Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 1 June 2008

	Race 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 Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

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

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

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please place new messages at bottom of page.

Are Blacks More Intelligent?

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting but the article is not really comparing races, it is comparing immigrants and non-immigrants. The two sampls are chosen because of geographic reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

there's no way that site could be used as a source, it's pretty blatantly biased. not to mention they claim the Egyptians were black. If this website counts as a source we'd better start citing niggermania.com 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's about as unbiased as any other source claiming "racial" differences in "intelligence". All of these claims about so called "races" are made by people with a biased racist view of the world, indeed they can only be made by people who have zero understanding about human genetics, i.e. stupid racist bigots who's gibberish should be treated with the contempt it deserves. This is no worse than Jensen's racist gibberings. Alun (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's worth noting that James Watson, who received a nobel prize for assembling the "double helix" structure of DNA in the 60's said this about race: "He says that he is 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours-–whereas all the testing says not really,' and I know that this 'hot potato' is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.' He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because 'there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level.' He writes that 'there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

I would say he has a pretty good understanding of human genetics. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And by doing so you would reveal your own ignorance. Watson was a molecular biologist and not a geneticist. Molecular biology overlaps with genetics at the molecular level, e.g. Molecular genetics, but few molecular biologists would claim to be experts in Population genetics or Molecular anthropology, which are the relevant disciplines for studying genetic variation at the population level. Watson also stated: "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins shared their Nobel Prize "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material" and not for their model for the structure of DNA, which wasn't actually a proof, but a very good and robust model. Wilkins part in the prize was for his comprehensive work after the publication of the Crick-Watson model, which went a long way to validating the model. Watson also spent a lot of time studying RNA (he had been working on Tobacco mosaic virus, an RNA virus when he and Crick proposed their structure for DNA), and so he went on to work on RNA during the rest of the fifties, this work is recognised in his Nobel Prize as well, hence the reference to "Nucleic acids" and not deoxyribonucleic acid. I know something about this, I've spent a lot of time and effort on the Rosalind Franklin article in the past. Even very clever people can talk crap when they talk about things that they are not experts in, as Watson proved beyond any doubt. Alun (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the section about genetic explanation

Hello, I added the following information:

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. The Inuit, who live above the Arctic Circle and have higher average IQs than do either American or Jamaican Blacks even though their socioeconomic conditions are extremely poor.

Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators. Rubidium37 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, in a number of archives. Your additions promote Rushton and Lynn's theories as if they were gospel, which they aren't. There has been grave doubt cast on the accuracy of much of the "IQ by nationality" type of research, mostly due to the poor sampling methods used. Also, while Rushton disputes that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study actually backs his genetic hypothesis, the very authors of the study interpret the results as saying just the opposite. Therefore, this presents a misleading, rather one-sided view of some of the data and represents undue weight.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add anything new about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ by nationality". The information is about the the impact of socioeconomic status on IQ differentials between races. The fact that the children of poor whites outperform the children of wealthy blacks is very important and should be mentioned in the article. Both genetic and culture-only explanations should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, you're not being funny by trying to be someone else.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not me. I'm done with editing this article for the year as I mentioned. --Jagz (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for input Jagz, we will see you in a year.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What if the genetic hypothesis is mentioned in other online wiki encyclopedias? Don't fall into complacency. --Jagz (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm quite sure we don't want to follow Conservapedia's lead...--Ramdrake (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I will add the information now. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Please discuss on the talk page and gain consensus there prior to reintroducing.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is not accurate please provide an alternative viewpoint and an appropriate citation. I suggest as a compromise that both viewpoints should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate for the following reason: it presents IQ differences by nationality as a proven fact, when in fact it is at least highly disputed, and for the most part the methodology used to obtain these results has been discredited. Then, it presents on Rushton's viewpoint on the MTAS, totally oblivious to the fact that the very authors of the study say that this goes counter to the conclusions they reach. Lastly, by increasing the importance of the opinions of a very small minority of researchers (scientists who are fundees of the Pioneer Fund), it give undue weight to the opinion of a very small but very vocal minority.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not even mention the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ differences by nationality". Because your argument is a strawman I will restore the material. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the studies you are mentioning (even though you don't mention them by name) are the studies of Rushton and Lynn on IQ by nationality for the first part, and that of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. If you are refering to other studies, please kindly link them here, but please do not restore against consensus, as this will be your 4th revert, and will get you blocked per WP:3RR.

I cited "Berry, 1966" and "MacArthur, 1968" for the first part. My edit included complete citations. The source for the school performance of the children of the wealthy blacks was "Jensen, A. R.. The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998." Rubidium37 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. -Please note that this is taken directly from Rushton, one of the main researchers to claim that IQ varies racially and by nationality worldwide.

Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators. The basis for this claim is Rushton's reinterpretation of the MTAS.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You make silly claims which have no basis in fact. I won't even address them because they are just your misinformed personal opinions which are not supported by any reliable sources. If you provide a peer-reviewed article disputing the information we may include another viewpoint. Please don't delete sourced information as per WP:EP. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is your sources which are challenged. The onus is on the editor wishing for inclusion to get consensus for his edits. Therefore, you must address these objections to the satisfaction of other editors. Your sources are mostly Rushton's work, which has been discussed at length and deemed WP:FRINGE therefore not a reliable source. Also, an you please quote the exact excerpt from WP:EP which you allege allows you to make WP:UNDUE edits against consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law which qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:VERIFY.

WP:EP states:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

• rephrase
• correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
• move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

Please don't delete sourced information in the future. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake is the current self-appointed article sentinel, backed by the like-minded Slrubenstein. The only time I was able to make good progress with the article was when Ramdrake was out of action with health issues. Suggest you go to WP:RfC if you feel strongly about your edit. --Jagz (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein serves as the article's ad hoc chief of propaganda. Anyone who does not come around to his way of thinking is a troll and/or a racist. --Jagz (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you done yet with the repeated personal attacks? You've already been warned multiple times against making them.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, that year went by fast!! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He does not have any authority to censor the article. The section about the genetic hypothesis is currently not good. It is too short and uninformative. Would you agree that the information I added belongs to the article? Rubidium37 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• ''Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.

How does this make sense? from a genetic point of view the children of intelligent parents should be intelligent because they have inherited their intelligence genes. Any trait under genetic control will obviously be inherited by their children. Or to put it another way, the children of blue eyed people do not have brown eyes due to a "regression to the mean", they have blue eyes because they inherit them from their parents, their parents do not possess the genes for brown eyes. If the children do not inherit this trait then the obvious conclusion is that the trait is under environmental control. To claim that the observation that children of intelligent people are stupid supports a "genetic model" for intelligence is plain daft. It's basically claiming that these children are inheriting genes their parents do not possess. Indeed under this model we should expect the children of intelligent "white" people to regress to the "white" mean as well, which rather contradicts eugenics because we would never be able to stop this regression to the mean however many times intelligent people reproduced with other intelligent people. If intelligent people only procreate with other intelligent people, and intelligence is mainly due to genetics, then the children of intelligent people will always be intelligent. To claim that "genetic theory" explains the opposite effect is to show a complete lack of any biological nous whatsoever. If intelligent people have stupid children then this supports an environmental cause and not a genetic one. These wingnuts don't even seem to have a fundamental understanding of what genetics is. They seem to be implying here that genes are not transmitted from parent to offspring. It's frankly hilarious. Either Jensen is talking from his posterior orifice, or someone here is citing work they simply do not understand. I suspect the latter. Alun (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although parents pass on a random half of their genes to their offspring, they cannot pass on the particular combinations of genes that cause their own exceptionality. This is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6s or two 1s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low). Physical and psychological traits involving dominant and recessive genes show some regression effect. Tall people have shorter children on average and intelligent people have less intelligent children on average. http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/faso.html Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to believe that two random gifted parents would be unlikely to have a gifted child but more likely to have a gifted child than two random non-gifted parents. --Jagz (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

--Jagz (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: What this article is discussing is a genetic hypothesis and not a genetic theory. A genetic viewpoint is not the same as the genetic hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. Doesn't change the fact that it is WP:FRINGE stuff.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Material published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be fringe by definition. Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, be more specific, what exactly are you saying is WP:FRINGE? --Jagz (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, this is about the twelfth time you're asking the same question, and you've been given an answer several times already. Therefore, I must conclude you're either repeating yourself on purpose or you're just plain unable to understand. I'm just trying to figure out if you're trolling or merely dense.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is: When you say it is "WP:FRINGE stuff", are you referring to the genetic viewpoint or the genetic hypothesis? If you want people to know what you are talking about, try not to use the word "stuff". --Jagz (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Ramdrake, I'll give you the quote directly from WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

Now please explain precisely what in this article applies to WP:FRINGE. Try to explain it without including personal attacks. Additionally, if you feel I have ever been given a precise answer to this then please provide the diff-link. --Jagz (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, after you have posted your explanation, here is a quiz you can take: --Jagz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whomever Rubidium37 was, I'm pretty certain he wasn't JagZ and I know he wasn't me. But somebody blocked the guy. That's not very gentlemanly. How does one go about undoing that? Also, on the topic just above, he was right and Alun was wrong. It's called regression to the mean, the history of which highlights the interesting way that statistics and genetics share a recent common ancestor, so to speak. --Legalleft (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft you don't even appear to have read what I wrote, or what Rubidium37 wrote. The Regression towards the mean article states that Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested.. That is not what what Rubidium37 said. What he said was that the children of high achieving "black" people will be less intelligent than their parents. The regression towards the mean article is discussing outlier performances that are not consistently repeatable by an individual, over the course of a series of tests an individual will produce a mean score, but on individual tests they will produce a few significantly higher or lower scores, but on the whole they will tend towards their mean test score. This is simple probability theory, throw a die a single time and get a six, this is not evidence that the die is biased, over a series of throws the die will tend towards the mean score, this will be true whatever the probability distribution. The same is clearly true of populations, a few people in any population will clearly produce extremely high average scores, but the population will always tend towards the mean, this says nothing about the children of consistent high performers, it only tells us that the population as a whole will tend towards the mean. This is a simple concept and I find it strange that you appear to be unable to grasp it. In a population with complete random mating we will expect the existence of any outlier highly intelligent people to be no more than the actions of chance. Because the population is randomly mating the descendants of the highly intelligent will tend towards the mean over several generations. But human populations mate assortatively, i.e. intelligent people tend to mate with other intelligent people. If we assume that intelligence has a high genetic component (i.e. not it's variance but it's cause has a high genetic contribution), then we must conclude that because intelligent people mate with other intelligent people their children are also likely to be highly intelligent whatever their "race". What Rubidium37 and you appear to be saying is that "black" people mate randomly, while non-"black" people mate assortatively, a spurious assertion. Alun (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... no. The mid-parent v. child and the sibling correlations for blacks and whites aren't thought to be different because of differences in assortative mating (maybe assortative mating differences contribute if such differences even exist, but that's not what the researchers talking about regression are getting at). They are different foremost because the populations have different mean IQs. For any trait with a narrow-sense heritability less than 100%, there will be mid-parent -> child regression to the mean. The populations have different means and different regression equations. This finding is replicated many times, so the basic observation is not in doubt. The causal interpretation of that observation is quite interesting. I suggest reading sources and reporting what they say rather than making incorrect leaps of inference such as the one you made here. --Legalleft (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you even spot sarcasm? That was what my comment about assortative mating was, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given your stated racist views. The plain fact is that to claim that the children of people with a high IQ always "regress" to a "mean" IQ for the population is effectively claiming that IQ is not under genetic control. If IQ is under genetic control, and intelligent people mostly reproduce with other intelligent people, then the children of intelligent people will be above average intelligence. Thats simple genetics, if you claim that a trait is under genetic control, but that offspring can't inherit the trait from their parents, then you clearly know fuck all about genetics. You might as well claim that the children of blue eyed parents will "regress" to having brown eyes, it's just bollocks legalleft, and not even very convincing bollocks. Or to put it another way, if intelligent people are intelligent because they have more "intelligence genes", than the population average, then the children of intelligent people will also have a greater than average amount of "intelligence genes" than the population. If then we see that these children are of only average intelligence (ie have regressed to the mean), then we must ask the question "Given they are the children of intelligent people (with an above average number of intelligence genes) and therefore have an above average number of intelligence genes themselves, why are they displaying only average intelligence for the population?" The children of intelligent people will have their parents genes, including their "intelligence genes", if they are only of average intelligence then it implies that they have not inherited their intellectual abilities from their parents i.e. they are more stupid than their parents even though they share the genes of their overacheiveing parents. To claim that this observation supports a genetic hypothesis is ludicrous and could only be made by someone with no interest in science, only by someone interested in pushing racist ideology, which brings us back to your hero, the fascist Jensen. I suggest you stop talking shite about genetics, a subject you appear to know nothing at all about. I wonder how you will manage to avoid actually talking about the subject at hand this time. I can't remember you addressing a single point directly ever, it's all evasion and changing the subject. Alun (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am no longer active, I may report uncivil posts, personal attacks, provocation, unreasonable edit warring, etc. --Jagz (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You should have reported yourself on a number of occasions then, as one of the most tendentious , trollish and incivil individuals ever to have edited here. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Alun (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent. It's simple Legalleft. Imagine two loci each of which has two alleles. Locus A' has alleles A and a, and locus B' has alleles B and b. let's assume that an average (mean) intelligence has a genotype of aabb (the wild type genotype which is very prevalent in the population), while alleles A and B each give a +2 IQ point advantage to any person who has them. Consider two parents, each of which has a genotype of AaBb, and therefore each has an IQ of 4 points above average. Assuming independent assortment, their gametes will segregate thus

Thus for two parents who both have genes that give them a +4 IQ advantage, their children will have genotypes of:
AABB = +8
AABb = +6
AaBB = +6
AAbb = +4
AaBb = +4
aaBB = +4
Aabb = +2
aaBb = +2
aabb = +0

Clearly the average IQ of the children is the same as that of the parents, +4 above the average for the population, but the overwhelming majority (15/16) of the children will still have an IQ above that of the average for the population because they have inherited the high IQ genes of their parents. The children will have probabilities of IQs of +8 (1/16), +6 (1/4), +4 (3/8), +2 (1/4) and +0 (1/16). The offspring can only have genes they inherit from their parents, if these genes confer an IQ that is higher than that of the mean of the population, then it makes no sense to claim that these children will tend to have an IQ that has "regressed" to the mean of the population, this is akin to claiming either that these children have miraculously not inherited their parents "intelligence genes", or that the cause of intelligence is not genetic. It's simple genetics. Alun (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Alun, that's not what 'regression to the mean' refers to. Sure, the offspring of the mating you describe above will have genotypes in the ratios you give; I am sure that even Jensen doesn't dispute this. His argument is that these offspring will mate with the general population, which means that their mates are statistically more likely to have 'lower case letter' genotypes (following your example), and so over the generations it is likely that that line of descent will have an increasing number of 'lower case letter'/'average intelligence' alleles in its genome.

To put it another way, if intelligence is genetic and does indeed follow some sort of normal distribution, then 'capital letter' alleles are statistically less common than 'lower case' ones in the general population. Thus, matings which feature two parents with 'high IQ genes' would, in general, be less likely than 'mismatched' pairings of high IQ/average IQ, and so the number of homozygous combinations would become 'diluted' over time to heterozygous combinations with no phenotypic effect (crucially, you have also assumed that high IQ is the dominant combination, when it is surely more likely to be the recessive).

This of course raises what might be a valid criticism against the 'regression to the mean' argument, namely that those of a high IQ are, for social reasons, probably more likely to mate with others with high IQs (including this argument in the article without citation would be `original research', I'd guess), but your own explanation here is certainly not valid. --Plusdown (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. It looks much better than it did in December for example. Perhaps this would have been impossible without Wobble/Alun's contributions to the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubidium37 was only reacting to the disruptiveness of another editor. --Jagz (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubidium37 was being disruptive in his own right, so that's why he got indef-blocked.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, didn't a particular troll say he was going away for a year? I've been busy the past few days but it looks like Mr. Toll-a-lot just cannot stay away. Please, folks, can we stop feeding it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather be a troll than the north end of a southbound mule. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SL, I think that you've been denigrated to a step below a horse’s ass, but since you see J as a troll, then how could you be harmed by his opinion. Cease fire guys, you are both better than that. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be useful

Found this quote by Zack Cernovsky, himself a psychologist and a university professo (so properly qualified to judge this matter), about Rushton's work: Rushton's pseudoscientific writings perpetuate lay public's misconceptions and promote racism...Authoritarian statements "about the reality of racial differences," based on conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scientific contribution.

Maybe we could work this into the article? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cernovsky's paper was published in the Journal of Black studies which does not qualify as a reputable source in the field of psychology. Khurshid85 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of Black Studies is published by Sage and comes out of Temple University which makes it very respectable and it certainly is an authoritative source on racist science. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

@Khurshid85. The Journal of Black Studies has a Misplaced Pages article, it is also an academic publication. Maybe it's not reputable for psychology, but this article is about "race and intelligence" and not about psychology. Since when were psychologists experts on "race"? The subjects covered by the journal are certainly relevant to this article. Alun (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This too might be useful: taken from (Race, racism and anthropology, G. Armelagos and A. Goodman, University of Michigan Press, p.368) Although Rushton's work is both unscientific and racist, it is amazing that some highly respected physical anthropologists are fascianted by it.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The Journal of Black Studies seems to be a reliable source to cite for Cernovsky's opinion. Whether that opinion is worth noting is a separate issue. 2. Since when were psychologists experts on "race"? Well, they are the experts on the psychological issues related to race, such as intelligence. You can imagine that individual in a number of disciplines would have expertise at that intersection. I don't know whether Cernovsky is an expert on race re: psychology/intelligence, but that would be a point worth finding out. --Legalleft (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A site on Iq and its environmental factors

heres a good site about the environmental factors of IQ. http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ We should a section to the article about environmental factors.

http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.215 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the article, and it looks good so far. One thing is, though, is that I don't see a point of having this quote. "Eugenicists have argued that immigration from countries with low national IQ is undesirable. According to Cattell, "when a country is opening its doors to immigration from diverse countries, it is like a farmer who buys his seeds from different sources by the sack, with sacks of different average quality of contents."" That quote seems oddly out of place and sort of random. I dont' see the purpose of some weird off hand statement that somebody made about his views of immigration. That quote serves no real purpose. Also I don't really see any other quotes in this article of a similar nature.

Also, under Caste-like minorities, I don't think its really necessary to have that chart labeled "Group Differences Around the World" on the race and intelligence page. I don't see any reason the chart needs to be in this article. The chart is just extraneous information that should be moved to the other page below. http://en.wikipedia.org/Inequality_by_Design:_Cracking_the_Bell_Curve_Myth

Thats all for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.85.248 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion for the article which may help with its immense structural problems. Would it not work to try to dissect out all the information on the media portrayal of the debate, and put it in its own section, so that one has the scientific evidence on the one hand, and the media debate on the other? This would help keep things coherent, while also avoiding potential confusion.

I'm proposing it here because it is probably a much bigger overhaul than the few tweaks I have been doing on the article so far. Do let me know what you think. --Plusdown (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new attempt at the article on a user subpage, User:Plusdown/RaceIQ. Anyone who wants to contribute should feel free to do so, or to make suggestions on its discussion page (already I have a general plan laid out there). --Plusdown (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

lede section list

The existence of a meaningful correlation between race and intelligence depends on the acceptance of two assumptions, namely: That "race" is a meaningful biological construct That "intelligence" can be reduced to a unitary measurement

This is factually incorrect, thus the request for citations. The existence of race differences in any trait doesn't depend on a biological definition of race. Else the existence of all racial differences in every trait would be subject to the existence of a biological definition of race. The two are logically separate issues. Also, no one thinks intelligence is unitary -- everyone thinks its multidimensional. Most happen to think that there is a single factor with a disproportionate importance in intelligence differences between individuals. However, race differences in intelligence explicitly do not depend on any particular structure to mental abilities. Lastly, this kind of grand summary absolutely needs to be attributed and cited. NOR exists to keep editors from introducing mistakes like this. --Legalleft (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by "factually incorrect". I refer you to our policy on verifyability, which clearly states The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. The verifyability of this statement is not in doubt. Ashley Montagu, in his essay "The IQ Mythology" makes this very same point, this essay is printed in the most important book published on this subject, "Race and IQ", something anyone claiming any expertise in the field should know.

"I have stated, and I think the statement long overdue, that both the term "race" and the term "IQ" are delusive because in the one case the social conception of "race" was the deliberate invention of a slave-owning caste attempting to justify its conduct, and in the other case because "IQ" tests do not measure what they have generally been claimed to measure, namely, innate intelligence ... The statistical treatment of data in any investigation may be quite unexceptional, but when unexceptional statistical methods are applied to the analysis of unsound data to begin with, based on assumptions that are equally unsound, one can only end up with conclusions that are equally unsound. Such are the erroneous constructs of "race" and "IQ"."-Ashley Montagu, "The IQ Mythology"; Race and IQ. ISBN 0-19-510220-7

You see, that wasn't so difficult was it? Alun (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

genetics section

The genetics section previously contained no empirical details. Discussion of the science is meaningless without the crucial empirical details. Fix the section if there are NPOV issues, but don't delete cited and notable data. --Legalleft (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length: the papers and theories you are quoting are fringe, therefore we should not give them undue weight. The mainstream theories to explain the B-W achievement gap are all environmental. Only a few researchers are championing hereditarian theories, and those have been widely criticized, if not utterly dismissed by the majority of mainstream scientists.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong that a consensus was reached as several of us clearly disagreed. You're wrong about the facts at two levels. (1) The claim that these view are fringe is inconsistent with the Wall Street Journal consensus statement, the Snyderman and Rothman statement, and the persistence of researchers in examining the genetic hypothesis (pro and con) for decades. (2) You're wrong that a theory has to be in the majority to be notable. I don't know what the precise breakdown of expert belief is, but I know the distribution of discussion of these theories and empirical data in the literature. The level of discussion of empirical data for a genetic hypothesis is high and needs to be reflected in a summary of the topic (i.e., this article). --Legalleft (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Put another way (re: 2) if something is discussed in the NY Times and other MSM sources, you should be able to go to WP to get a summary. Saying that only one view is correct and thus only one view should be presented is prejudging a live scientific debate. --Legalleft (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not using the best examples: Gottfredson's statement in the WSJ represents only a relative handful (50 or so) signatories; the sample from the Snyderman and Rothman study was hand-pciked and therefore not representative. The APA statement and the AAA statement, both representative of memberships in the tens of thousands, are much stronger statements. Also, please note that consensus does not require unanimity, at least not on Misplaced Pages. Taken tgether that the hereditarian theory is championed by a very few researchers, that it is widely disputed and that it fails to make any readily falsifiable claims, all these are earmarks of fringe science, if not downright pseudoscience. There are very few followers of the hereditarian hypothesis, and this article should reflect that in its treatment of the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a very reasonable person, but I disagree with you. the sample from the Snyderman and Rothman study was hand-pciked and therefore not representative -- more than 1000 hand picked individuals? Lets stick to what's published, not innuendo. The APA statement had how many authors? And the AAA statement had how many authors? The authors and signatories count, but its impossible to attribute the views expressed in those publications to anyone put their authors. Many publications from professional organizations that I'm a member of have written things I disagree with. Hopefully its generally understood that membership in an organization doesn't entail support for all its products.

Your latter claims about fringe and pseudoscience are similarly just made up. Even if could present examples of published opinions to that effect, there's no way that that opinion can be taken as representative of a scientific consensus. Even if you are an expert on this topic, your opinion doesn't matter in your role as an editor. The reason that WP limits editorial bias with NPOV and NOR is for this very reason -- editors don't get to pick sides -- which you undeniably are doing, no? Stick to what's published and we'll be fine. --Legalleft (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The sheer size of a sample doesn't make it reprsentative. I can poll 1000 people on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and it will not be representative of the opinion of the NYC residents,much less of the residents of the State of New York, and even less of all Americans. The fact that they were "hand-picked" means nothing for the representativity of the sample. The APA statement has 11 authors, and had 11 responses published in the American Psychologist. The only response that disagreed with the report was that of Rushton and Lynn. Also, the number of authors of the AAA statement is unknown. The "Mainstream statement on intelligence" has only one author: Linda Gottfredson. Sticking to what's published means that each opinion is represented commensurately to its weight in the "real world". The hereditarian hypothesis is supported by a handful of researchers; the environmental hypothesis is supported by the vast majority of researchers.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is called confirmation bias -- disregarding negative data and giving undue weight to positive data (i.e., making up reasons to ignore WSJ and S&R in favor of APA and AAA ). Proper implementation of NPOV and NOR should guard against this -- all relevant positions would be cited and attributed, not the OR products of editorial opinions about which scholars count and which don't. The people hurt by it are the readers. --Legalleft (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: an op-ed piece in a newspaper, written by one person and endorsed by another 50 scientists should be considered to have at least as much if not more weight than the official position of a large body of professionals, written by a panel of 11 experts, published in a peer-reviewed science journal, and representative of an association with over 100,000 members, right?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because (1) the signatories were themselves experts and in fact a number of them were authors of the APA statement as well and (2) the WSJ statement was also published in a peer reviewed journal -- the two differ in detail (clearly), but not in importance in setting out the range of views. --Legalleft (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, I stand corrected on one thing: somebody here is definitely doing confirmation bias; however, that's not me.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to get distracted, but have you read the replies to the APA report (American Psychologist 1997 Volume 52, Issue 1). The get hit from all sides on their presentation of the issue of causal hypotheses in race differences ... ignoring criticisms of behavioral genetics, ignoring conflicting data on lead, ignoring problems with blood group data, ignoring brain size data, ignoring direct tests, ignoring SES effects, ignoring MTRAS, etc. The take away you should get from this is that it is a mistake to ignore lines of data that have aroused debate. --Legalleft (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ statement was a paid advertisement. It has no standing compared to a peer-reviewed journal article or a statement by a professional organization. Just because it uses the word consensus does not mean that it actually reflects a consensus. How many signatories have done primary research in genetics, published in established peer-reviewed genetics journals? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ statement was a paid advertisement. Citation needed!! I know for a fact it was not -- it was an invited piece by the op-ed page editor, who requested a statement signed by several experts saying what the current state of knowledge is. I'll leave the rest of your comment to speak for itself in term of irrelevance. --Legalleft (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of bias you have added, and continue to add, to the article Legalleft you will understand when I say that I am sceptical of any claims you make regarding fringe science. As someone clearly trying to push a racist pov, you can't expect that your claims are accepted as fair and unbiased. You have added significant amounts of hyperbole in support of the so called "genetic hypothesis", but have also consistently attempted to remove fully cited and relevant critisisms of heritability, while at the same time attempting to conflate heritability with heredity. Your attitude is to dismiss as ignorant those on the talk page who do not agree with you, and proceed with the edits you want to make anyway. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. If you want to invoke the NYTimes then here's Nisbett . Last December there was a discussion on the radio about just this subject, oddly no one mentioned this "genetic hypothesis" at all, so if it's so well established and enjoys the sort of support you claim, why does it not even get mentioned when people are discussing IQ and "race" on the radio? Or do we get the usual "conspiracy theory" claptrap? This "genetic hypothesis" gets attention from the media (due to it's shock value), and support from the political right (it justifies their tax cuts to the wealthy and leaving the poor to rot) but not much from geneticists or very many social scientists. You seem to be claiming that this theory has a great deal of support, but it's only within a small sub-section of the psychology community that really believes IQ testing is great, but I can't see that you have provided any sort of support for it from geneticists, who should be quite important in a debate about genetics. What about anthropologists, after all this is about human groups isn't it? It's clear that because this group of psychologists believe it you think that we should accept it as mainstream. That's just daft. This article is much more than just psychology and you don't even seem to understand that. Likewise you made a similar comment at Talk:Dysgenics "pubmed is not a suitable citation source for psychology" , but dysgenics is not part of psychology, it is part of biology. You should accept that other people who are not psychologists, but who actually do know what they are talking about, have an equal part to play in these articles. Alun (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of bias you have added, and continue to add, to the article Legalleft you will understand when I say that I am sceptical of any claims you make regarding fringe science. -- I don't mind if you treat everything I say with rational skepticism, but please treat your own beliefs with the same skepticism. I think we'd all be fine if we stuck to what's actually published rather than what we think we might know to be true, and especially what we infer to be true from variegated sources. I know it makes for more difficult and boring writing, but it has the advantage of increasing factual accuracy.

Your attitude is to dismiss as ignorant those on the talk page who do not agree with you, and proceed with the edits you want to make anyway. -- Actually, I tried to make a different edit in hopes that it would satisfy previous complaints. Can I assume that you didn't bother to read what I actually added and instead treated any addition as unwarranted?

Re: psychology -- not to get Watsoned by revealing personal data, but I actually know a lot more about transcription factors than IQ -- I just try to stay well read. --Legalleft (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So well read that you appear to be ignorant of the fact that this fallacy has been dispensed with decades ago, and that only a tiny minority of far right wing idealogues promote this gibberish any longer? That doesn't sound well informed, it sounds like someone who wants to promote only literature that supports their own bias, and then promoting that bias as if it were somehow academically rigorous, when in reality it's just propaganda. This article needs only to say a few simple things. There is a between group achievement gap between certain sections of society (let's call them "blue" and "green", for the sake of argument). One group (blue) has been disenfranchised for centuries, the other (green) has enjoyed a privileged lifestyle for centuries. This between group difference cannot be explained easily, though within the privileged high achieving "green" group heritabilities are high. Because analysis of variance can tell us nothing about between group differences (or we fall into the "within-group/between group heritability fallacy") we cannot draw conclusions about the heritability of "intelligence" within the "blue" group unless we measure it independently, when it is measured in a low SES environment (typical of the blue group), it comes out much lower than for the "green" group, indicating a more heterogeneous environmental effect on "intelligence" within this group. Likewise the cause of the gap between the green and blue groups cannot be explained by heritability estimates, indicating that although genetics and family background have a strong influence on intelligence, heritabilities (analysis of variance) tell us nothing about between group differences. The "partial genetic hypothesis" is based on conclusions drawn from the falling into the "within/between group heritability fallacy", this is a citable fact and we should say it clearly and explicitly, without all the hedging in the article. This is not to say that there are not genetic differences between the groups, it is simply to say that there is no real evidence for claiming that the gap has any genetic aetiology whatsoever.As Nesbit clearly and explicitly states In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic ... The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. Let's say it how it is, this fallacy keeps raising it's head every few years, but the arguments against it now are the same as they always have been, the fallacy can't overcome it's own systemic flaws, that it is the product of a fundamentally "racist" view of the world that has precious little evidence to support it, as Stephen Rose states it's a classic example of GIGO Heritability estimates become a way of applying a useless quantity to a socially constructed phenotype and thus apparently scientizing it—a clear-cut case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. And even if the estimate did indeed refer to a material reality rather than a statistical artefact one might question its utility.. One thing I will say, I do recognise people talking bollocks when I see it, and Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen and Rushton do talk an awful lot of bollocks. Alun (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not get this thread of talk. Legalleft seems to be making one substantive point: Alun, Ramdrake, and others (I assume me too) are ignoring certain lines of evidence. I was not aware of this. Legalleft, can you either summarize or just give two or three concise examples of the lines of evidence to which you are referring, that we are discounting/ignoring/rejecting/ whatever word you wish? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your directed and helpful question. I mean, as plainly as I can be, that in addition to describing the theoretical framework that Jensen initiated in the 1969 paper, it is important to point out especially widely-discussed empirical evidence that has been debated since then, such as that which I added to the genetics section. Given that I tried to work on it quickly and was piecing together a number of sources, I cannot vouch for the absolute necessity of every data point, but I think its a starting point. Please evaluate each claim therein per NPOV, rather than judging the entire topic irrelevant and reverting. Perhaps you'll find that some parts really are important. Indeed, I'm quite certain that a fair number of the points I added come up in various descriptions of the debate, and so should be described here. --Legalleft (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, you massively expanded a section in an article that is already very long. This massive expansion added no more value, it didn't say anything that was not already said, it just said it a bit differently. You just want to give huge undue weight to tiny minority racist idealogues. You are not interestied in neutrality, only in promoting this far right ideology for apparently political reasons. Alun (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm a liberal Democrat, and given our locales, I'm sure I have more black friends than you do (and probably have had more black girlfriends) -- which is to say, I resent your comments. But I'm also a scientist, so I respect reasoning and evidence. Find something else to do instead throwing around ad hominem. --Legalleft (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a scientist as well, which is why I understand that what Jensen and his ilk are producing represents neither evidence nor lucid reasoning. Any impartial reading of the available texts illustrates the clear lack of any evidence and the blatant flaws in their analysis. As I said earlier, only the terminally ignorant or those with a fundamentalist belief in white supremacy could fall for this blatant nonsense. I didn't make any ad hominem comments, I just said that your edit added no value to the article, that's a comment on the edit and not on you. Your edit history clearly shows a propensity to expanding the sections advancing the racist point of view of the likes of Jensen, while removing criticism of this fallacy, so the comment about pushing the pov of the racists is simply an example of WP:SPADE. Still I appologise for any offence, Misplaced Pages talk pages on subjects like this do attract people with strong opinions, and of course we wouldn't be here if we did not intend to express these opinions. This subject is fundamentally a political one and not a scientific one. The fact that any of us are here is not based on "science", an interest in this subject is inextricably about our political views and anyone who claims they are only interested in the "science" is probably deluding themselves. Alun (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lest you be surprised by that, I know that Watson and Jensen are also vanilla liberal Dems like myself. Flynn is a self described socialist, so maybe the debate is between liberals and socialists. However, Snyderman and Rothman surveyed political views, and found that they explained less than 10% of the variance in science responses. --Legalleft (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "vanilla Dem" is, someone who votes for the Democratic Party I suppose. But if Jensen describes himself as a liberal I can only assume it's in the same way that members of the NSDAP were "socialists"? Let's remember that Pim Fortuyn claimed not to be a racist, but clearly actions speak louder than words. It is what one does and says that defines one as a liberal or a socialist and not what one claims. Alun (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Defamation. --Jagz (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just try to stick to a civil conversation. Legalleft, you now say you are refering to empirical evidence you added to the Genetics section. Since there has been so much back and forth editing, I again ask that you just provide me here with two or three specific examples. What is the empirical evidence you are referring to? if it is a lotl, just a couple of examples would suffice to help me follow your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles