Misplaced Pages

Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 17:23, 28 April 2013 view sourceBlackHades (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,361 edits →Rewriting brain size: We need to approach this article more evenhandedly.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 9 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 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 = 93 |counter = 104
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d) |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=1 |units=month }}
{{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. -->

== Original synthesis ==

The new content just added by Dbate1 looks like ]. Most or all of the sources for it are about IQ in general, but don't talk about racial IQ gaps. They also all are primary sources. If there is a secondary source that makes these points, then the points can be added to the article cited to that secondary source, but editors aren't allowed to construct their own conclusion from multiple primary sources and add it to the article. ] (]) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:All good points, and ones which affect both that specific subsection, the section as a whole, and the entire article. Reviewing the specific content, it probably is better suited to ]. That said, that article should probably be presented in ] style in this article. ] (]) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:Agreed. I have read the article, and have discussed it among researchers who are members of the Behavior Genetics Association, and the recent edits do not well represent the best considered view found in reliable secondary sources. -- ] (], ]) 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
::If we agree the content he added is original synthesis, someone should remove it. I would do it myself, but the article is set so only people registered a certain amount of time can edit it. ] (]) 22:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

:::When I have time to go over the sources, I'll be happy to update the article. In the meantime, you might consider opening a dialogue on that editors user page. ] (]) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

::::We seem agreed this content is original synthesis, so I removed it.

::::Aprock: you were diligent about removing pro-hereditarian material that you thought was sub-standard when we were talking about the brain size and evolutionary theories sections, but you aren't making as much effort to remove original synthesis when it favors the opposite perspective. Why is that? If it is because you personally prefer the 100% environmental hypothesis, I should remind you that policies like "no original synthesis" apply to ANY content, whether you agree or disagree with it. ] (]) 02:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::If you think there has been a problem with my edits please raise them on my talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article. ] (]) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

::::Dbate1: The moderators have been contacted. The presented data was found to be in conformance with WP:SYNTH guidelines. Future alterations should be addressed to the appropriate moderators of the page to avoid banning or suspension. ] (]) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::The moderators have not been contacted. (I assume you mean arbitrators, Misplaced Pages does not have people called moderators.) The place to request their intervention or ask them to ban someone is ], and anyone who looks can see you didn't post anything there. If you think this matter requires their intervention, I encourage you to raise it there. I also think these articles would benefit from arbitration, although probably not for the same reason you do.

:::::If you don't want to request arbitration, you must explain why the content you added does not violate ]. No one else agrees with you that it doesn't. ] (]) 07:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

::::::The moderators (excuse me if arbitrators is the more formal term) can and were contacted via arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Thus, there were no modifications listed on the linked page. However, I will submit them there as well. You will notice that there are very few arbitrations posted on that page, yet wikipedia itself is rather massive.

::::::If you look back through the history of the page, you will see that I made a number of modifications in order to conform to the issues addressed by the earlier individuals. The first stated challenges were against the information I originally added, and not to the latter material after the modifications. Therefore I modified the section to only include direct information stated in the sources relevant to IQ change. If you found these modifications insufficient, I apologize. When I saw the changes you made it appeared to eliminate them based on the presented challenges to the prior modifications. Thus, I contacted moderators (or formally arbitrators) because it appeared to be vandalism without justification (as the requested edits had already been made). Additionally, original synthesis requires the imposition of ones own opinion incorporated into source content. No where did the added information include any thing but objective details from the studies. (]) 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::As Aprock have stated, the content appears to be more suited for ]. I would recommend moving this there. You appear to be misinterpreting the studies as well. The studies do not imply that group to group differences in IQ over time is environmental..or genetic. ] (]) 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Dbate1: It appears that another user has eliminated the section. Specifically, i would like individuals to point out the objections they hold to the section in detail. The aforementioned applied to the section before I made the edits. When my original additions were challenged, I edited them to conform to those objections. However, I have not seen what challenges exist in the current format, thus I can not modify them to address concerns. If users will provide the objections, then I will correct them or address them.

::::I have submitted the issue for arbitration, but if they can be resolved here it would eliminate the need.

::::Specifically, the recent user Looie496 eliminated the section without offering reason to do so. This therefore precludes me from addressing the concerns. Moreover, the frequent elimination (in the face of modification to conform) appears to be a use of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool.

::::If further modifications are made without justification, I will submit those users names disciplinary action.

::::] (]) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Dbate1:To respond to to aprock, even if the material is more suited for another section it does not make it original synthesis. I will include the information in that section as well. However, that topic page does not refer or apply to IQ change at all. Thus, I am hesitant to include the information in a section it is ill suited for. Moreover, no where was it stated that the articles referenced group differences in IQ. They explicitly refer to IQ change , which is the central facet of the subpoint.

::::] (]) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::Let me be direct. You don't yet understand how Misplaced Pages works. You are going in like an angry elephant, thrashing and trampling. It won't work. Unless you take the time to understand how things are done here, you won't accomplish anything. The other people here have good will and will help you if you give them a chance. ] (]) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


:::::Dbate1:

::::Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my rather rash behavior earlier. I assumed wikipedia functioned much like most internet venues (with moderators that resolved disputes) and was populated with people unaccustomed to rational resolution. I see I was severely wrong on both accounts. I was unaware that these issues are to be resolved via educated discourse in avenues such as this. And I hope you all accept my apology.

::::From the points mentioned earlier, I gleaned two primary objections that led to the conclusion of original synthesis.

::::1) Primary Source Use

::::To address the issue of primary source use, the papers I included internally cite each other. Specifically, Boosma 2011 cites Bartels 2002, Boosma 2007, and Boosma 2003.

::::In the original piece, I did not include the secondary source through which I originally found the other materials. They are all cited in Haworth 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/). This accounts for Child Development 1989, Plomin 2007, Plomin 2004, and Boosma 2003. The article by Lyons 2009 was cited by Nisbett in Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.

::::I was not able to find a secondary source for Plomin 2013, and as a result will eliminate it because it is a primary source.


::::2) Applicability to Race IQ Gap

::::Another concern was that the material was not in reference to black-white IQ gaps. However, Nisbitt cites Lyons 2009 in his article (Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments)in regard to racial gaps. Additionally, Lyons 2009 directly cites: Bartels 2002, Plomin 2004, which suggests that these articles are in the relevant realm of race related IQ debates.

::::In terms of their applicability to IQ in general, this is true. But that is all the more reason that it is relevant. The emergence or lack thereof (depending on which data is cited) of an IQ gap is highly integrated with the general structure and stability of IQ in general. Because the gradual emergence of the gap originates on the population level (as opposed to individuals), articles that reference IQ stability and change on the population level are relevant to that subject matter. However, one must be careful that the articles are reported objectively without any inclusion of interpretation.


::::I understand that this is a topic matter fraught with emotion. But I would argue that that is all the more reason that we should allow the data to speak for itself without our own interpretations. I was careful to only include factual information from the sources and to obviate any sort of interpretation. Misplaced Pages, as we all know, is used as a tool for many people exploring a new topic, and for that reason I believe that the inclusion of more data is always better.

