton and Jensen in their 2005 review: "Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate & Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification." ] (]) 21:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I am not saying I agree with Rushton, I am just saying that because one agrees with a statrement doesn't make it scientific. There are lots of other things that can be pointed at that are scientific other than the AAA statement. Just look at all the other statements in ] by them. Statements on language rights, on human rights, the Cuban Trade Embago, disabilties, Ethics, it goes on and on. And the race statement draft was in a folder called advocacy-policy. They are in the main policy statements and there's no need for us to push their statement as science. There's loads other stuff to use for scientific points besides that. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of propaganda, we should just describe summarize things as they are. They can be summarized in the lead as far as 'm concerned but calling it scientific is just silliness. ] (]) 22:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::@Dmcq. I repeat. The lead doesn't say this is "scientific" rather than an AAA position statement, and unless you're willing to go so far as to disclaim it somehow as a "not scientific" or "propaganda" position, I don't know why we're still going on about it.
:::::::@Acadēmica Orientālis If there's one thing this article doesn't suffer from, it would be any lack of attention to what Rushton and Jensen have to say. Hunt and Carlson are already used to cite an argument much like this. The disagreement isn't really over the AAA's position rejecting the "existence of 'races" as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups." I doubt even Rushton or Jensen disagree with that statement. They differ on the degree to which the admittedly ambiguous and loosely demarcated racial categories are valid or meaningful when inferring or making assumptions about genotype. They also disagree about the potential or degree to which such research is misconstrued, misused, and other such ethical concerns. ] (]) 23:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I just said I was happy to have a statement about it in the lead, what I was saying was that the major other place it should be referred to is in the policy section, not as anything scientific. It is referred to in the lead as its official position which is something that is okay. ] (]) 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If you mean the "Genetic arguments" section, I think the section lead there now should be redone regardless and the AAA is synth there anyway, isn't it? The AAA's part in the science of race difference is notable, but I think we're being too ambitious with the source used, the statement itself. ] (]) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes it definitely looks out of place to me there using a policy argument. ] (]) 12:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Regarding Rushton and Jensen, as likely the main proponent of the partly-genetic theory it is not strange that they are mentioned frequently. ] (]) 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Regarding the lead, in order to also represent the views of IQ experts, I propose we also mention the only survey ever done regarding the views of this group: ]. ] (]) 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::We need to put ''multiple'' points of view in context. If the issue is presenting the scientific ''debate'' Rushton and Jensen are involved in, obviously what we need to do is add an account of Tate & Audette 2001 - that is who they are debating against, right? As for the AAA statement, it is the position paper of a professional organization and the proper context would be the position papers of other professional organizationas such as the APA, the ASA, the NABT, AIBS, NAS, etc. ] | ] 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::What the AAA and AAPA's statements are is not really clear since they make scientific claims without citing any scientific sources unlike scientific statements by many other organizations that cite scientific sources extensively when making a scientific view. Regarding the lead, in order to be neutral all significant views should be represented. If we include the view of the AAA and AAPA, which is based on a supposed non-existence of race, then we should also mention that that many anthropologists outside and inside the US disagree. See for example this review: One of the most important views is certainly that of IQ experts. Thus the lead should mention the only survey ever done regarding the views of this group:] ] (]) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Štrkaj's article is very good - but the place it belongs is in the race article, along ith a discussion of Cartmill, in the place where we discuss Lieberman. it is not comparable to a statement made by a professional organization. Statements by professional organizations represent ... the views ... of ... professional organizations. ] | ] 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:What kind of views though was the question, it seemed like a moral statement. ] (]) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::''The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy'' survey is nearly 30 years old now, older than 95% of the citations here. It's already mentioned in the history article, which is where it belongs. ] (]) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Štrkaj and Lieberman are both already here. (So is the paper about the Anatomy textbooks. Why am I not surprised.?) Along with its million other problems, this article has synth trickling through it. ] (]) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Why does reading this thread feel like ''deja vu''?]·] 03:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I am primarily talking about the intro where these opposing views are not mentioned. Like the ] which is not really not that much different in age from the race and intelligence AAA statement mentioned there (1994 vs. 1988). Likewise, we should mention in the intro that many anthropologists inside and outside the US, and other scientists, do not agree with the official views of the american anthropological associations. The intro is currently not NPOV.] (]) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}What "opposing" views should be included and where is a question of ] and purpose designed polls by Rothman don't have much (if any). ] (]) 09:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:Why not? It is the only survey ever done on the opinions of IQ experts. Not sure what you mean by "designed". As far as I know no on has accused the survey of being fraudulent. Articles on other controversial areas frequently mention surveys on the opinions of experts in the area. ] (]) 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::It's ludicrous to belabor this any further. Here's a similar poll barely older than this one. It found 69% of experts still believed ] was a pathological disorder. I suspect any editor urging that that poll be given "equal time" in the article with the opinions rendered today by the A. P. A. or other scientific associations wouldn't get far. Belaboring the issue, overhyping its supposed significance by invoking NPOV, in multiple articles, for a year or more, would be a real nuisance I'm sure.
::There's some major cleaning to be done in the synth department, btw, such as the paper about anatomy textbooks. ] (]) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::1974 is hardly the same as 1988. If the survey is outdated, then the same would seem to apply to the 1994 AAA statement about race and intelligence. ] (]) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Surveys were conducted in 1977 and 1984 respectively, not 1974 and 1988. They were both ''opinion'' polls, not official position statements. And from the looks of it, the AAA confirms this remains their current position. Are you going to clean up your synth? Or shall I? ] (]) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Your link does not go to such confirmation. An opinion poll of the views of scientists is arguably more important than a statement not citing any scientific sources. Not sure what synth you referring to. The study on anatomy textbooks? Yes, it does not mention IQ. Neither do many of the sources denying that race exists. No double standard please. ] (]) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::This is my last statement on the issue. Of course the link substantiates it. Let me know if you find anything there disconfirming it and we can take it from there. The opinion poll in question included exactly 1 question on the issue, which the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed. The survey didn't cite any "scientific sources". Yes, '''all''' the synthed refs need to come out. When you find sources used that violate core policy, then you remove them or replace them-you don't give "equal time" here to the opposition's crap sources. ] (]) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Your link goes to a search page and not to a confirmation or disconfirmation of anything. Source for that "the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed"? Surveys of the opinions of scientists are frequently cited in Misplaced Pages's articles on controversial issues, like evolution and global warming, and are arguable more valuable regarding scientific views than a statement not citing any scientific sources. I am all for improving the article and adding better sources. See for example the section below. "View of molecular geneticists", for a review source on the views of molecular geneticists on race and intelligence. Many molecular geneticists do think that there is no automatic objection against the possibility of different human populations differing in the genes determining genetic intelligence. This would be a valuable review source and view to add to the article.] (]) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::For the record: "Source for that "the authors themselves admitted was erroneously framed"?" It's in the book you're citing. This has been pointed out to you before. I've enough on my plate already and leave the chore of refreshing your memory to you. ] (]) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Marginalia, shouldn't give equal time to opposition sources; (in the context of statements of opinion in the field), we should give considerably greater time; the survey indicates that the 100% environmentalist hypothisis is the minority point of view and thus is '''''vastly''''' over-represented in the intro. ] (]) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== New Source ==

The new review article in American Psychologist

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American
Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026699

summarizes a lot of the latest research. The article can be found in a sublink ("download article") at , which is good about posting full-text professional articles on psychology.

The edit-warring here has been appalling, but I still read on the subject, and I still meet weekly with the behavioral genetics seminar at the local state flagship university. I try to keep up with the literature and with the range of scholarly opinion on the issue. I'd be glad to help clean up the article, and have reviewed the suggestions currently visible on the talk page. -- ] (], ]) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:This should be very helpful in shaping up the article, thanks. Besides offering a more up-to-date summary it could serve as a very useful model to follow in establishing what claims and studies merit mention here and how much weight to give them. It's worth noting that the review focuses on black-white and Asian-white IQ gaps given the quality of the studies available. Any real progress cleaning up the article has stalled because so much time gets sucked away on the little stuff. It consumes attention better spent focusing on the big problems, the fact that it's poorly structured, unwieldy, confusing, argumentative, and over stuffed with subsections, far too many of which are nothing but perfunctory and vacuous word fill. ] (]) 01:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::A review by some non-hereditarians. As such it represents the POV of one side in the dispute. ] (]) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Is this really the tack you want to be taking here? ] (]) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::To quote from the article: "See Rushton & Jensen, 2005a, 2005b, Gottfredson, 2005, and Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, for the view that the Black–White IQ difference is owing substantially to genetic differences between the races and that indirect evidence having to do with such factors as reaction time and brain size is probative. See Nisbett, 2005, 2009, for the view that the direct evidence indicates that the difference between the races is entirely due to environmental factors and that the indirect evidence has little value." Nisbett is one of the authors of the article, together with several other arguing for no roll for genetics such as Flynn and Dickens. No partly-genetic proponent is included among the authors of the article. That does of course not prevent us from using the article as one source of views on the debate.] (]) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::The article is very recent, but it will come to be judged in the usual way. And not by whether or not Rushton Jensen Gottfredson Lynn or Vanhanen had a hand in writing it. ] (]) 22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::It will be judged like other review article. Like those Nisbett has already written earlier. Or those Rushton and Jensen have written. ] (]) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

== Radiolab on "The Obama Effect" ==

I recently listened to http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2009/jan/27/the-obama-effect-perhaps/ Which seems to explain ''quite a bit'' about this age-old controversy. Does anyone know where to find the peer reviewed research described at 6:30-7:45 and 8:30-8:45 in the recording? There is no doubt in my mind that this should be added to this article. ] (]) 21:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:Sure-see ]). There's also the stand-alone article ] better describing the studies. ] (]) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you! Is there a URL or cite for this work, please? ] (]) 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:::With a hat tip to WeijiBaikeBianji and his notice of the update of the "knowns and unknowns" mentioned above, I'd focus on these it points to:
:::*Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
:::*Steele, C. M., Spencer, S., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Ad-Month 2012 ● American Psychologist 29 Avances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 379–440. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0
:::*Aronson, J., & McGlone, M. (2009). Stereotype and social identity threat. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 153–178). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
:::*Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systemically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x
:::*Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2001). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
:::*Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006, September 1). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310. doi:10.1126/science.1128317
:::*Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
:::*Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
:::*Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
:::There's a healthy launch anyway. It may be incomplete but I'm tired :) and we if we hesitated due to less-than-perfect around here nothing would ever get done. ] (]) 10:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

== The views of molecular geneticists ==

Great emphasis is currently placed on the views of psychologists and anthropologists. However, there are also others who research the issue. One such group is molecular geneticists. A group that likely will become increasingly important in the future as we learn more about the exact genetic causes of intelligence. Here is a review article: One quote: "There is a conviction among many brain and behavioral genetics researchers that human genes involved in intelligence likely continued to evolve among modern humans after the migration from Africa and that populations with different genetic ancestries may have distinctive intellectual strengths as a result of this ongoing process."

Another view is that presented by "genetic anthropologist Henry Harpending and colleague Gregory Cochran" in "the 2009 book "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution"": "At the center of their argument is the notion that genetic changes caused the ‘explosion’ in European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures after their exit from Africa. ‘Obviously, something important,some genetic change, occurred in Africa that allowed moderns to expand out of Africa and supplant archaic species’ (ibid, p. 31), they assert. This genetic change, they argue, must have yielded enhanced intelligence for those who carried the favored alleles."

There is also the whole ] and ] debate. While no association was ultimately was found with IQ there was at one time great controversy and thus that debate is an important part of the history of the field and should be mentioned.

There are also general reviews regarding the role of genetics for intelligence and intelligence differences. See these two reviews by Dreary: I think the article would be better by mentioning something regarding the current state of research regarding this. ] (]) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

:Yeah, well my skim of the book is - it talks about Ashkenazi Jews intelligence which I don't think belongs in this article to begin with, but I'm taking this one step at a time. If you want to make some claims about the "explosion" by genetically superior migrants out of Africa, there's nothing to discuss unless the ''book'' ties this with race IQ gap today. Otherwise it's synth. Page numbers would be helpful. ] (]) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::The review article does not mention Ashkenazi Jews except very briefly in one sentence as an example of Harpending's research. The review article only mentions the book "The 10,000 Years Explosion" briefly as noted above. The review article is obviously the important source for the views of molecular geneticists. This is an important group that has been neglected in this article.] (]) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I overlooked the first source you proposed. No opinion yet, but will take a look again when I have more time. ] (]) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

== Removal of sources ==

See . Why did you remove all the sources for the paragraph if you only disagreed with the last sentence? If you disagreed with the sentence it could have been changed after a discussion. No, there is no statement that brain size and reaction time are intelligence measures, only that they are variables that correlate with IQ tests. ] (]) 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

:There are 2 factors stalling progress in this article due their overabundance: a) Garbage In that burden ''other'' editors to clean back out and b) IDIDN'THEARTHAT obstructionism on the discussion page. And there is another factor that is stalling progress which is in short supply here: editors with enough time, access to sources, or energy to endure the IDHT obstructionism required for Garbage Out.
:The context of that paragraph is "what is intelligence and how is it measured". That's all. Not the vast universe of facts, theories, or hunches about the variables that come in to play in determining how much intelligence someone has. There's no point in rewriting the sentence to fit the sources because that's not what the paragraph is addressing. If there's a better fit someplace else, then you find it. But it doesn't belong here. ] (]) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::So why did you not remove just that sentence instead of keeping it but instead removing all the sources for the whole paragraph? ] (]) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::I see that you have now removed the sentence but the references are still missing. Any reason for not adding them back? ] (]) 22:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I removed all the refs cited to the removed sentence. If any of them apply to the sentence before it, fine. But that sentence should be simplified...we don't need an exhaustive list of all the IQ tests and those that sometimes are used in place of them, anyway. A brief mention there are some, a few named as examples, cited with a single source is ''plenty''. What's neglected so far there isn't saying more and more and more about IQ tests. The section is striving (and so far not very well succeeding) in describing how "intelligence" and scores on the IQ test (as well as its close cousins) are not the same thing, and there is no consensus so far on how well the scores on IQ tests line up with what intelligence means. That there are other measures too, though less widely used and no more agreed upon. And how or why, despite this, the "race and intelligence" debate revolves around scores on IQ tests. ] (]) 22:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::::There may be well more to intelligence than IQ but IQ predicts a number of important life outcomes which it why IQ scores are widely used practically and seen as important. Furthermore, tests of mental ability tend to correlate highly with one another. Does not matter if it is an IQ test, SAT scores, or international student achievement tests. There are no tests of mental ability, and which do not correlate highly with IQ, that is anywhere near as good a predictor of future achievement as IQ and highly correlated tests.] (]) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Right. The article says this much now. It's rest of the picture that's murky. See comment above. ] (]) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::It is pretty well established that SAT scores predict nothing. That is why the company had to change their name - "SAT" remains a registered trade-mark but it no longer stands for "Student Aptitude Test" because the company withdrew its claim that it measures aptitude (that it predicts future performance). ] | ] 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Colleges use SAT scores because SAT scores do predict things colleges are interested in like grades and college retention. ] (]) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::And your source that SAT scores do predict things is ...? Why not read James Crouse and Dale Trusheim, ''The Case Against the SAT'' (University of Chicago Press, 1988), Todd Morrison and Melanie Morrison, "A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Predictive Validity of the Quantitative and Verbal Components of the Graduate Record Examination with Graduate Grade Point Averages Representing the Criterion of Graduate Success," ''Educational and Psychological Measurement'' 55, no. 2, April 1995, pages 309-316. Stanley Kaplan, in his memoir ''Test Pilot,'' writes "The S.A.T. is now seventy-five years old, and it is in trouble. Earlier this year, the University of California—the nation’s largest public-university system—stunned the educational world by proposing a move toward a “holistic” admissions system, which would mean abandoning its heavy reliance on standardized-test scores. The school backed up its proposal with a devastating statistical analysis, arguing that the S.A.T. is virtually useless as a tool for making admissions decisions." ] | ] 10:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Source already given but here it is again: A recent one, and not fifteen or twenty years old unlike those you mention. ] (]) 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Independent analysis is better as it avoids any conflict of interest. The college Board makes a great deal of money selling exams and has a vested interest in these claims. ] | ] 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Which does not automatically invalidate research sponsored by them anymore than it does for, say, medical research on drugs payed for by pharmaceutical companies. But if you want another source here is a recent review that also finds SAT scores to be significant predictors. ] (]) 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

== Cluster analysis ==

In the citation cleanup, I've left Brace and Graves for now but they are somewhat ill-used where they are now. I suspect the original claim moved during some kind of reshuffle, but the paragraph seems to circle about cluster analysis, their strengths/weaknesses, fallacies and implications ''for this topic''. And neither of those sources fit that well in that particular theme. I won't waste time tweaking it until we get some consensus about where we're going with this anyway. Hunt's view that CA lends confidence to self-identified race assignment is there now. But "other side's" opinions (lack of a better word) aren't described well. (It's peripheral in Brace or Graves, at most.) I don't have a clear idea myself yet how to handle this properly. It's a bit of a muddle because few on either side disagree with what cluster analysis really shows-it's simply a means to model relatedness patterns. They also agree what it doesn't show-genetic matched phenotype variation between any two or more populations. Where they disagree comes down to the same sticking point they disagree over when leaving cluster analysis completely out of it. One side thinks grouping populations "racially" is useful to presume "shared genes" in those populations cause IQ differences and the other side doesn't. Neither side supposes the markers used in cluster analysis have anything to do with IQ.

It's a tangle now but the last thing this article needs is a lengthy discourse about what can or can't be inferred from cluster analysis, although this is why critics charge it's misusing the tool. Maybe better sources would suggest to us a better direction here. ] (]) 00:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:The real experts on this are molecular geneticists and I have added a section on their views above. This is also a fast moving field. I think today more scientists are using principal components analysis rather than cluster analysis which by itself invalidates some of the criticisms against cluster analysis such as having to determine how many clusters to look for in advance. ] (]) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, working my way through this I've come to the Weiss and Fullerton article which has expressed the issues beautifully. We should make much better use of it, imo. ] (]) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Well, nevermind. It's synth so we have too keep looking. ] (]) 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:::See only the usual arguments. There are no clearly demarcated racial groups with traits changing gradually with distance if looking at groups in their ancestral homes and if looking at a single gene there is not much differences between groups. This of course ignores that if taking people from very geographically distant ancestral regions and comparing there may be large differences between the groups on a trait and what applies to a single gene do not necessarily apply to a group. Here is some quotes from a critical article: "Worse still, forensic anthropologists are quite successful in correctly inferring a person’s race from the skeletal characteristics of human remains, which would of course be impossible if the statements in the above quotations were true. This prompted one bewildered and exasperated scientist to write an article with a provocative title: ''If Races Do Not Exist, Why Are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying Them?''... ...it is taken for granted among forensic anthropologists that race is determinable from the skull and postcranium... ...multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classification." ] (]) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::"See only the usual arguments." Exactly. That's the point. Nothing new here. Nobody claims there is. Read it again. Stay out of the debate. You haven't been given a role to play in it. We're just trying to explain it half way decently. And we're failing in that task so far. ] (]) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I am pointing out that these usual arguments have usual responses. Which are not fairly mentioned in the article. ] (]) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


== Piffer (2015) ==
== Removal of Ashkenazi Jew material and genocides of high IQ groups ==
Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:
See . No good reason given for this, obviously there should be at least a brief mention in the main article even if it is discussed also in another article. There should also be link in this section to the main article.


https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf
Furthermore, I also think there are important moral reasons to mention this. High IQ minority groups that are successful have not infrequently been persecuted or been the subject of attempted genocide by majority. This because their success, if not due to for example a high IQ, may be blamed on some conspiracy or their supposed evil, parasitic nature. (See What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True? Linda S. Gottfredson, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319. See also the book "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker).


] (]) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thus, Hitler prohibited IQ tests in Nazi Germany because their danger for Nazi ideology. Another high IQ group that are currently persecuted or at risk for this are Chinese in South Asia. See for example the book '']'' and ]. I personally feel strongly that Misplaced Pages have an important purpose here by giving information that can prevent persecutions and genocide. ] (]) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


:See ] for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:The argument that leaving will "prevent future genocide" is ultimate tops in the hyperbole department. Let's just focus on writing a decent article about the topic, "race and intelligence" and leave saving the planet to Superman. We don't need any more of this flooding the talk page here-we need to get some work done.
:An earlier proposal to merge all the group differences in IQ in the literature into a single article failed so they remain having separate articles. Ashkenazi intelligence has it's own article. Why does it need to be here too? ] (]) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) ::The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. ] (]) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. ] (]) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::As already stated, also if there is a subarticle it should be briefly summarized in the main article and a link given. That high IQ groups may have an increased risk of persecution and genocide due to their success, especially if their success is seen as caused by something more negative than IQ differences, is an argument in the literature. Therefore it should be mentioned. ] (]) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
:::I don't know why you're not seeing this, Acadēmica Orientālis, but the section that has been removed said nothing whatsoever about their suffering genocide because they had higher than average IQ scores. Thus your argument for keeping it makes no sense. ] (]) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. ] (]) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::You did not answer my argument regarding subarticles having a brief summary and link in the main article. Sources given for the persecution argument in my first post in this section above. If not mentioned/removed, the article should mention this important argument. Not necessarily in this section. Such persecutions have happened to many successful groups like Chinese as mentioned above.] (]) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Misplaced Pages's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the ] (noted experts on racism) that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote: {{Tq|Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect}} - ] (]) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Let's keep the focus on the section that was removed, and let give room for others to weigh in. If you want to develop some new content about IQ and racial persecutions, then propose your idea in a new section. ] (]) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
::::::You have still not replied to my point of subarticles having a brief summary and link in the main article. That lacking knowledge of IQ differences may contribute to persecution of high IQ groups is obviously an argument for mentioning such IQ groups in the article. Yes, the persecution argument should go into another section, such as one discussing the societal implications of IQ differences and the value of IQ research and knowledge, but this argument is an important reason for mentioning high IQ groups in the article.] (]) 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. ] (]) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I didn't know it was supposed to be a subarticle of this one. In any event, the content removed was in the US intelligence section while the content focused on Europe. ] (]) 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The data is regarding US Jews. Do you have any objections against keeping the material in order to have a brief summary and a link to the subarticle? ] (]) 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) :::::::If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. ] (]) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal ''Intelligence''. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
::::::::Not really then, but fix the text so it says what you say it means. ] (]) 02:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. ] (]) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Possibly instead that section should be about the US and Europe instead. Also could we not have arguments about keeping or removing stuff based on stopping persecution. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox no matter how important the subject, we should just summarize the stuff with a neutral point of view. Soapboxing is next door to POV editing and censorship. ] (]) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. ] (]) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
::::::::::Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
::::::::::I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. ] (]) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. ] (]) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: has now been published by '']'', the flagship journal of the ]. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... ] (]) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? ] (]) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see ]. ] (]) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. ] (]) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? ] (]) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. ] (]) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. ] (]) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:Please also read ] concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. ] (]) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Notification about ] ==
== Reference "padding" ==


I posted already on ], but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.
I'd like to see the reference "padding" curtailed here too. The article is too big, too choppy, and too bloated. A claim "Rushton and Jensen say" doesn't need 6 references where they said it. It needs 1, the most cite-worthy available. The overkill makes the reader wade through blubber for no reason, and makes navigating the edit pages more tedious than it needs to be. We need to cite references but we don't need to spam them. So that's another cleanup chore that needs doing. ] (]) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:Do you have an example? ] (]) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:I guess this would be one: . I would of course be best to keep the most recent statement of their position and not remove that one. Also, I note that this section is problematic, using the word "note" which should be avoided (]) since it declares one side as proven correct which is not the case. ] (]) 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::Typically in research papers it is the earliest citation where a novel claim appears that is cited, and those will be most often cited in the secondary sources. As in the case of attributed views to those who first proposed them, like Dickens and Flynn, those will be primary sources, which for obvious reasons we have to use cautiously here. There are a lot of nobody-cares-about-their-opinion and lunatic fringe published on this topic, and we need to choose whose opinions merit mention here and whose don't based on how notable those opinions are in the field. Attributing a claim to Dickens and Flynn should go to the earliest citation - but demonstrating how much influence it carries in the field may need us to cite it used in work written by others. ] (]) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:::This ignores that there have often been much new debate and research after an argument was first mentioned. Citing only the oldest source thus misses much of the argumentation and debate. Reviews also summarizes research and draws conclusions and thus may present material and arugments not available in any primary source. ] (]) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::::What a relief! We can ''finally'' put to bed the notion that a 30 year old opinion survey has much merit then!
::::Anyway, back to the point. We aren't "missing much of the argumentation and debate" if source is sufficient to cite the claim we've added to the article. When there is ''new'' argumentation or ''new debate'' in a ''newer'' work that's important to mention, then the new stuff should be put ''in'' the article and then by all means...cite it properly to the newer work.
::::Instead I'm coming across a lot of goofy stuff like this debate over Eyferth which in reality unfolded like this, each one an answer to the one before it except Nisbett2009:
:::::Eyferth1961->Flynn1980->DickensFlynn2001->Loehlin2002->DickensFlynn2002->JensenRushton2005->Nisbett2005->Nisbett2009->JensenRushton2010
::::We've put it together in this sequence:
:::::Eyferth->Rushton2010->DickensFlynn2001
::::And cited that sequence like this:
:::::Nisbett2009->JensenRushton2010->Nisbett2005
::::with the Nisbett2009 ref for Eyferth, JensenRushton citing JensenRushton, and Nisbett2005 citing idunnowhat-the "3 IQ point" compensation Flynn calculated in 1980 is not mentioned in Nisbett2005.
::::We confused it even further giving Nisbett and Rushton/Jensen center stage. We don't need "Nisbett said Dickens and Flynn said", that's completely unnecessary. We've also completely goofed who the real life notable opinionators here, who were ''not'' Nisbett and RushtonJensen as named here, but DickensFlynn and Loehlin! They did the work, while Nisbett, Rushton and Jensen were the bystanders. And while you say the later papers bring "new debate"--if so we sure as helsinki didn't use any of it. The claims here were unchanged from Flynn1980 and Loehlin2002. It's not a big deal except when we're attributing a key claim to it's originator. Not such a big deal when we're attributing secondary opinions who agree or disagree with it. ] (]) 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::While primary sources are not prohibited in WP, secondary reviews are preferable. Obviously later reviews are preferable regarding a field with much new research. Thus, the best sources are the latest reviews. ] (]) 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::It occurs to me the solution isn't that hard. We should do more of this to settle out sources and attribution properly: "Eyferth '''(1961)''' studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 born to and raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences. The study had weaknesses in x, y and z, but following extensive analysis Flynn '''(1980)''' concluded these would account for at most 3 IQ points. This analysis has failed to satisfy all of the study's critics (see Loehlin '''(2002)''', Rowe '''(2xxx)''', Dickson and Flynn '''(2002)'''), and the study is seen as providing an intriguing, but insufficient, example in the literature pointing to culture rather than genetics to explain the IQ gap.ref->Sternberg, ''Handbook of Intelligence'', 2000 "
::::::Note this solves a lot of other problems as well, such as the absurd overuse of Rushton, Jensen and to a lesser extent Nisbett who are in the middle of ''way too damn many'' claims here they have no particular claim to or special notability for putting their names behind. As in the case of the 'x, y and z' problems with Eyferth which were not spelled out by Rushton first, nor Loehlin, but were already in FLYNN 1980! Flaws x, y and z were the whole ''point'' to the reanalysis. So the above method of citation is far more faithful to the facts and players involved. -- ] (]) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Again, secondary reviews are preferable to primary sources. It is not our task weight up the primary sources and draw conclusions. That is SYNTH and OR. Such conclusions and overviews are the task of secondary reviews. The latest reviews have more recent research and are thus better. Which is why Nisbett and Rushton/Jensens reviews are mentioned frequently. This obviously does not mean that did reviewers did all the research mentioned in the the reviews themselves.] (]) 08:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Lame. Strawman argument = IDHT. Nothing in my example were conclusions that weren't secondarily sourced - and verifiable per citations given. How many of the Nisbett/Rushton/Jensen secondary sourcing here is yours? I'll tell you as I plunge through resources on the subject I see no justification whatsoever for this peculiar focus. ] (]) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You cite several primary sources. If you mean that everything ultimately is supposed to be from a secondary source this is not at all clear. Not sure what your actual policy objection is. There is no policy objections against citing the most recent reviews extensively. Also, your description abvove is biased. You spell out some of the arguments of one side in detail but not those of the other side, like that family effects on IQ tend to disappear after puberty.] (]) 09:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Well excuse me for any patronizing overtones in my response because I'm at a loss otherwise responding to your objection. Secondary sources aren't granted the credit for opinion via attribution, even here. The very idea is ludicrous to me. "The New York Times says e=mc<sup>2</sup>" is the idiocy I'm attempting to clean up in this article. That's equivalent to the kind of lazy, hamfisted attribution/citation justifications I'm challenging. ] (]) 09:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::An overview article does not need and cannot go into details regarding exactly which researcher did what in a particular study at a particular time. This is obviously impossible for an area with thousands of published papers. There is a special section for history, including the history of research. Citing review papers of course in no way imply that the reviewers did the research mentioned in the review. ] (]) 10:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::No need to invent obstacles here. My example derives from '''reading''' the sources cited. The Nisbett2009, JensenRushton2010, and Nisbett2005? They '''''say''''' to whom and where attribution belongs--and we monkeyed with what they've said in reporting it here so it no longer makes sense. ] (]) 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am still not sure what is you policy objection against these reviews? Secondary sources are preferred in Misplaced Pages. Recent reviews are obviously better than old ones. Citing old primary sources and reviews means that we may miss important new developments. If you are using the most recent reviews but not acknowledging this, then that is wrong also. More generally, I see no need to go into these issues into great detail. A casual reader is likely not interested in what in the end amounts to often rather complicated mathematical arguments and a professional will read the sources directly. As such the whole genetic or not discussion can be summarized as that the issue is disputed and will likely remain so until we can do direct genetic testing on different groups examining the genes affecting IQ. ] (]) 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
It seems that your understanding of ] is still weak at best. Secondary and tertiary sources are indeed preferred. They are the best guide to establishing proper synthesis and weight. Likewise, they are an excellent guide for determining which primary sources are relevant, including the appropriate weight to give them. However, when a secondary source is attributing something to a primary source, the content attributed should be sourced to the primary source. If the secondary source has not been cited already in the section or article, including a citation would make sense. Including a gaggle of secondary sources simply to establish the weight of a specific statement can be citation spamming. ] (]) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:"However, when a secondary source is attributing something to a primary source, the content attributed should be sourced to the primary source." Not mentioning the secondary source at all would be incorrect attribution of the sources used and could be a not allowed synthesis of primary sources.] (]) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::Your exact point is explicitly covered in the 6th sentence. Please at least finish reading what I wrote before you reply. ] (]) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, and I find it odd that you're pushing back on this because the article has ''properly'' cited primary sources innumerable times. To wit (as already in the main body): Eyferth (1961); Fryer and Levitt (2006); The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976); Eppig, Fincher, and Thornhill (2009); A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn ; Murray in a 2006; Roth et al. (2001); Rushton and Jensen (2005); Gray and Thompson (2004); "In their 1988 book ''The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy''; Hunt and Carlson (2007); The Mismeasure of Man (1996); The Bell Curve Debate (1995)The g Factor: The science of mental ability (1998) by Jensen; In 1969 Arthur Jensen , etc.
:::You're leaving the impression you're uncomfortable with the suggestion that in too many cases proper attribution has been sidestepped to spotlight Rushton and Jensen again and again. Shall we eliminate properly identifying or citing Jensen 1969 and attribute its conclusions to one of the thousands of later secondary sources rendering an opinion on it? ] (]) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Jensen 1969 is particularly notable article because of the social controversy it generated at the time. Not because of presentation of scientific arguments which are presented much better in later reviews which includes later research. The same would apply to, say, the Mismeasure of Man. Such famous sources should be mentioned. But since there are thousands of studies we cannot name them all. Furthermore, picking out which one we feel should be included is problematic. Which is why review articles are preferable if available. Again, I repeat that general reader is likely not all that interested in the complex and often mathematical details of the debate, so I think the genetic or not not debate should be summarized very briefly.] (]) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Any more strawmen show up here and we should light a match and call it a day. ] (]) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::What kind of response is this? Is it even civil? Are you really trying to make this a better article "Professor"?--] (]) 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::"What kind of response is this?" An appropriate one. I am not here to waste my time defending Synth, improperly cited claims, and redundant sources. I'm not here to defend poorly managed attributions. I'm not here to stop genocide, and I'm not here to humor straw man arguments all day. I'm not here to answer the same question 8,000 times. What editor who is motivated to improve the article would oblige any of it? ] (]) 07:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Also I tried editing the article, to give it more substance, but this is not my area of expertise. Please feel free to clean it up anyway you want. ] (]) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Professor Marginalia made a simple and quite correct point: if the article presents an account of a view expressed in a published book or article (note, both are considered secondary sources by WP), then we should provide one citation, for the secondary source that first presented that view. If subsequent books and articles repeat the same point, there is no need to cite them, it is redundant. If any subsequent book or article presents ''new'' information or views, then we should add the new material to the article and add the new citation. Otherwise, there is simply no need to add another citation. Acadēmica Orientālis has yet to respond to Professor Marginalia's point. All Acadēmica Orientālis has said is that we should favor secondary sources over primary sources, which is a complete ''non sequitor'' as Professor Marginalia never suggested using a primary source. So this thread seems to be a big waste of time. If no one has a real objection to PM's point, we should just follow the suggestion and make the appropriate improvement to the article. ] | ] 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:There is no policy stating that one should use the oldest secondary source available. On the contrary, for example WP:MEDRS states: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.". ] (]) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::We're not discussing reviews. We're discussing matching up ''attributed'' claims to their most cite-worthy reference. This has been explained repeatedly in this thread. It '''isn't''' important to take the earliest reviews. It is important to take the significant citation for <u>attributions</u>. As in attributing the view that speciation takes place through descent with modification and natural selection to Darwin ''The Origin of Species'', and not to Darwin ''The Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' because it was the last time chronologically Darwin said it nor to Richard Dawkins because he wrote a commentary about evolution "within the last 5 years".
::Nobody is claiming that the earliest general overview or review is best. ] (]) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::We have discussed reviews, among other things, as can be seen in the above posts. There is no WP policy requirement to name the primary studies a secondary source summarize. This can be useful for really notable primary sources but there is no requirement that every primary source summarized by a secondary source should be named. ] (]) 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
::::As to primary. Exactly. It can be useful...as in cases such as what is mentioned at the start of this thread. In that case, Eyferth, we don't need to write "Nisbett says Flynn says". That's just word bloat, and put the wrong spin on what occurred. As I demonstrated way back when at the beginning of the thread, the citations, chronology and actors were all screwed up (Nisbett seemingly describing an event 5 years in the future)— and the solution was an easy one. Three references were given where 1 would do. To untangle it and set it right, we realize the account was goofed up, that it is '''useful''', ie the problem resolves itself nicely if we do a better job of attributing the claims. It's a ''useful'' solution that is far superior to attributing these claims to people who didn't make them but merely reported them somewhere. There is no requirement. It's just a lot better that way. Useful, and better. Nobody said that it's "required" to prefer the more accurate, less confusing alternative. Most editors probably don't need to be <u>required</u> to take that route.
::::As to reviews, such as this . See above where I said it is not a big deal to find the earliest publication for secondary sourced opinions. There were 3 conclusions listed and attributed to Rushton and Jensen. There is no confusion who said what when. They said it. It's not all tangled up with needless doo-whopping like "Nisbett says Flynn says Rushton and Jensen saids" to wade through. Two references were cited when one of them was plenty. Which one was plenty? Well, the 2005 of course. Why? First, the claims were <u>attributed</u> to Rushton and Jensen, and we don't need a citation to Nisbett to vouch they said it (as in previous where Nisbett was citation used for Flynn). And second, only 2 of the 3 claims actually appear in the 2010 so obviously that one would not suffice to cite the claim. ] (]) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::The sources are a twisted mess. All of the "''...yeah but Jensen and Rushton (or one of their clan) says different...''" stuff really must go. It would also help if we could separate the research from the rhetoric making sure stuff like (ref 21) Rushton and Jensen's "Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It." published in "The Open Psychology Journal" isn't presented as anything more than editorial published in a low-qualiy journal I.e. Questionable, if any, peer-review. (Is it just me or does the doi link to the wrong bit of psuedoscience?) ] (]) 08:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::"The Open Psychology Journal, a peer-reviewed journal". Unlike Nisbett's 2009 book which did not have any peer-review at all.] (]) 09:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::As I have said before, I think the genetic-or-not debate should be summarized very briefly as unresolved and disputed and likely remaining to be so until direct genetic testing of genes affecting IQ are possible. The general readers are likely not that interested in the complex, often mathematical, argumentation that resolves nothing and the professional will read the journals directly. ] (]) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Just saying or printing "a peer-reviewed journal" does not magically make it so. More to the point: There is no "genetic-or-not debate". It is a question of how much, as in a quantity expressed as a percentage. Jensen et al. see high numbers of 70 to 90% and claim their science says people are just born stupid, by race. While the rest of the known universe comes up with lower numbers and observes a mix of factors...with Nisbett at around 50%. The "genetic-or-not debate" is a red herring and the idea that we should avoid the subject in any depth because everything is "unresolved and disputed" gives ] to the opinions of a small and dated minority. That's not something we usually do here. Furthermore, your argument presupposes the existence of "intelligence" genes that we can't currently test for. How convenient. I call shenanigans. ] (]) 10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Rushton and Jensen usually state 50% for the most researched gap, the US black-white gap. Nisbett advocates 0% genetics as an explanation for the gap. In the only survey ever done on the opinion of IQ experts more agreed with the partly-genetic explanation than the non-genetic explanation. See ]. Direct testing of group differences regarding IQ affecting genes will likely be the only way to conclusively decide the debate. ] (]) 11:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


== Removed SES material == == Test scores ==
"Rushton and Jensen argue that controlling for SES only reduces the black-white gap by a third or 5 points. If there are racial genetic differences, then this figure is overstated since part of the differences in parental SES are due to differences in parental IQ. Furthermore, they argue, an environment-only explanation predicts that the IQ gap would be smaller at higher levels of parental SES since these children would be less exposed to the environmental factors lowering IQ. However, the gap is actually larger at higher parental SES levels. They also point to studies finding higher average IQ for East Asians, American Indians, and Inuit with similar or worse SES than blacks. Comparing black and white children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators found that the black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower on IQ than the white children with the worst socioeconomic factors.<ref name="Rushton 2005"/>"
:This is obviously important opposing views. If we should have a detailed genetic-or-not discussion this should be restored. ] (]) 09:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::''Argument from obviousness'' isn't a strong enough rationale to merit inclusion. ] (]) 15:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Do you have arguments for not including these important views while following WP:NPOV? ] (]) 15:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::As it stands, the article as ''you'' rewrote it, is already significantly biased towards presenting the work of Pioneer Fund grantees. Your suggestion that adding even more such content can only make the article less neutral, not more. ] (]) 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::The article is currently biased against the partly-genetic explanation since much supporting material, like this, has been removed. Much of the supporting research summarized in the reviews by Rushton and Jensen, such as the material mentioned above, have not been done by Pioneer Fund grantees.] (]) 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate that you're a big fan of the work of Rushton and Jensen, but suggesting that the article is biased against presenting their work, when it mentions each by name more than any other researcher, is nothing less than baffling. ] (]) 18:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Rushton/Jensen and Nisbett were cited frequently because they have written the most recent reviews regarding the genetic-or-not debate, arguing from different POVs. Reviews are the preferred sources in Misplaced Pages. Again, numerous researchers have found results supporting the partially-genetic explanation, not just Rushton/Jensen. Not mentioning these important views regarding socioeconomic explanations violates WP:NPOV. ] (]) 18:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::On the contrary,[REDACTED] is not a venue for you to promote every piece of research that supports your personal point of view. Again, as the article currently stands, Rushton and Jensen are by far the most represented researchers. Your continued efforts to insert even more research from hereditarian sources only makes the article less neutral not more. ] (]) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I have not written in the article for how a long time and was never the sole author of the article. Its current state is certainly bad with a strong bias against the partly-genetic explanation by removing material such as the above. However, an article citing the most recent reviews frequently is not prohibited by policy. The best sources can be cited frequently. A review is not the result of just the authors but of also the numerous other researchers cited in reviews. As the arguments presented above represent significant views regarding the role of SES they should be included in order for the article to have an NPOV presentation of the debate. ] (]) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::They haven't written "the most recent reviews". We have several which are more recent, so I take it that you would have no objection to "updating" Rushton and Jensen's old reviews to accomodate the newer ones? ] (]) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Is there a more recent review representing the partially-genetic side? Which one? ] (]) 19:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::By "representing" here, do you mean "discusses" or "written by"? If the recent reviews deal with the topic, there is real issue here. Or are requiring that such a review must be written by someone who you deem as on the "partially-genetic side" to merit inclusion? ] (]) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
The reviews regarding the partially-genetic explanation are written by supporters or critics. Thus reviews from both sides are needed. My point regarding that the material mentioned above is needed for NPOV still stands. ] (]) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:I don't even know what this means. Are you saying that the 2012 review cannot be used as a source until a Pioneer Fund grantee releases one? Or are you saying that the reviews from Pioneer Fund grantees should be removed if mainstream reviews cannot be found to "balance" out the views? Either way, I don't think you'll find much community support for the idea that the article requires presentation parity between the views of Pioneer Fund grantees and the views of everyone else. ] (]) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::I am saying that reviews from both sides regarding the debate are needed. We can certainly cite the 2012 review regarding the views one side of the debate. Much of the supporting research for the partially-genetic explanation have not been done by Pioneer Fund grantees. My point regarding the need for inclusion of the deleted material in order for the article to be NPOV still applies. ] (]) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::You're going to have to make a more coherent argument than this. Given that Rushton/Jensen's views currently dominate in the article, to satisfy ] and ] we're going to have to either prune out some of their represented views, or add more mainstream views to the article. If you'd like to suggest ways which we can achieve a more balanced article, you're welcome to do so. If you really feel that this specific content is ''more'' relevant than the other Rushton and Jensen content, you're welcome to trim away. ] (]) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The partially-genetic arguments, which represents the views of numerous researchers and not just Jensen/Rushton, are presently underrepresented in the article. The SES arguments are one example. There is no policy stating that one should delete arguments in order to achieve some sorts of balance. All important arguments should be mentioned. ] (]) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


The Test Scores section has a paragraph discussing disparities in academic achievement and math test scores in the UK, but surely those are a less reliable measurement of intelligence than general mental ability (GMA) tests, such as those discussed here?<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2377780?needAccess=true</ref> Is there any objection to replacing this paragraph with the results from this meta-analysis of GMA tests? ] (]) 04:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
=== Latest review ===
:There is no reason to remove the current text or the sources used, but feel free to suggest additional text sourced to for discussion here to reach consensus. How to define ''intelligence'' and what's a less or more reliable way to measure it are controversial. Many believe that ''intelligence'' includes many disparate capacities and that there cannot be a numerical value that measures general intelligence.
As noted above, the latest review is from this year, and is available for download: . ] (]) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:A review written by critics of the partially-genetic explanation as noted earlier. My point regarding the need for inclusion of the deleted material in order for the article to be NPOV still stands. ] (]) 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC) :Note that the reliability of your source is very questionable, since all three authors are closely associated with either '']'' (see also ]) or '']''. ] (]) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::Given that you've presented no policy based rationale, and so far your only rationale is that inclusion is "obvious", I don't expect that you'll convince anyone on this point. ] (]) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Reviews often find different results. There is no policy stating that only one review should be cited. ] (]) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::This is not an argument for inclusion. ] (]) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::WP:NPOV states that WP should not only present the views of one side. ] (]) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Again, this is not an argument for inclusion. The Rushton/Jensen "side" is more than adequately represented in the article. ] (]) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::No, since for example important argument regarding the role of SES are not mentioned. If there are counter-arguments to the above arguments, then please add them.] (]) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::. ] (]) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
=== Talk page disruption ===


== Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn? ==
At this point it seems fairly clear that Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis is not able to offer up any policy based rationales for inclusion. The only policy quoted so far is ], which clearly indicates that ''more'' content sourced to Rushton and Jensen is not the path to ]. Until Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis can begin to engage constructive dialogue, there is little use in continuing this conversation. ] (]) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:See my arguments above. But, obviously, we cannot continue the discussion if you do not want to. Since I do not think I have a consensus I will not make any edits regarding this to the article but wait for the input of uninvolved editors. ] (]) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::"If Rushton and Jensen said it we have to include it otherwise the article is not {fill in the blank}. And even though they have twice as many mentions -- and citations -- as any other researcher identified here, the article has neglected their work so far and this must be rectified. Any opportunity we have for putting their names and citations on someone else's work should taken up as well." Message received and noted. ] (]) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Rushton/Jensen were cited frequently because they have written two recent and lengthy reviews, summarizing the research of numerous primary research articles by many researchers. Until maybe recently, there was no similarly good review summarizing of the arguments of the non-genetic side. The closest thing was Nisbett 2009 which is a comparatively brief (and not peer-reviewed) article which was a response to some of the arguments in Rushton and Jensen's first review. Thus, by necessity, one had to use many other sources, sometimes primary, in order to present the views of the non-genetic side fairly. But citing a good, recent review frequently is not prohibited. I also note that many of the citations to Nisbett 2009 seem to have been changed to other sources since I last wrote something in the article a long time ago. Anyway, I currently think that it would be best to summarize the genetic-or-not debate to a very brief statement of this being disputed and unresolved and likely being so until direct genetic testing is available. The complex debate, often involving complicated mathematical arguments, will likely not be of interest to he general reader and in the end does not resolve the dispute. A professional will read the literature directly. Such a summary of the genetic-or-not debate would certainly remove most citations to Rushton and Jensen. But if we are going to have a detailed discussion, then both sides should be presented fairly, which includes mentioning the SES arguments above. ] (]) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: ] (]) 20:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Seems we going in circles currently and constructive discussion may have stopped. Anyway, I will not currently add the SES material to the article since I do not seem have a consensus. Input from uninvolved editors would be welcome. ] (]) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks. ] ] 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== Removed section on "Signifiance of group differences" ==
See . This is obviously a very important area since IQ differences have important consequences regardless of if they are partially-genetic or not. As such I think this section should be restored. ] (]) 09:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:While something may be "obvious" to you, that's not enough to support inclusion. The content you link to is about ], which is already discussed in the article, and ], which isn't primarily about intelligence. ] (]) 15:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::The content from the Bell Curve discussed in this section is not discussed elsewhere in this article. The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel explicitly stated in the book that it was written in response to the race and intelligence debate. Anyway, that is just some of the sources mentioned. IQ differences, regardless of if partially genetically caused or not, have important practical consequences which obviously also should be mentioned. ] (]) 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


== Genome-wide association study recent changes ==
== Broadening/updating views ==


Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at ]. ] (]) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Besides Nisbett et al 2012, we could make more use of Hunt's 2010 ''Human Intelligence'' and Sternberg's 2011 ''Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence''. I should have more on these after the weekend, and should have more by then, but these are a promising start. ] (]) 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:As noted earlier the article focuses almost exclusively on the view of psychologists and anthropologists. We should also include the views of molecular geneticists. See the review here: ] ] (]) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::The Richardson source is possibly interesting, though she is not a molecular geneticist, and the article was not published in a science journal. The Harpending/Cochran book is idle speculation, and has nothing to do with molecular genetics. ] (]) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The book is mentioned in the review and cites a lot of research. ] (]) 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The review is published in a peer-reviewed journal unlike the books mentioned above. ] (]) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I haven't read the Richardson but it seems relevant from the abstract. I suspect we do still have some SYNTH problems with the claims about it here now, besides the fact many refs there now are oldish primary sources. ] (]) 21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Oldish primary sources where? The article is a review. ] (]) 22:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::In ''this'' article is what I'm referring to. Postuma et al 2002, Thompson et al 2001. ] (])
::::::Here is a review on the brain size and intelligence: ] (]) 22:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 14 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 Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

  • Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
  • Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
  • Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.
  • Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
  • Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
  • Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
  • Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
February 24, 2020Deletion reviewOverturned
February 29, 2020Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnthropology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCulture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconRace and intelligence is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] Discrimination Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Section sizes
Section size for Race and intelligence (31 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 2,627 2,627
History of the controversy 3,119 11,838
Early IQ testing 3,763 3,763
The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve 4,956 4,956
Conceptual issues 25 12,777
Intelligence and IQ 3,402 3,402
Race 9,350 9,350
Group differences 2,017 11,749
Test scores 6,620 6,620
Flynn effect and the closing gap 3,112 3,112
Environmental factors 26 28,726
Health and nutrition 8,895 8,895
Education 4,630 4,630
Socioeconomic environment 3,656 3,656
Test bias 2,671 2,671
Stereotype threat and minority status 8,848 8,848
Research into possible genetic factors 4,981 27,192
Genetics of race and intelligence 4,001 4,001
Heritability within and between groups 4,588 4,588
Spearman's hypothesis 3,826 3,826
Adoption studies 4,255 4,255
Racial admixture studies 2,450 2,450
Mental chronometry 1,939 1,939
Brain size 937 937
Archaeological data 215 215
Policy relevance and ethics 2,717 2,717
See also 142 142
References 18 50,123
Notes 28 28
Citations 31 31
Bibliography 50,046 50,046
Total 147,891 147,891

? view · edit Frequently asked questions Is there really a scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence? Yes, and for a number of reasons. Primarily: Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ test scores? On average and in certain contexts, yes, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Crucially, the existence of such average differences today does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means (i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence). Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. Further, important discoveries in the past several decades, such as the Flynn effect and the steady narrowing of the gap between low-scoring and high-scoring groups, as well as the ways in which disparities such as access to prenatal care and early childhood education affect IQ, have led to an understanding that environmental factors are sufficient to account for observed between-group differences. And isn't IQ a measure of intelligence? Not exactly. IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence, but it is widely acknowledged that they measure only a very limited range of an individual's cognitive capacity. They do not measure mental adaptability or creativity, for example. You can read more about the limitations of IQ measurements here. These caveats need to be kept in mind when extrapolating from IQ measurements to statements about intelligence. But even if we were to take IQ to be a measure of intelligence, there would still be no good reason to assert a genetic link between race and intelligence (for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this FAQ). Isn't there research showing that there are genetic differences between races? Yes and no. A geneticist could analyze a DNA sample and then in many cases make an accurate statement about that person's race, but no single gene or group of genes has ever been found that defines a person's race. Such variations make up a minute fraction of the total genome, less even than the amount of genetic material that varies from one individual to the next. It's also important to keep in mind that racial classifications are socially constructed, in the sense that how a person is classified racially depends on perceptions, racial definitions, and customs in their society and can often change when they travel to a different country or when social conventions change over time (see here for more details). So how can different races look different, without having different genes? They do have some different genes, but the genes that vary between any two given races will not necessarily vary between two other races. Race is defined phenotypically, not genotypically, which means it's defined by observable traits. When a geneticist looks at the genetic differences between two races, there are differences in the genes that regulate those traits, and that's it. So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same. In fact, there is much less genetic material that regulates the traits used to define the races than there is that regulates traits that vary from person to person. In other words, if you compare the genomes of two individuals within the same race, the results will likely differ more from each other than a comparison of the average genomes of two races. If you've ever heard people saying that the races "are more alike than two random people" or words to that effect, this is what they were referring to. Why do people insist that race is "biologically meaningless"? Mostly because it is. As explained in the answer to the previous question, race isn't defined by genetics. Race is nothing but an arbitrary list of traits, because race is defined by observable features. The list isn't even consistent from one comparison to another. We distinguish between African and European people on the basis of skin color, but what about Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American people? They all have more or less the same skin color. We distinguish African and Asian people from European people by the shape of some of their facial features, but what about Native American and Middle Eastern people? They have the same features as the European people, or close enough to engender confusion when skin color is not discernible. Australian Aborigines share numerous traits with African people and are frequently considered "Black" along with them, yet they are descended from an ancestral Asian population and have been a distinct cultural and ethnic group for fifty thousand years. These standards of division are arbitrary and capricious; the one drop rule shows that visible differences were not even respected at the time they were still in use. But IQ is at least somewhat heritable. Doesn't that mean that observed differences in IQ test performance between ancestral population groups must have a genetic component? This is a common misconception, sometimes termed the "hereditarian fallacy". In fact, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. As geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell explains:

We need to get away from thinking about intelligence as if it were a trait like milk yield in a herd of cattle, controlled by a small, persistent and dedicated bunch of genetic variants that can be selectively bred into animals from one generation to the next. It is quite the opposite – thousands of variants affect intelligence, they are constantly changing, and they affect other traits. It is not impossible for natural selection to produce populations with differences in intelligence, but these factors make it highly unlikely.

To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.

The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next.

What about all the psychometricians who claim there's a genetic link? The short answer is: they're not geneticists. The longer answer is that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry (see e.g. and ). Psychometry is a field where people who advocate scientific racism can push racist ideas without being constantly contradicted by the very work they're doing. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck, who are best known in the scientific community today for the poor methodological quality of their work, their strong advocacy for a genetic link between race and intelligence, and in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years. Isn't it a conspiracy theory to claim that psychometricians do this? No. It is a well-documented fact that there is an organized group of psychometricians pushing for mainstream acceptance of racist, unscientific claims. See this, this and this, as well as our article on scientific racism for more information. Isn't this just political correctness? No, it's science. As a group of scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina explain: "while it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed". These authors compare proponents of a genetic link between race and IQ to creationists, vaccine skeptics, and climate change deniers. At the same time, researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so, as is made clear by this article: . It's just that all the evidence they find points to environmental rather than genetic causes for observed differences in average IQ-test performance between racial groups. What about the surveys which say that most "intelligence experts" believe in some degree of genetic linkage between race and IQ?
  • These surveys are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism, and respondents to these surveys are also almost exclusively members of groups that promote scientific racism. In short, they are not representative samples of mainstream scientific opinion.
  • These surveys tend to have very low participation rates, and often consist of fewer than 100 respondents.
  • Many of the surveys suffer from methodological flaws, such as using leading questions. This leads to an increase in responses from those who agree, and a decrease from those who disagree.
  • Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.
  • Even the most poorly structured surveys, conducted among members of groups that are dominated by advocates for scientific racism, show much doubt and difference of opinion among respondents.
  • The vast majority of respondents have absolutely no qualifications to speak on genetics.
Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence? No evidence for such a link has ever been presented in the scientific community. Much data has been claimed to be evidence by advocates of scientific racism, but each of these claims has been universally rejected by geneticists. Statistical arguments claiming to detect the signal of such a difference in polygenic scores have been refuted as fundamentally methodologically flawed (see e.g. ), and neither genetics nor neuroscience are anywhere near the point where a mechanistic explanation could even be meaningfully proposed (see e.g. ). This is why the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence is largely considered pseudoscience; it is assumed to exist primarily by advocates of scientific racism, and in these cases the belief is based on nothing but preconceived notions about race. What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race? Please see the article itself for an outline of the scientific consensus. What is the basis for Misplaced Pages's consensus on how to treat the material? Misplaced Pages editors have considered this topic in detail and over an extended period. In short, mainstream science treats the claim that genetics explains the observable differences in IQ between races as a fringe theory, so we use our own guidelines on how to treat such material when editing our articles on the subject. Please refer to the following past discussions:

Piffer (2015)

Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:

https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See Intelligence (journal) for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Misplaced Pages's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the SPLC (noted experts on racism) published an article that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote: Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal Intelligence. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, here is a fine peer-reviewed source that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. Generalrelative (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. Hi! (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Bird et al. has now been published by American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? Hi! (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. Hi! (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please also read OpenPsych concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification about Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(3rd_nomination)

I posted already on WP:FTN, but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.

Also I tried editing the article, to give it more substance, but this is not my area of expertise. Please feel free to clean it up anyway you want. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Test scores

The Test Scores section has a paragraph discussing disparities in academic achievement and math test scores in the UK, but surely those are a less reliable measurement of intelligence than general mental ability (GMA) tests, such as those discussed here? Is there any objection to replacing this paragraph with the results from this meta-analysis of GMA tests? Stonkaments (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the current text or the sources used, but feel free to suggest additional text sourced to for discussion here to reach consensus. How to define intelligence and what's a less or more reliable way to measure it are controversial. Many believe that intelligence includes many disparate capacities and that there cannot be a numerical value that measures general intelligence.
Note that the reliability of your source is very questionable, since all three authors are closely associated with either Mankind Quarterly (see also Jan te Nijenhuis) or OpenPsych. NightHeron (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2377780?needAccess=true

Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn?

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Genome-wide association study recent changes

Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at Genome-wide association study. MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions Add topic