Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 30 March 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Initiation of Mediation

Welcome to the mediation for Race and Intelligence. I have reviewed the case and the preliminary discussion to the point where I feel comfortable with this case proceeding; further, all 3 "main" parties have indicated acceptance along with ALL of the others who are currently online. After many years of disputes, it is finally time this is put to rest. Using the issues presented and the policies of Misplaced Pages as my guide, I hope to guide all of you to a resolution that is fair and reasonable. I feel like the process the Mediation Committee uses for these matters is a good standard to follow. Below is a series of Ground Rules that I would like all parties to sign on to in the same edit that they add their opening statement. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions.

Proposed Groundrules:

1. Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal attacks will be removed by the mediator, substituting the following template: (Personal attack removed)
2. Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
3. Seek consensus rather than continually repeating the same point.
4. Always work to find common ground rather than ways to support your, and only your point.
5. Do not make edits to the page that would contravene these discussions. Essentially, any issue in dispute, once resolved, may then be changed on the article page. Trying to argue on the page during this discussion would contravene these proceedings.

Rules adopted 3/25/10 The mediator reserves the right to:

1. cut short any discussion that starts to wander across multiple issues, or that rehashes old grievances.
2. force compromises by fiat where there is stolid disagreement on trivial issues
3. enforce a one strike civility rule, where civility is used in a narrow sense which prohibits all commentary about other editors that might possibly be interpreted as pejorative, in my best estimation. basically this means I will tolerate one mild incivility over any three day period, and if you commit two, I will bench you for three days - no posting on this page or any related page until I give the go ahead.

Stay clear, stay focused, stay concise, and do not comment on other editors if you wish to continue to participate in this mediation.

Acceptance of Groundrules

Please signify your agreement to the above groundrules by typing * '''Agree''' ~~~~ below.

• Agree Ramdrake (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Captain Occam (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Fences&Windows 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Aryaman (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree DJ (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree T34CH (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Wapondaponda (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Slrubenstein | Talk 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• AgreeTechnoFaye Kane 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Ludwigs2 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Aprock (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Alun (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree mikemikev (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree chinpaya (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree chinpaya (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Dr.TMRoberts (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Current agreements

• Fringe issue - Research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article.
• Hereditarian viewpoint - The "hereditarian" viewpoint is not "fringe" science, and should not be presented as such in the article.
• Race/intelligence link - The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established genetic link/correlation between race and intelligence, note that the research is inconclusive and ongoing, and give a brief summary of the 'Genes and Intelligence' article (or use other sources) as necessary to give proper balance to genetics-based research. it is understood that this resolved may be subject to clarification as we flesh out the article and sources.
• SIRE data - All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information.
• SIRE & genetic markers - Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers (markers which are obviously inherited, but which are chosen because they are highly informative of biogeographical ancestry.)
• Distribution of phenotypes -Research suggests that some genes whose distributions vary between races affect the distribution of phenotypic traits. Obvious examples are skin and eye color; additional examples include blood type, lactase persistence, sensitivity to alcohol, and degree of risk for certain diseases. However, the functions of the majority of these genes remain unknown or poorly understood.
• No specific research - There is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above.

• 40%-70% of in-group IQ variation - Research suggests that 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factors. A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.
• 1995 APA report - The 1995 APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns is a fair (if dated) presentation of what can be considered the "mainstream" academic view on the issue of race and intelligence.

what am I missing in this list? --Ludwigs2 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Y Race/intelligence link - The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established genetic link/correlation between race and intelligence, note that the research is inconclusive and ongoing, and give a brief summary of the 'Genes and Intelligence' article (or use other sources) as necessary to give proper balance to genetics-based research. it is understood that this resolved may be subject to clarification as we flesh out the article and sources. mikemikev (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions.

1: YThe hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Misplaced Pages’s standards or any other standard. As has been mentioned before, this point is a little different from the point that research into race and intelligence is not “fringe”, and ought to be mentioned separately.

2: I think the following points, regarding the social vs. genetic meanings of race, ought to also be included:

• YAll current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information.
• YSome research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers (markers which are obviously inherited, but which are chosen because they are highly informative of biogeographical ancestry.)
• YResearch suggests that some genes whose distributions vary between races affect the distribution of phenotypic traits. Obvious examples are skin and eye color; additional examples include blood type, lactase persistence, sensitivity to alcohol, and degree of risk for certain diseases. However, the functions of the majority of these genes remain unknown or poorly understood.
• YResearch suggests that 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factors. A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.
• YThere is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above.

This is the same list of points that we’ve been discussing for at least a month, and it’s pretty clear by now that just about everyone agrees with it. The one exception to this is the third point, which hasn’t been in this list before, but is a summary of something that almost all users here have stated they agree with in some form. I’m hoping it won’t be controversial to include point #3 here, but if it is, I guess it’s not a big deal if we leave it off for now. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Occam, particularly on the need for his first point. My choice of wording would be as follows: The research of so-called "hereditarians" is not "fringe" science, and should not be presented as such in the article. This follows directly from our agreement that the best representative of the mainstream view is the APA report, which has no qualms citing the non-controversial findings of Jensen and Lynn as authorities in their field, and does so frequently (cf. "Sternberg's Theory" §2; "Choice Reaction Time" §1; "Schooling" §4; "Group Differences" §1; "African Americans" §1; etc.). --Aryaman (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think I agree with using the word “research” in this context. The reason Ludwig’s need to summarize these points originally came up was because certain users were under the assumption that we were agreed these people’s research wasn’t “fringe”, but that their conclusions still might be. Part of what we need to clarify here is that what we’re saying isn’t “fringe” includes not only individual studies (that is, research) but also the hereditarian hypothesis itself. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How does "work" strike you? Or do you specifically want "conclusions" used here? --Aryaman (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

alright, what I've done is created a separate box for proposed resolved issues. As other editors check in we can move them from one box to the other. I've used 'hereditarian viewpoint' rather then 'research', but we can piddle with the words. --Ludwigs2 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, your wording for this sounds fine to me. But considering how long we’ve spent resolving some of these points already, as well as the fact that you’ve said you don’t want us to waste any more time rehashing old disputes that have already been resolved, I’m not sure what the point is in waiting for other editors to express their opinions about these points before moving them into the “resolved” box. If other editors have sufficiently expressed their opinions about these points in the discussions during which they were resolved initially, isn’t asking users to express their opinion about them again just an invitation to re-open the dispute about them? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just prefer not to appear too hasty about it. of course, if someone objects we can always move them back out again, but lets give it the rest of the day for people to comment if they so choose. --Ludwigs2 23:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

An additional point everyone either has been or should be able to agree with:

• YThe 1995 APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, though somewhat dated, is a fair presentation of what can be considered the "mainstream" academic view on the issue of race and intelligence. The conclusion reached in this report is that no one knows what causes the one standard deviation differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites, and that both the environmental model and the hereditarian model suffer from a lack of direct empirical support. --Aryaman (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the boxes. as always, let me know if there are any problems, or anything I've missed. --Ludwigs2 08:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed outline

• History

This section should briefly describe the history of intelligence testing and how it has been applied to the issue of race. This should not attempt to be a history of the debate: that will be covered below.

• Group differences in measures of intelligence

The introduction to this section should discuss those factors which are generally recognized as affecting the development of intelligence in individuals and explain the concept of heritability. The general idea here is to set up the key points in the discussion of between-group comparisons. The question of suitability should also be treated here, along with an appropriate rebuttal.

• Data gathering methods

This sub-section should discuss the kinds of tests used to measure intelligence as well as the criteria used to determine race. Any general, non-controversial shortcomings these methods have should be mentioned here. This section should focus on SIRE as the most common variable for race and IQ (or some other psychometric score) as the most common variable for intelligence.

• Intelligence test score results

This sub-section should present the results of intelligence testing on racial groups. Intended here is preliminary, "uncontrolled" testing, i.e. not the kind that takes place in a controlled study such as the MTAS. In its final paragraph, this sub-section should also describe the so-called "Flynn effect", though discussion of potential causation should be omitted until the next sub-section.

• Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups

This sub-section should discuss those factors which may influence the development of intelligence in groups. Each factor, such as:

• Health and Nutrition (self-explanatory)
• Rearing conditions (e.g. transracial adoption studies, some twin studies, etc.)
• Socioeconomic environment (self-explanatory)
• Education (e.g. length of education, quality of education, etc.)
• Discrimination (e.g. discrimination in education, caste-like minorities, etc.)
• Stereotypical behaviour (e.g. "stereotype threat")
• Geographic ancestry (e.g. studies comparing the ratio of African/European ancestry to IQ)
• Physiology (biological coordinates related to physiology, e.g. brain size, etc.)
• Neuropsychology (biological coordinates related to neuropsychology, e.g. neural density, speed and efficiency of neural information processing, etc.)
• Genetics (e.g. molecular genetics studies, etc.)

should be listed under its own heading, with the main studies on that factor briefly discussed along with any pertinent criticism of those studies. Notice there is no grouping into "environmental" or "hereditarian" research here - just research on factors potentially affecting the development of intelligence in groups.

• Significance of group IQ differences

The scope and depth of this section is yet to be finalized. It's inclusion is pending review of a proposed outline describing it's content and scope.

• Interpretations

The introduction to this section should present the history of the debate beginning with Jensen's paper in the late 60's and extending through the debates of the 90's. The key papers which emerged during this period should be briefly summarized. The purpose here is to orient the reader in the current state of the debate and to make clear that there are at least four positions taken by experts.

• Environmental interpretations

This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the environmentalist argument, i.e. that all of the difference in test scores between groups can be accounted for by appealing primarily or exclusively to environmental factors. The key supporters, such as Nisbett and Ceci, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate.

• Hereditarian interpretations

This sub-section should make a coherent presentation of the hereditarian argument, i.e. that the difference in test scores between groups is to be accounted for by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors. The key supporters, such as Jensen and Rushton, and their arguments should be presented, and their work should be criticised where appropriate. (The 100% genetic interpretation is pretty fringe, and I don't know of any experts currently holding this position, thus it does not have its own section. If literature can be found on it, however, it should certainly be included.)

• Official statements

This section should present the position taken by bodies of experts in official statements such as that of the APA and the AAA. To be fair, the paper Mainstream Science on Intelligence should also be discussed despite its not being an "official" statement, as it was signed by a rather large body of qualified experts and does not differ substantially from the APA report.

This is mostly based on Aryman's outline, which had relatively broad approval in the discussion above. I have made the following changes to it (based on other editors comments, and my own discretion - those editors will be mentioned in brackets). --Ludwigs2 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Changes

1. I changed the environmental interpretations description to read "all of the difference in test scores between groups can be accounted for by appealing primarily or exclusively to environmental factors" instead of "by appealing to environmental factors alone". Mostly I did this for balance with the section on the Hereditarian approach (I don't think either camp is absolutist about the issue, except amongst a few hard-liners). please correct me if I am wrong.
2. {multiple, sort of] changed 'caste-like discrimination' to 'caste-like minorities'. this seems to be the more conventional buzz-word; that is my only intention. please change that back if you desire.
3. changed 'Socioeconomic status' to 'Socioeconomic environment'
4. added to Data gathering methods the line "This section should focus on SIRE as the most common variable for race and IQ (or some other psychometric score) as the most common variable for intelligence."
5. Changed "Group differences in intelligence" to "Group differences in measures of intelligence".
6. stubified the 'Significance' section in the outline. let's simply leave it as a header, and set up a section for discussing it specifically.

Questions

1. Faye mentioned a recent summary of 30 years research in the APA report, as well as some recent work in the HJournal Intelligence. has anyone investigated these?

Suggestions

1. Size - don't worry about size for the moment. try to keep the sections in Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups short, but if the article becomes over-long we can start discussing trimming or content-forking section s.
2. keep discussion of the Flynn effect very short - there is an entire article on it we can link to
3. keep the lead stubby for now. after this first revision we will need to review the work, and we can discuss the details of the lead then.

let's take a day or two to debate some of the fine points of the outline, but I'd like to give David the go-ahead to start revising on sunday or monday.

please place your comments below. --Ludwigs2 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

comments on outline

• Support: I have no objections to the outline as proposed by Ludwigs, and would be thrilled if David could start revising the article this weekend. Regarding the question: I believe Faye was referring to Jensen & Rushton's 2005 Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, which was published by the APA in their journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. To make sure there is no confusion: this is not the report we commonly refer to as "the APA report" - that moniker has been chosen to apply to the 1995 Neisser et al. work Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. --Aryaman (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I can't identify any problems with this outline. mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Some problems will probably be identified after it is implemented, but it's worth trying now. --DJ (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reject: If you want to include a header for the "Significance" section and hash out the details whether and what to include later, I'm fine with that. But if that's the plan, then it needs to be in the outline. When the outline is changed to reflect the suggested compromise, I'll change my position to support. A.Prock (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • can you be more specific? the section Significance of group IQ differences is still in the outline (last section of Group differences in measures of intelligence, with a note to stubify pending further discussion). Or was there another point here that I'm missing? --Ludwigs2 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this wasn't clear, pronouns are hard. In this case it refers to the specifics of the compromise, specifically that whether and what to include has not been finalized. If you like, I can edit it to make it clear. A.Prock (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, please do edit it in if that's easiest. I guess I misunderstood the compromise that was worked out above. it would be good (just for the sake of clarity) if you could add a diff to the compromise you're referring to, just so that we can all look at what you're seeing, or at least tell us roughly where it is in which section. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative Support: Assuming the changes to the outline are fine, I support the outline. However, I would feel better about the support if there was a broader base of support. I worry that any product produced from the outline above will not be robust unless editors like slrubenstein, alun, etc... are also willing to back it. It appears that there are broader concerns about this mediation, and that if it doesn't become more inclusive, all the effort here will be for naught. A.Prock (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  I understand, and agree. I expect slr will be along to comment (I'll leave a note on his talk, and alun's, just to try to encourage that), but please keep in mind that I see this as a two stage process. If we can get at least partial support for this, we can get David.Kane to edit it in, and then I will drop notes to all of the mediation participants that a new draft has been made and we are starting a review process on this page. I'm counting on two assumptions:

  • That DK will do a decent, neutral, faithful job of fleshing out the outline in article space, and
  • That editors who have not wanted to participate in the current arguments about basic structures will be more inclined to offer critiques, assessments, additions, and revisions to an established draft. most people find it easier to comment on a given than to argue over an abstraction.

  I don't expect (and never expected) this outline to reach 100% consensus, but I think if we can put up something that's in the 70%-80% range, it will make the job of sorting out the remaining disagreements much simpler, since people will have specific sections and points to refer to. --Ludwigs2 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think we need to wait on other editors to begin redrafting. But having their support would mean a lot when it comes to defending updating the article to the new version. A.Prock (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, can you please make it clear exactly what you think David.Kane should be putting into the article under the “significance” heading? Would it be a summary that’s a few sentences long, a note saying something like “this section is in need of expansion”, or would the section be left off entirely until we can reach a consensus about its structure? Since the compromise Ludwig suggested was that this section would start out as a “stub”, leaving it out entirely would be rejecting this compromise, and I won’t accept that. However, I would accept either of the first two options as a temporary solution for the article’s first draft. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this, Xavexgoem (who apparently is still listed as our official mediator) is now closing this mediation case because of the discussion that Mathsci’s started in the AN/I thread. I suspect that by now it’s too late to prevent him doing this, although other users are welcome to attempt it if they want to.

I hope the four months we’ve spent on this case haven’t gone to waste. Whether or not they have depends on whether we’re able to make use of the things we’ve resolved already, in terms of both the article outline and the general resolved points that Ludwig has listed at the top of the page. Will this be enough to stabilize the article? I don’t know, but it’s pretty much our only chance at it at this stage. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just silliness - he's not listed as mediator, has not discussed the issue in talk, and has absolutely no grounds to close a MedCab case uilaterally. I've reopened it and left a note in his talk - if he persists at it, then I'll take him back to ANI.

Please keep in mind MedCab is a volunteer system, not a bureaucracy. So long as you guys are willing to engage in mediation, and willing to have me mediate, there's not a whole lot anyone outside can do about it. The minute you decide to close it, or ask me to step down as mediator, of course, then those things will happen. The efforts of others to make this painful and complicated only work to the extent that you all allow it to work.

My understanding here is that A.Prock just wanted some guarantee that the section would be listed in the outline and article. Whether that means a heading with no content or a brief one-line statement will appear in the article we can leave up to DK; the upshot is that we include a placeholder that is not developed, so that we can discuss the matter in greater detail. --Ludwigs2 10:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If that’s really what Aprock meant, then I’m fine with this outline as the first draft, and I think we’re ready to begin editing the article. I would have preferred to hear this from Aprock himself, but after looking around a bit it seems that we now have a time limit of two weeks before this mediation case is shut down by an external decision, so I guess I shouldn’t delay our progress with the article in any way that can be avoided.

So in other words:

Support, assuming that your explanation of Aprock’s meaning is accurate.

I just hope we can resolve the rest of our questions about this article before the two-week time limit expires. Even though we’ve resolved a lot, there still are a few more points left to resolve, such as the structure of the “significance” section. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If by significance you mean practical significance then re-read the "effect size" stuff I posted. ES is all about practical significance. Over and under-representation of minorities on many variables that are important to well-being can be calculated rather accurately by appeal to ES and bell curves.

Bpesta22 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I already agree with you about this. I’m one of the users who’s been wanting the article to include information about the practical significance of the IQ difference; the person who has a problem with this being included is Aprock.

If you agree with the rest of us that this information should be included in the article, I’d suggest that you take this up with Aprock whenever we resume discussing the section of the article that would talk about this line of data. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sending this out for editing into mainspace. I think this outline has a sufficient level of approval to begin editing it into mainspace. I'll copy it as is over to David.Kane's talk page and he can begin work on it. I'll post back when I get some idea of the time frame invloved. --Ludwigs2 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

* Occam: I've hidden the above, and I am warning you officially (as mediator) about civility. Do not make comments about other editors. You may give your support for the current version (which is what I sense you want to do) and you may withdraw it later if a change is made which you disagree with, but in either case you will base your decision on the text itself and nothing more. If you have any questions about this, please place them on my talk page.

Consensus discussions can only occur where there is an assumption of good faith. I understand that there are a lot of tensions on this page, but we will all make that assumption (even if we don't believe it) for the continuing discussion. --Ludwigs2 15:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

All right, we can ignore most of what I brought up in that comment, but I’d still rather not give my support to this outline at a time when I’m worried I might have to withdraw it later. I’ll give my opinion about it after I’ve seen how it ends up getting modified, assuming that it does. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a few paragraphs of support in that complaint thread linked above (both pro Ludwig and technofaye) but I must have screwed something up as it seem to not have posted. I can retype it, if you all think that would be helpful (I think closing this now is stupid, and it seems like we're close to fleshing out the outline).

BP

Bpesta22 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you point me to them, I'll rescue them for you - I'm not sure which 'complaint thread' you're talking about, and I'm not sure if your comments will be there or got lost in the shuffle. up to you if it's easier to retype or to point, I'm good either way. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Terms of continued mediation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You have 2 weeks to show some progress. After that, I will have to close this case. You're in a talk-talk-talk loop, and familiarity breeds contempt. I haven't been paying attention to this, but I just rewatched it. I see TechnoFaye calling SlRubenstein a troll, and general anger all around. Please stop personal attacks, and be civil even if you have to grit your teeth through it. Things are bad enough already. If you continue to insist, I will close this case and you'll basically have the same discussion happening on the article's talk page.

Finally, there's been some concern about representation of viewpoints during this arduous process. If a good outcome happens, bear in mind that edits to the article do not automatically have consensus just because they were discussed here, because not all the "major players" are having a say -- I don't blame them. MedCab is open-ended, and mediators can opt to continue a case even if people drop out or don't participate. So prepare for a likely round 2(^n) in any event. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite what some users are claiming at AN/I, we haven’t “pushed away” any editors who used to be involved in this article. Some of us have gone out of our ways to try and get more of the people who originally signed into this case to continue participating in it, particularly Alun and Mathsci. (I’m not sure what’s happened with Ramdrake, but I suspect he has real-life issues that are preventing his continued participation at Misplaced Pages.) But both Alun and Mathsci seem to be actively avoiding participation here, even though Mathsci at least is still paying close enough attention to this case to have very strong opinions about what he doesn’t like in it.

I can understand why it wouldn’t qualify as consensus if a large body of users holding a certain viewpoint were being excluded from the discussion, or weren’t able to participate in it for reasons beyond their control. But what we have here is a few users who are voluntarily excluding themselves from the discussion, despite our efforts to the contrary, and who now may end up claiming that the outcome isn’t acceptable because their opinions weren’t considered. Well, if they care about the outcome and want their opinions represented in it, shouldn’t they be presenting those opinions in the mediation the way everyone else has been doing?

If things end up going the way you’re suggesting they might, what this sounds like it means is that there would be a few users aren’t interested in working towards consensus at all (since reaching consensus is the purpose of a mediation case), and would rather just block any efforts to change the article by unilaterally rejecting whatever outcome the rest of us can agree on after we’ve spent several months reaching that agreement. If this actually does end up happening, doesn’t it pretty clearly violate the spirit of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, as well as policies such as the “Little or no interest in working collaboratively” section of Misplaced Pages:Not here to build an encyclopedia and the “Does not engage in consensus building” section of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing? And if so, how could this be an acceptable reason to reject the outcome of mediation? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some elaboration from Xavexgoem regarding "some progress". Apparently we have very different ideas about what constitutes progress: despite our accomplishments, particularly over the last 3 weeks (the resolution of several key points and the production of an outline to be used for our first revision), uninvolved editors continue to berate the mediation as being a waste of time. If making concrete steps towards a major revision is not considered "progress", and we're being threatened with discontinuation if we do not evidence "some progress" within two weeks, I'm quite eager to know just what constitutes "progress" in the eyes of the MedCab. --Aryaman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

Here are some of my concerns about this mediation, I echo Slrubenstein's comments on the ANI, since Ramdrake, Alun and T34CH aren't participating in the mediation, it has become less and less of a mediation between disputing parties. I don't see any progress and very little in terms of agreement between the disputing parties. If any agreement and consensus exists in this mediation, it is between like minded editors and not between disputing parties. Could anyone point to an explicit agreement or consensus between myself and either Occam Varoon, Mikemikev or even TechnoFaye. We may have agreed on non-actionable issues, but not on any single proposal. The mediator In my interactions with the mediator, Ludwigs, I have found no bias in his one-to-one interactions with myself or with other editors. I think he has been consistent and dedicated to this mediation. He has considered all viewpoints in his decisions. However, I do have a number of concerns. The three most important decisions in this mediation have been

• The fringe debate
• The data-centric article
• The outline.

All three of these decisions were favorable to supporters of the "genetic hypothesis". The question is not whether Ludwigs decisions have been biased, but whether they are deliberately or unknowingly biased. The fact that the three most important decisions have gone in favor of the genetic camp, clearly shows that this mediation has been one-way traffic and not really a mediation. It may be, that in order to placate those who opposed these proposals, Ludwigs has offered them a few crumbs, and leftovers , but he has still delivered the main course to the hereditarian crew who are seemingly quite happy about the mediation. Just to restate my position,

• I disagree with the current statement "The hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Misplaced Pages’s standards or any other standard". There are standards by which the hereditarian hypothesis would be considered fringe or outside of the mainstream.
• I disagree with the data-centric article, at least as proposed in this mediation, because it gives undue weight to the hereditarian position, which is a minority/fringe position. This issue of weight has not been addressed
• I disagree with the outline, because it is once again biased in favor of the hereditarian position and it was designed with the intent of giving validity to the hereditarian hypothesis.

Wapondaponda (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: Noted, and as you probably know I am not a fan of the so-called genetic hypothesis myself (that's just my personal opinion, and it has no bearing on the mediation since I explicitly gave up the right to have an opinion when I volunteered to mediate). However, progress needs to be made, and I am counting on this draft of the article to bring back editors who have withdrawn form the discussion and attract new editors to the discussion as part of the review process. Arthur Rubin has already showed up, and once the article begins to be edited in I will send notes to all of the participants, and post notifications at wp:FT/N and wp:NPOV/N to elicit a few extra outside opinions (with the caveat that they obey mediation restrictions on discussion). We'll see what happens.

I will say, that I think the decision about the so-called genetic hypothesis not being fringe seems appropriate to me. The more extreme positions of that approach may be fringe (I'm sure we'll have some commentary on that point) but the general idea appears with enough frequency in the scholarly literature that it would be inappropriate under NPOV to dismiss the whole range of research that deals with it as fringe. What we have now is more a matter of balancing sources than of excluding the idea from the article entirely. But let's save that discussion until we have the draft edited in and can look at it in its entirety. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the mediation result was not that the genetic hypothesis was not fringe, it was that the hypothesis was not fringe, but that certain conclusions are minority and should be presented with great care. This is part of the problem with the Significance section that is still under discussion. The proposed template for that section drew in great part from authors who hold controversial minority conclusions. Right now I'm sort of left as a last man standing on a sinking ship here. If past participants cannot be convinced to rejoin mediation and at the very least comment on the outline, it seems like it's going to be very difficult to move forward with effective editing. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but I really don't want someone to spend hours and hours going over sources and copy just to have the whole thing yanked. A.Prock (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, if you’re going to claim that the reason any of these three topics was decided in a way that you disagree with is because of Ludwig showing bias (intentional or unintentional) to one of the two positions about this topic, then I think you ought to re-read the discussions that resulted in these decisions. If you do, I think it’ll be clear that none of them were based on either favoritism towards one of the two groups, or even just a majority opinion.

In the case of the data-centric approach, this approach was approved by everyone in the mediation except you, including users such as Ramdrake, Aprock and Slrubenstein who favor the 100% environmental explanation for the IQ difference. Choosing this proposal over your own proposal was not a matter of favoring the “hereditarian” position over the “environmental” one; it was a matter of choosing the approach that the majority of users taking both perspectives were able to agree on, rather than the one that a single user was pressing for. Your claim that the data-centric approach will give undue weight to the hereditarian position is also quite strange—it will give more weight than the existing version of the article to the data itself, which is an idea that seems difficult to argue with since the data is something that both positions agree on, and they differ only in how they interpret it. But what has anyone here said to suggest that it will give more space to the hereditarian model than the existing article does?

In the case of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is “fringe” or not, this is not something that can be resolved based on the preferences of editors the way the article’s structure can. Misplaced Pages has a specific definition of what constitutes a fringe theory, and either this theory fits its definition or it doesn’t, regardless of what any of us think. Another relevant point is the criteria for determining consensus in a discussion, which does not depend on the agreement of 100% of the users involved in that discussion, but on the points raised in that discussion and whether or not they’ve been addressed. Whichever way you look at the debate we had over the WP:FRINGE issue, there’s only one conclusions it can be considered to have reached: Varoon Arya carefully explained how in all respects this theory did not meet Misplaced Pages’s definition of a fringe theory, and all users who supported the 100% environmental perspective either agreed with him or had nothing to say in response.

--Captain Occam (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said that a data centric article should be written. I said that I like the idea of presenting data, but that we had to take great care that cherry picking did not occur.A.Prock (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think that disagrees with what I’ve said. I said that the data-centric approach had your approval, meaning you didn’t have a problem with it, even though you still had some concerns about potential problems that you wanted to make sure we avoided. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Assuming that the current outline is a "go" with all currently involved parties, I am very interested in having a working draft. I'm a bit hesitant about the two week time line, but assuming we can agree to continue to work constructively after that window has passed, I'm hopeful that any issues that need to be resolved can be done in mainspace after the draft has been written and reviewed. I don't know that it'll be be perfect, but I have high hopes that it'll be better than what's there now. A.Prock (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree with any editor on anything, provided sufficient reason can be given in support of any objection s/he may raise or of any course of action s/he may suggest. I agree with Muntuwandi in that I would not choose the phrase "The hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Misplaced Pages’s standards or any other standard" to summarize the resolution of the "fringe" issue, and I agree with the reasoning given. I suggested a rewording, and Ludwigs modified the statement yet again to reflect his view of the overall consensus on the matter. If editors provide sufficient reason for changing the current resolution, I'm sure Ludwigs will modify the statement accordingly. --Aryaman (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

what rewording would you suggest? I am certainly willing to modify any of our agreements as consensus about them changes, so we don't have a problem there - they are agreements, and need to be such that all people agree with them.

P.s. I've refactored two paragraphs in Occam's post above, and asked him to remove some other material: stuff that is too focused on other editors. just an FYI.

Not to worry, I am not too bothered by hard direct talk, as long as it is about activities within Misplaced Pages. Occam, could you provide links to where Slrubenstein and Ramdrake explicitly agreed with the data-centric model. I didn't see their opinions in the straw-poll. Out of the editors who are not part of the "hereditarian group", only A.Prock and myself participated. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal states: The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Misplaced Pages. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We are just ordinary Wikipedians who help facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement. It is my understanding, that the Mediator's role is not to help create a new article, but rather to help those parties that disagree to agree or make comprises. For mediation to work, the potential for an agreement between disputing parties must exist, at the same time some obstacle would exist that prevents this agreement from taking place. It is the mediator's role to try to eliminate this obstacle in order to facilitate agreements between the disputing parties. The mediator has done his job, if he or she has tried to understand both sides of the dispute and made efforts to make both sides understand each others' point of view. The mediation is a success if disputing parties reach an agreement. I think the mediator and many parties in this mediation have focused on creating a new article, not on getting agreements. Ludwigs states, I will say, that I think the decision about the so-called genetic hypothesis not being fringe seems appropriate to me. The more extreme positions of that approach may be fringe (I'm sure we'll have some commentary on that point) but the general idea appears with enough frequency in the scholarly literature that it would be inappropriate under NPOV to dismiss the whole range of research that deals with it as fringe. This is a reasonable assessment, but isn't the mediator passing judgment. The mediator is entitled to his own opinion, and being an editor like anyone else can express his opinions. But the mediator shouldn't impose decisions or opinions. In order for the fringe statement to pass it should have individuals from both sides of the dispute voluntarily agreeing with the statement. The mediator stated that there was no consensus for a data-centric article, but that the writer should go with a data-centric article anyway. Once again the mediator has suggested a course of action that lacks voluntary agreement from the disputing parties. The mediator chose to go with one outline over another, but gave no reason for doing so. Once again this feels like passing judgment. AFAIK, there is no still no voluntary agreement from disputing parties concerning the outline. From my perspective the above issues have not been resolved and therefore I object to the current direction the mediation is taking. This includes whatever David Kane is writing. I agree with Occam in that unanimity is not a requirement for consensus, so my objections may not be important. However, the fact there is little explicit support for the current proceedings from other editors not in the "hereditarian group" remains an issue. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting Article from March 30 to April 1

I will be rewriting the article from 8:00 AM EDT March 30 until 8:00 AM EDT April 1. Comments:

1) I have explained twice over the last few months ( and ), I am happy to have anyone else but me do this. No one else has volunteered. So, it looks like I am the one. Fel free to criticize, but do keep in mind that I did not seek out this role.

2) My only requirement, given that I am about to spend 2 days of my life on this project, is that the version that I come up with serve as the basis for future changes. (Obviously, any editor can change any aspect of what I write. But no editor can say, "I don't like this version, so there is no consensus, so I revert to the version of January 30, 2009." If you disagree with that plan, speak up now. No one has complained about this prerequisite when I have brought it up before.)

3) As I have mentioned before, I am not a fan of the data-centric approach nor of this outline. Indeed, I purposely made zero comments about it. That said, I am a big believer in building consensus, so I will do my best with what is there.

4) Request to Ludwig: Would you mind archiving everything from the talk page except the outline (and any votes of support for that outline) and this comment? I think that this would clean things up in a helpful fashion.

5) Request to everyone else: Please make any suggestions, comments, additions you like to the outline now. I will not start up until tomorrow morning.

6) Request to all: Please allow me the freedom to give it my best shot over the next two days. If you don't like what you see then: a) Please wait till the end. perhaps I will fix it. b) Make a comment/suggestion on the talk page. But please note that I will probably not have the time to reply to such suggestions given all the work that I will be doing on the article but that I will be reading everything that is written.

My plan is to do my best for two days and then step back from the debate. If everyone loves the article that I produce, then great! If not, then I will leave it to others to decide the best ways to improve it going forward.

Wish me luck! David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I will not commit not to revert to the version of January 30, 2008, but I hope your edits will provide a reasonable step toward removing absurd statements sourced only to fringe sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur: Could you point to any "fringe sources" that the article currently cites? My current plan is to (almost) only cite articles in the peer-reviewed academic literature. Do you have any problems with that? Which specific "absurd statements" would you like to see removed? My hope is that all editors will like my new version, so specific feedback is much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur: the currently plan is to let David do a neutral rewrite based on the outline given here (in the section above), and then open a review discussion to deal with specific problems. The outline is probably not perfect, and there will certainly be things that need to be revised. I would ask you to promise not to revert anything on the article out of hand, but to bring the objections up here where we can discuss the problem and reach some consensus on it.

Please note: even though you are not signed on as a participant in this mediation, you'll need to abide by the fairly strict discussion rules I've laid out, as does everyone else in the mediation. One of these rules is that there is a strict prohibition against making unnecessary comments about other editors in the process. Brian Pesta is not a source, he is an expert in the material assisting in the editing process. You may certainly check out his credentials, and you may certainly disagree with his statements, but please refrain from labeling him or his opinions as 'fringe' or making any other comments that might be interpreted as derogatory. focus on the material solely. I'm going to ask you to refactor those comments from your post above - can you do that please? --Ludwigs2 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I just noticed the problematic statement was a separate paragraph, so I have refactored it myself. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And here we go! If uninvolved editors start reverting my edits, I hope that editors involved in this mediation will revert them. David.Kane (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the initial draft going to be done in mainspace? I really think we should draft and review first. A.Prock (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. David.Kane (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A.Prock. we only have 12 days left, so a bit of boldness is called for. putting the article in mainspace should guarantee that we get some good feedback, fairly quickly, and that should allow us to work out any flaws in the article in short order. at least that's my hope... --Ludwigs2 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of 4/1 draft

Use this section for comments and discussion of the 4/1/2010 draft. Participants should follow the mediation rules given in the #Initiation of Mediation section at the top of the page. Please comment here before making any substantive changes to the draft itself - the goal is to make consensus-based modifications to the draft as they arise, so that we achieve a version that has broad acceptance. The draft should be finished in it's entirety sometime on 4/1; I will make a note in this box when it is complete.

1) The article should begin with a statement that the data shows an IQ gap. That's what the article is ABOUT. History should be the LAST item.

2) The intro is TOTAL propaganda. it consists of:

• Race and intelligence involves debate in the academic literature over the links,if any, between race and intelligence. "If any" contradicts the overwhelming mainstream opinion that there IS a link.
  
  
• "At the heart of the issue is the observation that the members of racial groups tend to cluster around different averages on tests of cognitive ability." Deliberate obfuscation. It should read "IQ tests show significantly different average scores in different races".
  
  
• This does NOT belong in the intro: "Some scholars regard the topic as scientifically meaningless based on their interpretation of the meanings and significance of race and intelligence." That belongs in a much lower section on interpretations, and should be accompanied by the statement that this is a very minority opinion among experts.
  
  
• Others argue that the social implications are too important to forego research. There doesn't need to be an explanation of why scientific research is "okay", PARTICULARLY not in the intro.
  
  
• "Some likewise question whether it is possible to scientifically address the question in a way that is ethical." How much more evidence is needed to conclude that this is a biased introduction?? TechnoFaye Kane