::::Objectivity is always in the eye of the beholder, so I would appreciate any constructive criticism to make the section better.

::::Good day!

::::] (]) 2:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

::::Dbate1:

::::I would really like feedback on whether the piece would be considered original synthesis given the above information. If no one has objections, I can rewrite the section to exclude the primary source and incorporate the secondary source, and then add it to the article.

::::] (]) 10:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::If you have a source that links the studies to the race and intelligence debate, please provide it. You mentioned Nisbett but please be more specific exactly where in "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" you are referring to. ] (]) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


::::It is mentioned under the Social Factors section.::::] (]) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Please quote the specific text you are referring to. ] (]) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

== Genetic arguments ==

The section on genetic arguments is missing some key lines of reasoning. One, for example, is that the mean differences correlate with heritability estimates. This is found with structural equation modeling:

''Probably the most rigorous methodology presently available to test the default hypothesis is the application of structural equation modeling to what is termed the biometric decomposition of a phenotypic mean difference into its genetic and environmental components. This methodology is an extraordinarily complex set of mathematical and statistical procedures, an adequate explanation of which is beyond the scope of this book, but for which detailed explanations are available. It is essentially a multiple regression technique that can be used to statistically test the differences in “goodness-of-fit” between alternative models, such as whether (1) a phenotypic mean difference between groups consists of a linear combination of the same genetic (G) and environmental (E) factors that contribute to individual differences within the groups, or (2) the group difference is attributable to some additional factor (an unknown Factor X) that contributes to variance between groups but not to variance within groups.... (Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.)''

When directly correlating mean differences and genetic loadings:

''I had demonstrated in my research of the 1970s that mean Black–White differences in IQ were more pronounced on the more heritable, less cultural subtests. For example, Jensen (1973) cited a study by Nichols (1972) which found a correlation of r = .67 (p < .05) between the heritabilities of 13 tests estimated from twins and the magnitude of the Black–White differences on the same tests. I further demonstrated an inverse relation of r = .70 (p < .01) between the environmentality (the converse of heritability, that is, the percentage of variance that can be attributed to nongenetic factors) for 16 tests estimated from differences between siblings and the mean White–Black differences (Jensen, 1973)…

Strong inference is possible: (1) genetic theory predicts a positive association between heritability and group differences; (2) culture theory predicts a positive association between environmentality and group differences; (3) nature + nurture models predict both genetic and environmental contributions to group differences; while (4) culture-only theories predict a zero relationship between heritability and group differences. These results provide strong and reliable corroboration of the hypothesis that the cause of group differences is the same as the cause of individual differences, that is, about 50% genetic and 50% environmental (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, 2010) (Jensen, A. R. (2012). Rushton’s contributions to the study of mental ability. Personality and Individual Differences.)''

And when correlating mean differences with g-loadings:

''In this study we collected the complete empirical literature and conducted a meta-analysis. The findings clearly show that the true correlation between mean group differences and g loadings is strong: a correlation of .71 based on the Wechsler tests as a reference for the restriction of range correction and a correlation of .91 when the Dutch GATB was taken as a reference. Probably the GATB is a better reference, as its variance in g loadings is closer to the variance in g loadings from a theoretically optimal test battery, measuring all broad abilities of Carroll’s (1993) model. Also, the correlations between group differences and g loadings do not differ by group; some out comes are even virtually identical…….Recent psychometric meta-analyses have clearly shown that g loadings correlate highly with measures of heritability. te Nijenhuis and Grimen (2007) show that g loadings of subtests correlate perfectly with these subtests’ heritability coefficients. Moreover, te Nijenhuis and Franssen (2010) show that inbreeding depression correlates .85 with g loadings. This strongly suggests that g loadings and heritability coefficients may be interchangeable. This in turn suggests that the high correlation between g loadings and group differences could imply that mean group differences have a substantial genetic component. However, this is not necessarily the case, as the score patterns of biological factors, such as better nutrition and better health care for pregnant women, may mimic the score pattern of the heritability coefficient. At the present, these effects are impossible to disentangle, as all the available research is correlational and not experimental…. (Dragt, J. (2010). Causes of group differences studied with the method of correlated vectors: A psychometric meta-analysis of Spearman’s hypothesis.)''

(The argument here isn't that the found correlations prove that the differences are genetic but that they are consistent with a genetic hypothesis and not obviously consistent with an environmental hypothesis and so provide grounds for making an inference. Now, this line of evidence has been frequently cited and discussed, so it is odd that it is not included. Instead, there is a section on Spearman's hypothesis (SH). But SH isn't about genes, it's about phenotype. SH is that the black-white (and other) gaps are largely in general intelligence. This is out of place here. The argument for genes is: the size of the gap varies with the genetic loading of tests.

So, if no one has any objections, I will rewrite the Spearman's hypothesis subsection. If you have any objections let me know.--] (]) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:The proper way to present that section is using ] style. If you think there are specific aspects of that topic that are missing from ], then the place to start is with that article, not with this article. ] (]) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

== Neutrality tag in "Genetic Arguments" lead. ==

If there's no objections, I would like to remove the neutrality tag in the lead for "genetic arguments". This tag was added back in December 2011 when ] (]) was making major changes to the "Genetic arguments" lead and ] (]) was reverting them. The current version is much different than any of the leads back then. It's been altered and there is more balance overall. I previously removed the tag a couple months ago but ] (]) put it back on. Given all the changes since the tag was originally added in December 2011, I asked ] (]) why the tag shouldn't be removed but before he had the opportunity to reply, we all got sidetracked in the discussion related to the removal of "Brain Size" and other sections of the article. So I would like to open this discussion again and ask if anyone has any objections to the removal of the tag at this time. ] (]) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

== Brain size ==

The new has a few issues...
:;I.
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding:4px 8px 4px 8px; display:table;">Many studies have looked at differences in brain size or head size (see Bibliography below). A study by Jensen and Johnson in 1994 found that black children had on average smaller heads and lower IQ than whites, and that IQ was positively correlated to head size. The differences in head size seemed to account for the differences in IQ: "White and black children who are matched on IQ show, on average, virtually zero difference in head size."<p><span style="float:right;font-size:94%;">{{mdash}} {{Cite journal | last1 = Jensen | first1 = A. R. | last2 = Johnson | first2 = F. W. | doi = 10.1016/0160-2896(94)90032-9 | title = Race and sex differences in head size and IQ | journal = Intelligence | volume = 18 | issue = 3 | pages = 309 | year = 1994}}</span>
</blockquote>

::*This paragraph violates ] by giving ] to a ]. ] are required for "''challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.''"

:;II.
::From our article <small>('''emphasis''' mine)</small>...
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding:4px 8px 4px 8px; display:table;">
'''] writes that because brain size is found to have a correlation''' of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, '''race differences in average brain size are an important argument''' for a genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are very expensive to obtain, so much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, '''which only measures brain size indirectly'''. '''Combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data accounts for''' a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a small portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<p><span style="float:right;font-size:94%;">{{mdash}} {{cite book |last=Hunt |first= Earl |title=Human Intelligence |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-521-70781-7 | ref = harv | pp = 433–434 }}</span>
</blockquote>
::From the source <small>('''emphasis''' mine)</small>...
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:Cornsilk; float:none; padding:4px 8px 4px 8px; display:table;">
'''Rushton and Jensen, and (in separate papers) Lynn have also proposed that the difference between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size'''. Brain size does have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence within the White population. Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. '''Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence.''' However, such studies would be difficult to arrange, due to the expense of obtaining brain images. Therefore, researchers interested in this topic have made estimates of brain size differences from external measures on the skull.
'''This indirect method has its problems.'''
<p>The correlation between intelligence and cranial capacity, estimated from measurements on the skull, drops to about .2, which is not surprising as brain size is substantially but imperfectly related to skull size. '''In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm<sup>3</sup>''', which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46. Combined with a .2 correlation, this leads to the conclusion that on the basis of skull size there should be a difference of d = .09 between Black and White test scores. '''If we accept the idea that brain size and processing speed are statistically independent, the expected gap due to''' these factors is then .19, still far below the observed value of 1.0.
</blockquote>

::*This paragraph makes Hunt's explanation of Rushton, et al's argument appear to be coming from Hunt himself. It also includes a number of distortions and omissions e.g., "This indirect method has its problems." becomes "only measures brain size indirectly" and " brain size would be an important link in an argument" becomes "differences in average brain size are an important argument".

:Given the above, I am going to remove the section. {{mdash}} ] (]) 08:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

::You don't appear to understand how sourcing works. Yes, Hunt is summarising Rushton, because summarising primary sources is what secondary sources DO. We should cite primary sources sparingly, but when a secondary source presents data from a primary source, putting what the secondary source says in the article (in the voice of the secondary source) is exactly what we should to as Wikipedians. This is at least the third time you've removed the section, despite others telling you to improve it instead of using this slash-and-burn approach. I'm telling you the same thing again now. Please improve the section if you think it does not summarise Hunt well enough. When other editors are telling you to do that, it is disruptive for you to refuse and to only keep removing it again and again. ] (]) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
:::I have made some alterations to the text given Artifex's concerns. We may not need to cite Rushton directly when we do have secondary sourcing coverage. Hunt seems to have sufficient detail about the research of hereditarians on the matter. Getting some additional sourcing would be good, but I don't think blanking the section is the appropriate response.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
::::ArtifexMayhem, please stop blanking "Brain Size". You've blanked "Brain Size" 3 times now. If you think there's specific issues, then raise them or fix them but constant attempts at blanking the entire section is now very disruptive. ] (]) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm hopeful he's going to stop blanking it now. Do you want to try rewriting the evolutionary theories section, so we can try to restore that also? ] (]) 03:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I will see what I can do regarding "evolutionary theories". ] (]) 05:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::I did what I thought was best in the light of the policy issues I raised at the top of this thread. Obviously several editors don't share my concerns and have restored the section. I still find the current content to be in volation of several core polices, however, I will certainly not be engaging in an edit war over it.. {{mdash}} ] (]) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Your input is welcome and we will work toward addressing specific issues you have. We should be moving to give proper due weight to all significant viewpoints that exists in reliable sources on this section. Hunt as a source is a good start. But I would like to see more balance with more secondary sources from varying perspectives on the issue. Both from a genetic perspective and the environmental perspective. As well as reliable sources that deem current evidence to be inconclusive. This section needs a lot more work to address out the quirks but this is a decent start. ] (]) 04:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that brain size is sufficiently central to mainstream genetic study of race and intelligence that it should be presented in its own section. Initially it looks like what's said about brain size under ''Health and nutrition'', and in ''History of the debate'' is enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
: It doesn't seem to be central at all, and giving it its own section is undue weight for what has been at most a side consideration. Much of what has been added to this article has been, in addition, clear SYNTH violations - race and brain size + brain size and intelligence - and whatever else is done, we need to be careful to avoid SYNTH. ]] 12:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

:Certainly, I wouldn't characterize it as "central" to genetic study of race and intelligence, but it is a very significant aspect of the debate and merits some commensurate mention. It is not just a part of the history, nor does it pertain to "health and nutrition" as it is its own area of inquiry.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

::All high quality secondary sources characterize the research into brain size, as it relates to race and intelligence, as preliminary and problematic. If you have an independent source which characterize the research as being ''"a very significant aspect"'' of our understanding of race and intelligence, then please provide the source. I'll likewise note that this article is ''not'' about the debate. The desire to turn this article into a "he said/she said" back and forth debate is part of the ongoing disruptions. ] (]) 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

::::In the ''Human Intelligence'' excerpt above, Hunt does not say that it is an important avenue of research. He says that results would be important, but that studies are difficult, and indirect evidence is problematic. Please take care with sourcing, as misrepresentation of sources is one of the core problems with this article. If you are referring to a different source, please state which source and provide the quote in context. ] (]) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::One might suggest that it goes without saying that if the results of such research would be important, then the research itself would be kind of important.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Inferring those sort of conclusions is what is referred to as ] an ] on wikipedia. ] (]) 19:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Dude, it's the talk page, for one, and there is nothing "original" about my assessment. We can certainly go "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" and take that into consideration when deciding what details should be covered. That isn't original research or synthesis.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::We are talking about the article, not about what is included on the talk page. "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" is not something that can be added to the article. ] (]) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Did you see me suggesting that? We can use sources on the talk page to infer things about the subject even when we are not allowed to state such things on the article. For instance, at AfD you don't need sources that actually say "this subject is notable" because that would be an unnecessary burden to the process and you generally don't add "this subject is notable" to the article text regardless. We can certainly infer from sources such as Hunt that brain size is a noteworthy aspect of the subject. Naturally, the article should still only say what the sources say about the subject.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::You said: ''"Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject"''. That is false. Using false statements to make inferences is not going to get you anywhere. ] (]) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::It would be overstressing the subject to suggest Hunt considered it "important". In fact, he considers the importance Jensen/Rushton/Lynn give to it as overstressed: "The brain size hypothesis put forth so strongly by Lynn and Rushton appears to me to be a nonstarter." ] (]) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}He was actually talking about its application to gender in that quote, not race.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:Be that as it may, you are still not reading sources properly. Hunt also finds the brain size argument with respect to racial differences in intelligence to also be lacking. In addition to the quotes above we also have:
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:Cornsilk; float:none; padding:4px 8px 4px 8px; display:table;">Lynn supports his hypothesis by reference to group differences, estimated from studies of cranial capacity. Even if this data is accepted, the group differences in brain size and the correlations between brain size and intelligence are far too small to account for the large racial/ethnic differences in IQ scores.
</blockquote>
:From the way you discuss Hunt's work, it's not even clear to me that you've read it. Maybe you could locate the quote which you think indicates that published research into brain size is anything more than preliminary and problematic? ] (]) 03:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::He didn't actually say it was lacking, but that the purported correlations would not come close to covering the entirety of the variation. The quote that was already provided by Artifex shows Hunt saying that, if the data is accurate, it might suggest brain size contributes to 9% of the difference in gauged intelligence and that is not a trivial contribution. Such research being preliminary or problematic does not somehow mean it isn't significant enough to mention here.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Please do present the content and the supporting cite(s) that you would like to add to the article. ] (]) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:0em; display:table;">"Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables."--Hunt and Carlson (2007)</blockquote>
::::Hunt and Carlson have described Rushton's argument, that brain size differences between races is a factor in causing racial IQ disparity, as a "useful principal" and advocated further studies on testing Rushton's argument. It's clear that Hunt considers Rushton's argument does merit investigation. ] (]) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::If you folks want, sometime when I'm less frustrated I'll try rewriting this section, incorporating the Hunt & Carlson paper as per Aprock's suggestion below. ] (]) 08:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::TDA-yes, the quote addressed the theory as applied to male/female but he doesn't say there are any reasons for accepting its importance explaining race gap but not gender gap. Hunt claims their brain size theory "poses a contradiction, for it is not clear how a small brain size difference could produce a large IQ difference between races, while a large brain size difference produces a small IQ difference between men and women." Even if, Hunt says, the hypothesis is correct, it would probably account for less than 1/10th the gap at most. And Hunt was intrigued with imaging brain structure and processing more than he was imaging's potential for producing more accurate measurements of overall brain size.
:::::And I fail to see how the passage quoted from Hunt/Carlson points to brain size as the "important principle". The "important principle" emphasized there is that testable hypotheses about potential genetic/phenotypic characteristics of intelligence are more useful in coming to an understanding about the gap than battling over the heritability scores. It's more practical and ultimately more informative to focus on those '''''sorts''''' of testable hypotheses, in other words, rather than focusing on justifying particular heritability models.
:::::Once imaging studies started rolling out, Hunt when addressing results of one underscored that he doesn't believe brain ''size'' research to have been significant (if he ever did). was how he characterized it. If any of these new studies address race group differences in particular, that would be useful. But absent that here we are battling over what kind of space to give the anachronistic "brain size" stuff- in particular what Jensen/Rushton/Lynn said about the subject of brain size and race-even after brain size has been discarded in favor of superior science into the mechanics and processing involved in individual differences in intelligence. ] (]) 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::That's not what Hunt and Carlson is saying at all. They explain it quite clearly in the following 2 sentences following "useful principle" what the useful principle is. That brain size to intelligence is already known to be correlated (per McDaniel's meta analysis of studies), and that Rushton has stated a hypothesis, brain size differences, which is "known to influence intelligence". ] (]) 20:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Sometimes, researchers have to use outdated data because it is the only data that exists. Even the traditional concept of "race" is slightly outdated now that DNA tests can precisely measure a person's geographic ancestry. But Misplaced Pages's article is about intelligence compared to race, not intelligence compared to ancestry measured with DNA tests, because comparing IQ scores to "racial" categories is what the published research has been about fo the past few decades. You've shown that comparisons between brain size and IQ are considered anachronistic in favour of more precise measures of brain function, but you haven't provided any sources showing those newer methods being used to examine racial IQ gaps. Are there any sources discussing that? The secondary sources I've looked at discuss race and IQ in relation to brain size, and they sometimes criticise it as outdated, but they don't discuss any data using the newer methods. This looks to me like another situation where the only data available is using an outdated method, just like comparing IQ to racial categories is somewhat outdated. But if outdated measures are what secondary sources discuss, then that is what should be discussed in the article, along with the criticism of them. ] (]) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::@BlackHades. No, that ''is'' what they're saying. The lead-in for that section reads, "It would be far more profitable to seek to understand the biological pathway by which specific genes act upon intelligence than to <u>waste time and effort in a quest to tie down heritability coefficients in this or that population,</u> at this or that time." {emphasis mine}. The title of the subsection reads, "Example of Going Beyond Counting Genetic Variance". The authors distinguish the "principle" they're trying to emphasize as not a statement regarding the value of Rushton's argument re brain size but they're using it to illustrate the "principle" Hunt/Carlson are emphasizing--that "Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables." The section it is in is all about laying down research "principles"! Others include, "Measures Must Have Construct Validity'; "When Measurements Are Used to Draw Inferences From Contrasts Between Groups, the Measurements Must Be Shown to Be Valid in All Groups Involved". The "principle" this quote comes from reads, "8. Remember That the Relative Size of Heritability and Environmental Effects Depends on the Population Being Considered". The section begins with a litany of problems with trying to use heritability scores to understanding the race IQ gap. These are "good research" principles, not "root causes of the gap" principles.
:::::::@Akuri-No I haven't provided such studies. In fact I emphasized the dilemma we could have here not having them, didn't I? Consider this hypothetical scenario: scientists 100 years ago conducted studies showing a correlation between nose length and divorce rates. Some of them focused further research on racial group differences in those correlations. A game changing study or two comes along that demonstrates the inadequacies of the nose length/divorce rate correlation in determining causation. And another game changing study or two comes along demonstrating a lack of efficacy in focusing so on "group differences" once individual differences were understood. Studies won't be ongoing to retest the discarded paradigm of nose length/divorce rate against the multivarious crosstabbed subgroups of discarded notions like race, astrological sign, or suitability for nose-jobs, would they? Accretion of dead debris like this might pose problems in innumerable articles, a problem ultra-literalist WP policy won't help us navigate well at all.
:::::::So leaving strict-literalist policy considerations to one side for a moment, I think Hunt's satisfactorily demonstrated that "brain size debate" has had sufficient prominence to warrant describing here-but only cursorily. Hunt clearly leans in favor of the view that the hypothesis wasn't completely unmerited but clearly tilts away from thinking its results lend much credence to it. He's clearly unexcited about it, but he's merely "fair" to it as at least a plausibly causative hypothesis. In so many words, it's not pseudoscience, in his estimation, even if it's a weak or failed hypothesis. But by the same token, I don't understand a) why he's discussed or implied as lending anything beyond this base-level "importance" to it as at least a plausibly empirical explanation or b) why Hunt's the one go-to to balance Rushton et al. Again and again here I find I keep bumping into this wall. Hunt is relatively dispassionate towards Rushton, etc. But I continue to question why virtually *everything* disputed about the article ultimately orbits the Rushton/Jensen/Lynn view of things, as if ''they'' were the consensus that everyone else nibbles away at in the fringes. ] (]) 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::No that isn't what Hunt and Carlson is saying. You're trying to link two different points by Hunt and Carlson which are actually separate. The lead in you're referring to is the heritability coefficients of populations and not on Rushton's argument of brain size differences. Hunt & Carlson doesn't consider heritability coefficients of populations very useful. Which is explained in the preceding paragraph that you've stated. They do however consider Rushton's argument on brain size useful which is why Rushton's argument is listed as an "example of going beyond counting genetic variance." The "useful principle" <b>IS</b> Rushton's argument. Rushton's argument <b>IS</b> the testable hypothesis. They make this very clear repeatedly. I'll break it down further. Parenthesis text mine.

::::::::<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:0em; display:table;">Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, <b>(particular argument being Rushton's argument)</b> the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. <b>(argument being Rushton's argument)</b> Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). <b>(Hunt and Carlson explains here why Rushton's argument is a useful principle)</b> Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. <b>(Again explaining further why Rushton's argument is a useful principle)</b> Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. <b>(Hunt and Carlson is advocating for more accurate testing of Rushton's argument by using MRI rather than exterior skull measures)</b> Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim <b>(claim referring to Rushton's argument)</b> is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables. <b>(Hunt and Carlson again stating that heritability coefficients of populations is not very useful whereas Rushton's argument is)</b></blockquote>
::::::::] (]) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::If you want to include content reflecting: ''"Our point is simply that '''discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables.'''"'' That doesn't sound all too problematic. That point is independent of Rushton's brain size arguments, which as you observe are "left aside". As is clear from the context "this sort" refers to "using modern imaging techniques". That can be more than adequately covered in other sections of the article, and hardly requires a complete discussion of past explorations, none of which have produced widely accepted results. ] (]) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Using modern imaging techniques" is specifically in reference to testing Rushton's argument. As Hunt and Carlson considers it "more sensitive test of the hypothesis" than using exterior skull measures. It is not independent of Rushton's argument. ] (]) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::@BlackHades, Let me be more succinct then. "PRINCIPLES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES: In this section we offer <u>ten guidelines for conducting studies of racial and ethnic differences<u>. These concerns apply to all studies of racial/ethnic differences in intelligence, whether or not they offer evidence for or against such differences." I quoted the important 8th research principle in my comment above, where this brain size '''''example''''' (not "principle") was used. The authors are not only presenting their "principles" just as I've it, they "broadband" what they mean. They lead with a statement introducing them before, recapitulate each one several times throughout the subsection, and restate them in their conclusions. They've numbered the principles they're proposing in their paper (10) and given this one the number 8. Number 8 doesn't say anything like what you say "the principle" is. It says what I said it says. ] (]) 05:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::PS If, as you say, "The "useful principle" <b>IS</b> Rushton's argument" that means what Hunt/Carlson said is, "the brain size principle itself illustrates a useful principle", or, "the brain size argument illustrates a useful argument". I doubt the authors would go to such lengths and use so many words just to obtusely express a point this inane. ] (]) 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::The beginning of the 8th section is Hunt and Carlson discussing and giving explanations to why they feel the heritability coefficients of populations is not particularly useful. In the final subsection of the 8th section is where Hunt and Carlson gives two examples of what they consider to be much more useful than the heritability coefficients of populations explained earlier. Which is why it's titled "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance." In this subsection Hunt and Carlson lists two examples, or useful principles if you will, that they advocate pursing rather than the heritability coefficients of populations. Rushton's brain size argument being one of the them. The other example is advocating research of specific aspects of the environment rather than global variables. The preceding and following sentences of "useful principle" makes it very clear. The preceding sentence explaining what Rushton's argument is and the following sentence explaining why it's a useful principle. Their answer being because we already know that individual brain size is associated with intelligence per the McDaniel meta-analysis study. The entire 1st paragraph of the subsection "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance" is about Rushton's brain size argument. From the beginning all the way to the end. Not sure where the confusion could be. But I think we're starting to cherry pick this too much now. Whether we want to call it "useful principle" or "important example" is really besides the point. Hunt and Carlson does argue for the testing of Rushton's brain size argument and considers it worth pursuing based on the information that individual brain size to intelligence is known to be correlated per McDaniels. Hunt and Carlson advocates testing this hypothesis using modern MRI and states that this is more important than the studying of heritability coefficients of populations. ] (]) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::H&C are not saying anything about the "importance" of brain sizes to the topic. They are saying that "the <u>argument</u> itself <u>illustrates</u> a useful <u>principle</u>" because "...discussing <u>this sort of claim</u> is far more..." It is also important to note what H&C are not doing, "...we want to be clear about one thing that we are not going to do. This paper is not a review of the voluminous research ... When we cite specific papers we do so solely as examples..." {{mdash}} ] (]) 07:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
*"That's some catch, that Catch-22"... I'm beginning to think the best path to significant improvement would be requesting ] be ] to <u>allow discretionary long term semi-protection</u> and <u>require the article be blanked to a stub and rebuilt by ]</u> in accordance with the ] enumerated in the ]. Without such action I very much doubt the issues raised by Professor marginalia (above) and by others over the last several years will be mitigated to any significant degree. Dunno. Thoughts? Comments? Dirty looks? {{mdash}} ] (]) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

== Massive revert ==

KillerChihuahua just reverted the entire article to a version from a month ago, with no discussion. The explanation in his edit summary was "Not seeing recent changes as an improvement'". This looks like page ] to me. Even if he does not see recent changes as an improvement, he shouldn't have the power to single-handedly reject every change other editors have discussed and agreed upon in the past month, without discussing those changes with any of them. I'm tempted to undo this massive revert right away, but first I want to make sure other editors agree it's a problem for one editor to roll back a month of changes with no discussion. ] (]) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

:If edits improve an article, it's not a problem. If they don't improve the article, then the talk page is the proper place to discuss the content of the edits. Id you have a specific issue with the edits from a content perspective? ] (]) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

::The problem is that all of the improvements he undid were ALREADY discussed, on this very page. I think the version he reverted to is from February, so the explanation for the changes that had been made since then and that he undid is in the past few archives. It isn't fair for to force everyone to re-discuss all of the same changes that already were discussed and agreed upon once before. That would trap us in an endless cycle of having to discuss the same changes again and again, every time someone decides to revert the article back more than a month like he did. ] (]) 23:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

:::Reviewing the discussions above, I'm not quite sure which content you are referring to. Looking at the changes, many of them were added back, with the most notable exception being the treatment of brain size. Reviewing the brain size content that was removed, it's clear that both the Hunt and Jensen sources are being misused. ] (]) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

::::One of the things agreed upon in the discussion above is that instead of repeatedly blanking the brain size section, we should work to improve it by fixing the problems with it. In edit The Devil's Advocate already fixed some of the problems with it raised by ArtifexMayhem. When the section is added back, which it probably will be, I encourage you to improve it if you think you can make it reflect the Jensen and Hunt sources more accurately. But this mindset of constantly reverting and blanking content, and refusing to put any effort into improving anything, makes it impossible to work towards writing a better article. ] (]) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::I don't see any such agreement above. In fact, what I do see is that sources are being misused. As , the section that was removed was still problematic despite the revisions. ] (]) 02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::] is not required for the existence of the section "Brain Size". Fixing the problems or tagging of "Brain Size" would be preferable to removal. The "Brain Size" section does belong in this article and I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise. The section should be restored per ] and allow editors the opportunity to fix any problems and issues rather than constantly blanking it. ] (]) 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:::::::From Hunt/Carlson: ''It has also been pointed out that while it is well established that these genes are involved in pathological differences in brain size, it is questionable whether they influence brain size within the normal range of variation ... Thus, whether or not the link between genetic constitution, brain size, and IQ test scores has any substantial inter-racial or, for that matter, intra-racial, dimension is at present unknown. However it is some-thing that is both feasible and reasonable to study at the molecular level.'' Presenting the statistical data, without high level expert synthesis like this, is a clear example of misuse of sources. ] (]) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

::::::::You're saying it is misusing Hunt 2010 if the article does not also include what Hunt and Carlson 2007 says? Leaving out the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source sounds like it's an POV problem, not a case of misrepresenting the sources that were being used. However, I have no objection to adding the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source. The constructive thing to do is to fix the problem you raised by adding the Hunt and Carlson source, not to continue blanking the section. ] (]) 20:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

*I think these R&I disputes are mostly about wording. Word "race" has become a ''derogatory term'' when applied to humans, unlike ]. Just replace word "race" by "]", which is basically the same. There are no disputes among biologists that biological populations are ] and therefore have slightly different ], including ], physiology and ], which means for example, a slightly different ''average'' ability to play basketball or chess in different populations. That does not mean to be "superior" or "inferior". ] (]) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Akuri, you seem to have missed most of the explanation I gave in my edit summary, which was ''"Reverted to revision 538444452 by BlackHades: Not seeing recent changes as an improvement, this article is getting more fractured, not less."'' And my very next edits were to reinstate those of the intervening edits which seem helpful improvements, such as restoring BlackHades edit immediately prior to my edits. It really didn't change all that much since most of the intervening edits were back-and-forth anyway, and I did the cleanup necessary. I also removed a paragraph which has been tagged citeneeded since 2001, made an MoS fix or two, and such minor edits. Please specify what you disagree with; was it BlackHades' old version, or was it my restoring his removal of the tag, or was it my MoS fix, or? ]] 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:The reason it's a problem to revert over a hundred edits from many editors all at once is that any change you've undone that was an improvement, and that you neglected to add back, will have to be discussed and added a second time. Atethnekos just raised one example of that below. We also had just finished discussing how instead of continuing to blank the "brain size" section, we should fix the remaining problems with it by editing it. Above Aprock pointed out one problem with the section as it existed before your revert, that it didn't include the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source. Are you willing to add that section back, along with Aprock's suggested change to it?

:Part of why others find your editing disruptive is because you make huge reverts and removals without trying very hard to fix the problems with the material you remove. It would be a good sign of your willingness to collaborate if you could work towards fixing the problems with the brain size section, instead of just removing it. ] (]) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
:There is no "fixing" a section which has no RS which are about the article. You cannot "fix" synth and OR by simply saying you're-adding it. ]] 20:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::Let's be clear what you mean. Your view is that there are NO reliable sources which discuss race, brain size and IQ? Not even the paper published in the journal ''Intelligence'' which was titled "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ", or the paragraphs discussing brain size and IQ in the section titled "Biological causes for racial and ethnic differences" in Earl Hunt's book ''Human Intelligence''? Both of these sources were cited in the section you removed, so I know you are aware of them. And your response to us discussing how to best represent these sources in the article is to claim no such reliable sources exist, is that correct? ] (]) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
:::No, that is horribly, abysmally incorrect. What on earth did I say at any time which might lead to so far from my view? Where did I express myself so badly that you would somehow think that was what I was saying? ]] 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::::KC, the Hunt source that was in the most recent version is a reliable secondary source that rather plainly covers brain size in relation to race and intelligence. Not sure why you would be suggesting anything to the contrary.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

::::The most recent version of the "brain size" section that you removed was cited to two sources, both of which explicitly discuss brain size in relation to race and IQ. They were the two sources I mentioned above. One is the "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ" paper, and the the other is the discussion about brain size and IQ in the section of Hunt's ''Human Intelligence'' titled "Biological causes for racial and ethnic differences". If you think the sources for the section you removed are not about the topic of the article, it seems you forgot to look carefully at what you were reverting.

::::Atethnekos just fixed one of the problems caused by your revert. I propose to also add back the brain size section now, and to add a summary of the Hunt and Carlson paper to address Aprock's concern above about that being left out. ] (]) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::::: Atethnekos very kindly made an edit which I had not made last night before being called away from the pc, and restored one of the interim edits, which had broad support. You, on the other hand, are proposing restoring a problematic section which has been challenged repeatedly by multiple editors. You will be edit warring to restore contested content on an article on probation, and I advise you proceed very slowly and ensure there is time for the editors of this page to voice their concerns. ]] 00:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::::: Yes, KC kindly explained at the Arbitration Enforcement Request what happened to the content I just mentioned in the section below, and we agreed on an easy solution, with no harm done. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 05:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

== Treatment of S&R 1987 ==

With the treatment of S&R 1987 concerning media coverage in ] was reverted to an earlier version. At ] we had discussed this treatment a little bit. I offered some reasoning, made a change which I thought addressed everyone's concerns, and then everyone seemed to drop the issue. So I thought I had helped. Why exactly was my change not an improvement and how did it contribute to the fracturing of the article? --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::KC said at ] that she would be fine with the change, so I guess I'll go ahead and do that. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 22:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

== Swedish Adoption Study ==

I see a Swedish adoption study (Lindblad 2009) is included in the ] of the article. That study, however, doesn't discuss race or possible racial gaps in intelligence. The three possible explanations given for Korean overperformance compared to other groups of adoptees are selection and care of adoptees (in Korea) and control of adopion agencies. Overperformance compared to the Swedish average is explained as a result of higher than average socio-economic status of the adopting parents (the Korean adoptees do slightly worse than non-adoptee siblings). The study shouldn't be included in this article unless there are other scholars that have related this particular study to race and potential intelligence gaps between races; otherwise it will be original research/synthesis. ] (]) 10:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:I agree that Lindblad 2009 is being misrepresented by being mentioned in this context. The conclusion of the study is "male international adoptees in Sweden perform better in school than could be expected from their cognitive competence. These positive results can probably be explained by the educationally stimulating environment that the adoptive families provide." The author does not appear to be trying to attribute the results to race. I'm going to remove the OR. ] (]) 12:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::I've cleaned out some more original research along similar lines. This pattern seems to recur frequently on Misplaced Pages: study X has dataset Y, and the authors conclude Z. But we actually want something that supports conclusion Q. So let's just describe dataset Y, in a context in which conclusion Q may thereby be insinuated, even though the actual published study never even mentions Q. ] (]) 12:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::On the "race" related topics you'll also find a large number of ] and stuff that's just plain made up. Thanks for catching that one. {{mdash}} ] (]) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Iselilja says above that it should be removed unless "other scholars that have related this particular study to race and potential intelligence gaps between races; otherwise it will be original research/synthesis". I think this can be a good requirement in order to make sure the general state of scholarship is not misrepresented." For example, the Stams et al. (2000) is cited as such by the Lynn (2006), and Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2007). "The evolution of brain size and intelligence." In S. M. Platetk, J. P. Keenan, & T. K. Schaelford (Eds.), ''Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience'' (pp. 121-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Lindblad et al. (2009) is cited as such with regards to "behavioral problems", but not explicitly "intelligence", in Lee et al., "The Behavioral Development of Korean Children in Institutional Care and International Adoptive Families", ''Developmental Psychology'' (March 2010), 46 (2), pg. 468—478. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Based on the statement by Iselilja and the information provided by Atethnekos, Stams et al. (2000) should be restored. ] (]) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::Your edit is extremely problematic. If the Stams et al. dataset is being reinterpreted to provide some claim about R&I, then the text of the relevant sentence needs to clearly attribute that opinion to Lynn, Rushton, etc, rather than pinning it upon Stams et al, who are innocent of any such charge, in violation of ]. I will modify the text accordingly. ] (]) 23:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::That's perfectly fine. ] (]) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::More generally, I don't really see the purpose in Rushton, etc, pursuing this line of research with such intensity. If this group of scientists holds that raw IQ is The Highest Good, then, having amply at their disposal validated tests to assess IQ ''directly'', for whatever use they intend to put it to, why mess around with demographic characteristics as an ''alleged surrogate'' for it? A proposal to, say, forcibly restrict the reproduction of everyone scoring less than 100 on a standardized IQ test might be considered ''evil'', if we admit the existence of objective standards of morality, but at least it doesn't involve a scientifically questionable circumlocution around their apparent mission. Can some suitable sources can be found on this point? ] (]) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

== Wordpress? ==

I'm not sure what is . It looks like the weblog of someone deeply interested in race and intelligence. I'm not sure we should be linking to it. Thoughts? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:That's simply providing url access to the pdf of a reputable journal paper, which is not a problem unless there is a copyright violation involved. In this case, it looks like there is -- that paper lies behind a paywall. I'll remove the url. ] (]) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::Was gonna say the same thing. :) --] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

== ''Regression toward the mean'' ==

This is one paragraph that seems out of context. Is seems like it should be somewhere else, or should it be removed. Thoughts? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

:This has been discussed in the past: , . There are issues with primary sourcing, and undue weight with respect to the topic. Even more so than brain size, this is a small branch of investigation which turned up nothing that independent secondary sources have found compelling. ] (]) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

{{quotation|The misconception has been that this regression reflects a genetic principle, but it does not... The wrong assumption, that regression derives from a genetic mechanism, was made, whereas in fact it is a purely statistical phenomenon.|] (2006)|Genes and behavior : nature-nurture interplay explained|ISBN 9781405110617}}
::It's giving ] to a minority view that is factually incorrect. It should be removed. {{mdash}} ] (]) 18:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
:Removed the section, ] <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

== Statement about genetic correlation with self-identification ==

I have removed this statement:
{{cquote|The notions that the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by most geneticists and anthropologists.}}
The cited sources do not seem to make this specific statement, but instead it seems to be using several sources together to argue the point. Key here is that it is talking about what ''most'' geneticists and anthropologists say about "the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry" and I do not believe this point is made in the subsequent citations.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:It appears you're taking issue with the word "most", I've restored the original introduction and referred the context to the authors in question. ] (]) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

== Recent edit on scientific basis of human races extremely misleading. ==

ArtifexMayhem's recent edit "However, nearly all geneticists and the majority of anthropologists and biologists agree that concept of human "races" has no scientific basis." is extremely misleading. Using an example in one of the cited sources Foster & Sharp 2002 which states:

<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:0em; display:table;">Some 50 years later, researchers have accumulated a far more extensive collection of data on allelic distributions within and between human populations. Despite this ever increasing pool of information, however, geneticists have yet to resolve that basic tension between social and biological conceptions of race and ethnicity.<br><br>


== Piffer (2015) ==
Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for “Indian” or “African” genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies. Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants. In some cases, scientists use genetic features to reconstruct population histories, applying biological criteria to define and redefine commonalities among research participants recruited on the basis of shared linguistic, racial, ethnic, or geographical identities. In these and other cases, researchers name the racial or ethnic communities being studied, thereby implicitly indicating that genetic features can be used to characterize contemporary social populations. Thus, although the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement may be dead, the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing (Kaufman and Cooper 2001).</blockquote>
Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:


https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf
When Foster & Sharp states that nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions, they are specifically referring to race specific genes. E.g. Indian or African gene. It is true that nearly all geneticists don't believe that there are race specific genes but that doesn't mean that they "agree that concept of human races has no scientific basis." If you continue reading it's very clear that geneticists does believe racial groups have meaningful biological differences and has scientific basis as clearly evident by the last sentence in that paragraph <b>"the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing."</b> The following paragraph makes this even more evident which states.


] (]) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:0em; display:table;">Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported.</blockquote>


ArtifexMayhem's edit is ] and is errors through omission and needs to be changed to more accurately represent the cited sources. ] (]) 08:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC) :See ] for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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)
::::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. ] (]) 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 ] (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)
::::::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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, 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 ] ==
:Long story short. You'd like to refocus and re-emphasize the kinds of false implications/inferences about race the Foster/Sharp piece strenuously warns must be more assiduously avoided.


I posted already on ], but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.
:I haven't edited here for awhile now so I don't whether this was addressed. How have the ] problems been handled for this kind of thing? ] (]) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::Can you be more specific as to the source of the ]? Sorry if I'm being dense. {{mdash}} ] (]) 18:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:Slightly longer version of a long story short. <small>For convenience, the edit in question is . The full text of Foster & Sharp can be found .</small>
:*Foster & Sharp are not "specifically referring to race specific genes" they are using it as an example, which is why they say, "...genes, for example,".
:*The "far more subtle presumption" is 1) a ''presumption'' as in speculation, notion, supposition, or assumption, 2) not referring to geneticists as making the presumption, and 3) not a contradiction of the first sentence of the paragraph.
:*The existence of an "interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations" concerns the search for "genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility" and does not infer the existence of human "races". In fact, Foster & Sharp specifically caution researchers about this, "...a single genomic feature (such as a disease-related haplotype in linkage disequilibrium or a particular mitochondrial chromosome) '''mistakenly may be perceived by the lay public as defining a social population.'''"<small>(emphasis mine)</small>
:*At no point do Foster & Sharp contradict, minimize, or cast doubt on their statement that, "'''—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions.'''"<small>(emphasis mine)</small>
:I fail to see how the edit is "extremely misleading", contains "errors through omission", misrepresents cited sources, or that the ], ], ], ] sources provided have been ] in order to mislead the reader. Quite the contrary. {{mdash}} ] (]) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::Looking over the sources, it does seem you are misrepresenting their contents. I know Graves says the "majority" of geneticists, not "nearly all" as the Foster source does. Also it is clear that the source was not saying that these scientists agree there is "no scientific basis" for the race concept and BH singles out the pertinent quote from that source. In fact, the same source says this at the beginning:
::{{quote|On the one hand, there is a perspective rooted in the eugenics movement and early population genetics that treats racial and ethnic categories as biological classifications (Kevles 1995), attempting to use scientific analysis to specify the precise nature of presumed biological differences between those socially labeled populations (Huxley 1951). On the other hand, there is a perspective with its roots in the work of physical anthropologists and social scientists who argue that race and ethnicity are primarily cultural and historical constructions with little biological significance (Boas 1942). Although there has been much debate among geneticists regarding these two competing perspectives throughout the 20th century, '''geneticists at the beginning of the 21st century have yet to reconcile these divergent views on race and ethnicity.'''}}
::It seems the sources are saying something completely different from what Artifex is using them to say.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} re: Synth. The Foster/Sharp paper relates to Race and genetics without any reference to Race and intelligence. It's problematic when there's an attempt here to imply what Foster/Sharp paper says ''not'' to do. They argue its bad practice, common in the general public, to inappropriately generalize from the studies in which the social construct of race is merely used as a temporary proxy in beginning a search for genetic markers of particular traits. In other words, race is merely a "starting point" which genetic researchers can use looking for possible genetic links to a trait or disease. And they emphasize ''no'' relationship can be implied on basis of unrelated genetic markers "clustering" in a particular socially identified race about any genetic basis for other traits. It's the same old fallacy repeating itself over and over again by people who keep approaching these issues through the long-since failed essentialist race paradigm. Race isn't a "thing" in genetics. Race merely associates with shared ancestry sometimes. And this is perfectly understandable since the social construct of race is one where children tend to be assigned the same race as parents. Shared ancestry is merely a signal genetics may be a factor, not a reason to assume it is. And that "shared ancestry" may only loosely overlap racial identity. There is no reason so far to assume that where genetics plays a role in intelligence (given they do find one) that it's unevenly distributed in any meaningful way by what we think of as "race". It would be the same kind of fallacy as attributing a genetic cause of ] because the association between recent shared ancestry and Urdu is so strong. ] (]) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:"Reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions" does not mean "human races have no scientific basis". There are many examples shown by Foster & Sharp that show geneticists do have scientific basis for human races. TDA's quote is further evidence that "racial and ethnic categories as biological classifications" has certainly not been dismissed by "nearly all" geneticists in the 21st century but remains a significant perspective. ArtifexMayhem cherry picked a line and spun it out of context. We need a more complete and accurate summary of the cited sources. ] (]) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::"Foster & Sharp that show geneticists do have scientific basis for human races"-absolute, 100% untrue. Geneticists can identify shared ancestry patterns that associate with race. They do not in any way mean "they have a scientific basis for human races". There's an association between blond hair and race. Not everybody identified to that race has blond hair. Not everyone with blond hair identifies with that race. Blond hair is not a "scientific basis for human races". ] (]) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Professor marginalia, I hear what you're saying and I agree with much of it. But that doesn't change the fact that ArtifexMayhem's edit remains problematic and is not perfectly clear to the reader and gives a false impression to the reader that the debate among geneticists on race overall has been settled which Foster & Sharp states it is not. I would advocate changing the text to address everyone's concerns that incorporates the conflict of the divergent views on race that geneticists have today as highlighted by TDA as well as the points made by Professor marginalia. The reader should be given a much more complete overview of the scientific field on this topic. ] (]) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (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)
:::When they refer to race it seems they are talking about the earlier eugenicist conception. That does not mean all conceptions of race are without scientific basis, which is what the current wording implies they said.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


== Test scores ==
::::My policy concern remains. I'm concerned using Foster and Sharp here per "original research policy". Better to stick to secondary sources making direct claims about race writing about ''this'' topic.] (]) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::Would you then support the removal of the recent edit in question? ] (]) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::TDA, what other "conceptions" of race? PM, I still not sure I understand your policy concers. Are you suggesting that the "validity of race" section be restricted to social scientists? {{mdash}} ] (]) 23:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Concepts grow and develop. It would be absurd to suggest the only conception of race is one created by a bunch of white men back in the 1930s. Not sure how you would "define" a more evolved conception, but it wouldn't be defined by looking to some dated interpretation.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::@ArtifexMayhem-I think the "validity of race" section should be limited to sources that discuss the race/intelligence gap-claims about what race means to geneticists or social scientists should be cited to secondary sources writing about those issues in terms of the race/intelligence debate. I haven't looked closely but I believe many of the sources used in that section say nothing about how the work should be applied or interpreted in terms of the race/intelligence gap. ] (]) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I think I can work with that. {{mdash}} ] (]) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (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)
== Rewriting brain size ==
: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 '']'' (see also ]) or '']''. ] (]) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
I've decided to make another attempt to rewrite the brain size section. This section was removed (again) as part of Killerchihuahua's massive revert. I think most of the other problems caused by her revert have been fixed now, but this one hasn't yet.


== Anyone around who can check recent edits for Richard Lynn? ==
I don't think it's necessary to wait for a consensus before restoring the section, because there never was a consensus to remove it in the first place. If anything, there was a consensus that it belonged in the article and that problems with it should be fixed by editing it instead of repeatedly blanking it. However, I am rewriting the section to address the concerns expressed about it by other editors. Aprock said the section was non neutral because it left out the Hunt and Carlson source, so I'm adding that source. Someone also complained about the using of the Jensen and Johnson paper because it's a primary source, so I'm replacing that with a secondary source. The rewritten section is sourced entirely to secondary sources.


Thanks. ] ] 13:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Like before, further improvements to this section are welcome. If anyone thinks the section has remaining problems, I encourage you to fix them by editing it. ] (]) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


== Genome-wide association study recent changes ==
:Giving brains size that much space seems pretty clearly undue weight, and there are still concerns about synthesis mentioned above. It would be better to write up on the talk page on in your user space what you have in mind to add, and then let people discuss it. Just adding it is likely to be disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::It's taking up less space than it used to. It's less space than "Caste like minorities", a topic that is less supported and studied aspect of race and intelligence than brain size is.


Editors who follow this page will probably take an interest in recent edits over at ]. ] (]) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Tom, with all due respect, your suggested method of "write up on the talk page" has already been attempted. But unfortunately some have shown that they will refuse to accept a "Brain Size" section under any circumstances which highlights a deep problem. The section was removed under dubious circumstances 2 1/2 months ago under the impression that the removal is meant to only be temporary. But some editors saw this as an opportunity to try to make the removal permanent by blocking and hindering any effort toward its recreation. There are some editors of this article that wish either to reduce "genetic arguments" section to a stub or remove it entirely calling genetic arguments ]. The "fringe" debate has been rehashed and rebutted repeatedly over the years but that hasn't stopped some editors from using this argument and then wrongly use it as justification to either delete or block relevant cited material that exists in ] and meets ] that they simply ]. In the past 2 months, three entire subsections under "Genetic Arguments" have been removed. Whereas less relevant and supported subsections than the ones removed in the environmental section like "Logographic writing system" and "Black subculture" still remains. The very uneven approach of the editing of this article is extremely troublesome and in turn ] in heavy jeopardy. This is a difficult article to edit as there is no consensus to the cause of "race and intelligence" in the scientific fields and because for some editors it's difficult to put their own strong personal opinions aside. But I would encourage editors to try to approach this article more evenhandedly despite what their own personal positions may be. ] (]) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (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.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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: