Talk:Evolution of human intelligence/version 2

This article needs references and reworking of the central ideas. A lot has been written about human evolution and the evolution of intelligence. Maybe it should be merged with another article about similar topics in wikipedia???? how would you do this?--Reefpicker 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Hominid intelligence. Fred Hsu 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

terrible article
nuff said--87.194.72.129 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uggh. Yea, I think it should be turned into a stub its so horrible. The intro talks about only one, particularly outdated idea, namely group selection as if that were the only idea out there about the evolution of intelligence. Intros are supposed to be general introductions. And group selection is anything but a general introduction. Its actually pretty much been rejected by most evoltutionary biologists. Oh yea, and not to mention the little bit about "protecting the intellectually less endowed" So all I can say is "what the hell?" It looks like it was written by a high school student who read the synopsis of the chapter on evolution in their HS biology class, then thought they knew enough to write an article on the evolution of intelligence. Brentt 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

try this paper, is it related? i hope this subject growing fast http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/skottke.html

yurrkk
"Evolution of intelligence", I expected at least a two pages long article for such a topic. Looks like : Evolution of intelligence, well, no evolution ;) dot.

Please merge or delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.49.61 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Is 'creationism' mainstream and I didn't know?
I changed "it's a hypothesis that" to "explains how". If you have issues with predominant scientific consensus, please visit a church or go back to school. --Leladax 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecological Dominance - Social Competition (EDSC)
added the model of EDSC. --Leladax 11:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (please help expanding it)

NPOV, concerns about: balance, undue weight and focus
I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:


 * Mankind Quarterly
 * Richard Lynn
 * Linda S. Gottfredson
 * Philippe Rushton

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted research has little to do with theories of race. How do we revise it? Or perhaps should we merge the material in this article? If so where? Most of this material was moved out of the article on Race and intelligence, and I agree that it fits better under Evolution of human intelligence... but now the article is unbalanced and one-sided. futurebird 02:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Here is a shortcut to the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Jagz 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should discuss how intelligence evolved in humans (which it doesn't now), not racial theories.
Right now, this article fails to explain how intelligence evolved in humans in general, but instead discusses fringe theories about how intelligence may have differentially evolved between racial groupings. Right now, this article fails to discuss what its title should have it discuss, and before I rolled it back some, utterly failed NPOV; to the point of basically being a POV fork of some of the material that used to be in the Race and Intelligence article (without the rebuttal by mainstream science). I would like to suggest this article should try to stick to the subject identified by its title first and foremost; otherwise, as a POV fork, it would become a prime candidate for AfD.--Ramdrake 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's no need to make this article a race-based POV fork. John Carter 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has a neutrality disputed tag and you should respond to that discussion. --Jagz 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It does now that you've reverted it. Maybe you should respond to that discussion first, however. I agreed that the content regarding racial groupings is an entirely separate matter from the evolution of human intelligence. The existing "discussion" by one party above is an entirely separate matter. John Carter 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To Jagz: please realize what is being done here: the article now serves as a front for racialist theories. It doesn't discuss at all how intelligence evolved; it's just rehashing fringe theories on how Blacks are less intelligent, and I'm mincing my words here. Either reorient, or next step is AfD.--Ramdrake 17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a discussion with you would be fruitful based on past experience. I suggest you revert the article and then: address the neutrality disputed tag, propose if for AfD, or make edits to the article. However, if the article has not been reverted in 24 hours I will request mediation. --Jagz 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake isn't the only one who wants to understand your edits here. If you don't want to talk to Ramdrake talk to me. futurebird 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto here. Also, I doubt very sincerely that mediation would be accepted by the mediators, as there seemingly haven't been any other attempts at resolution made, which they look for first. If you would want to try an RfC, you would be free to do so. However, you'd have to phrase the request in such a way as to make it clear what the subject of the dispute is, and it'd probably be easier to phrase it first here anyway. If nothing else, we could try to work out what the "bone of contention" is. John Carter 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially everything I put in this article, I moved from the "Evolution of intelligence" section of the "Race and intelligence" article with the exception of the quote from James Watson, which I moved from the "James Watson" article. Why was it okay in the "Race and intelligence" article and not here? --Jagz 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Partly, it wasn't okay back there, IMHO. But mostly, it's not okay here because this article isn't about race at all.--Ramdrake 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the article should be merged with hominid intelligence. It is a POV fork for discussing racial theories. The article race and intelligence details racial theories on intelligence. Muntuwandi 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by the word "race"? --Jagz 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The content which was removed clearly included quite a bit which attempted to indicate that there are differing levels of intelligence among modern humans. Such speculation is extremely controversial within the scientific community on grounds of both quality and objectivity of the research itself and the difficulties in finding good representative samples of the various populations. Such content would probably be acceptable in articles relating to the books and/or other sources themselves, provided they meet notability guidelines, but including such content about drawing distinctions between various groups of humans in an article which is by the title about evolution of human intelligence, not evolution of intelligence within various segments of the human population, is another matter entirely. John Carter 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more.--Ramdrake 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a better name for the article? --Jagz 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything along the lines of Theories regarding differentiation in human intelligence over time would probably be possible. John Carter 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If one speaks about the current content, it should be merged with Hominid_intelligence. If you're talking about the content I removed, I would suggest something along the lines of Racialist theories on human intelligence.--Ramdrake 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a better idea. Just be warned that if you were to create such an article it would almost certainly be a target of regular, repeated vandalism target from day one. John Carter 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As well as AfD. Ben Hocking (talk 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "race" or any variation thereof would best be avoided in the article name because it is too ambiguous. The point is that the models of human evolution have early humans or human predecessors leaving Africa at some point in the past and then inhabiting different continents and there are differences between the inhabitants of those continents. This is especially true prior to the development of modern transportation. People don't have to walk hundreds of miles anymore. Also, Ramdrake's rude reversion deleted theories that don't mention race. --Jagz 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "race" doesn't have to be used for it to be evident to some that that's what the subject is. While I do not disagree that there are according to some reports differences in various aspects of intelligence which can be observed by some in differing ethnic groups, I also know that just about everyone who thinks that any such comment is racism is going to first propose any such article for deletion, and if that doesn't work it will be a literally constant effort to keep the number of editors who oppose such an article from reverting the content on a literally continuous basis, which one editor will not himself be able to prevent or constantly revert back. The sourced material mentioned below would be a good start for creating such an article in userspace. However, I have to believe that any effort to turn this article into an article of the kind which would include such information, and including that information, over the objections of several editors would likely be a violation of the policy of WP:CONSENSUS, and could cause truly emotional parties to file disciplinary measures, which would likely proof successful. The current content does not seem to strike many as being NPOV. Perhaps an article based on the two volumes below would be. If I were the one thinking of proposing such an article, I would acquire the two books mentioned and start an article in userspace on them, request that other parties review it once it's done, and then move the final version into main article space. However, even then it might stand a very real chance of at least being nominated for deletion. This is an extremely emotional subject to many people, and you should recognize that, and the fact that some such people will react emotionally if they see content which strikes them as being anything less than completely neutral on the subject. In all honesty, if it were me, I'd do what I proposed above, and hope that the draft article survives there until it's finished. John Carter 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If people are sincere in wanting an article on the evolution of human intelligence, I do not see how it would be an emotional topic for people or vulnerable to AfD. Arguably, the creatures who would most be offended by an article on human intelligence would be dolphins and chimpanzees. I write this assuming good faith that when people say "evolution of human intelligence" they mean just that: what were the selective pressures that led to the evolution of human intelligence (comparable to the selective pressures that led to other features charactaristic of H. sapiens e.g. canine reduction and bipedal locomotion. I see no potential for controversy here if people act in good faith.  An analogy: H. sapiens is characterized by bipedal locomotion.  Now, some people have longer legs thn others and thus an advantage at long-distance running.  Within any population there is probably something close to a normal distribution of people who can walk or run faster and slower than others.  But theories to explain the evolution of bipedalism are not concerned with explaining this variation.  As far as evolutionary theory goes, what is important is that short of congenital birth defects or later trauma (e.g. an amputation), all humans are bipedal, and the questions are, when, how and why did the species H. sapiens evolve bipedal locomotion. This article should treat intelligence in precisely the saem way. H. Sapiens is characterized by a particular form of intelligence, one which is associated with tool use and language. Within a population some people are more articulat than others, some have a talent for poetry that others lack; some people are very clever in designing and crafting useful objects while others will hit their thum more often than a nail when using a hammer. But theories to explain the evolution of human intelligence are not concerned with explaining this variation. As far as evolutionary theory goes, what is important is that sort of congenital birth defects or trauma, all humans have a capacity for language and tool use and, in short, something we call "human intelligence" that we associate with both capacities, and the questions are, when, how and why did the species H. sapiens evolve this kind of intelligence. I gather some editors have tried to place into this article contents that is not actually about the evolution of human intelligence, or contents that reflects fringe views of people who are not evolutionary scientists. Is that the material that is emotionally charged? It seems to me that on the grounds of relevance and notability it just didn't belong in this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See my posting above with a link to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It states, "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." A lot of article content was eliminated. If someone thought the article violated NPOV the correct thing to do would be to add contrasting "POV". --Jagz 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YES! Absolutely correct! Which is why any material on race and IQ belongs in the article on race and intelligence, not here. To put such material here rather than in the article on race and intelligence is to violate the NPOV policy Jagz quotes above, y creating a POV fork. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem was also that the article wasn't about what the title suggested. If you want to revert the content and change the title accordingly (something along the lines of racial theories on human intelligence), then at least it would have some internal logic. However, as pointed out already by other editors here, I suspect it would become a definite target for either vandalism and/or AfD, possibly both. What was mostly (and grossly) inappropriate here was presenting these theories as mainstream theories on the "evolution of intelligence", when they are anything but mainstream, and very little about them has to do with the evolution of human intelligence in general.--Ramdrake 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that theories have to be mainstream? --Jagz 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to start with mainstream views, then notable views that are not mainstream, first, because sorting out these views helps us come up with the structure of the article by providing a general framework for discussing the issues. Moreover, I think our readership has a right to learn about the mainstream views before the fringe views. This is especialy essential because readers need a way of understanding debates among scholars and they need to understand why some views are mainstream and others are not. I cannot see any way to achieve this without first poroviding an acurate and clear account of mainstream views. Then, readers have a point of reference for understaning non-mainstream views. Of course, we ar under no obligation to devote space to fringe views and pseudoscience. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the policy of WP:Undue weight certainly does apply to the introduction of this specific content to the article. Also, adding the content to the article, particularly when it was already known that the content was regarded by others as having the problems it does, without prior notice and consent on the talk page, is probably at best misconduct. If any fingers are to pointed, I believe that is where most of them would point. Also, there does now seem to be a consensus that this content does not belong in this article, and policy would determine that is sufficient cause for it not to be included. If one were to request an RfC, I would have no objections, although I also have few doubts the results would not be substantially the same. On that basis, there are now in fact several guidelines and policies which introduction of that material into this article violates. As stated above, the content could be moved to be developed in userspace. However, the existing consensus would seem to indicate that it does not belong in this article. John Carter 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Presenting a fringe, highly controversial theory as if it were a mainstream theory certainly fails NPOV, to start with and possibly several other policies, not to mention it's a misrepresentation of the facts.--Ramdrake 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to edit the article, not revert it. --Jagz 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to ensure that articls comply with our content policies. These policies sometimes justify reversion, sometimes they do not. I think Ramdrake is tring to expalin the circumstances where they d justify reverson. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now please go back and fix the article Race and intelligence. It is a bad article. --Jagz 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Most recently I saw you left a vague and unconstructive (but I don't question our sincerity) comment on the Race and Intelligence talk page. If we are going to shift discussion badk to that talk page i urge you to be more constructive. Can you for example start by pin-pointing three xpecific problems in the article i.e sentences, pararaphs, or sections that are in the article but that you think weaken the article, or that are not in the article but that you think have to be? Or is one of your problems with the structure of the article? If so could you provide an example of where you think the structure is inadequate or confusing and what you think would be a better structure? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you seem to find having other editors try to ensure that articles comply with policy is a headache. Please, however, realize that, in adding content such that the final result violates several policies, you have created even bigger headaches for the editors you complain about. John Carter 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to be constructive
The best book I know on the issue is Terrance Deacon's The Symbolic Species. It focuses on the question of the evolution of language/human capacity for language - however, this is often a proxy for human intelligence in general (i.e. what distinguishes human intelligence from intelligence in other species is in effect what distinguishes human language from systems of communication in other species); most physical anthropologists identify the begining of genus Homo with the first instances of tool use, and the beginning of species sapiens with the development of language. Deacon's book synthezes a good deal of research by anthropologists as well as neurologists, neuropsychologists, and psychologists so his bibliography would be a good source. The other most notable expert on the issue i know of is Ralph Holloway: http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/ - his web-page has a link to downloadable articles. I regret to say that for professional and health-related reasons I cannot work on incorporating this material into the article, at least not for a while. But These are very well-regarded notable scholars and if someone is willing to read their work, I think they could develop the structure of this article so that it accomodates the central issues in current research, and add content that would improve the quality of the article by an order of magnitude. This is a fascinating question in the study of human evolution and Wikipedia ought to have a high-quality article on the topic. Deacon and Holloway take very different approaches, but both are outstanding and widely-respected scholars. Deacon's book is written with an upper-level college audience in mind, so it is very accessible. Many of Holloway's articles are for specialists, but the discussion or results sections of his articles are pretty readible. His 1969 Current Anthropology article was written for a scholarly but non-specialist audience and I think any of the editors who have been active in discussions on human intelligence or human evolution would find it very accessible - one f the things it did was to synthesize his earlier ground-breaking research for presentation to a more general audience, so it provides a good introduction to much of his more technical work. I know there is a lot more research out there by others, but these two would provide a strong foundation to build upon. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of human intelligence

 * First of all, please look up censorship in the dictionary. There is no censorshipo at Wikipedia.  Censorship would be ArbCom or Jimbo prohibiting discussion of certain topics.  Censorship would not be editors removing content because they feel if violates content policies.  If that was censorship, then we would have to say all Wikipedia articles are censored and then the word really means nothing.  The Nazis and Stalin censored material- that is a serious restriction on freedom.  You trivialize the fate of people who were censored when you use the word here.  no one is censored; the US and UK and most countries Wikipedia editors come from do not have censorship.  You are free to express your views on your own web-page or blog for example.  So there is no censorship.  Second, I do not know what you mean by politically correct police.  You are violating Wikipedia policies: WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and also our "Assuume good faith" plicy.  If you reject these policies there is no point in your participatin in Wikipedi because all you are really saying is, you will censor anyone who does not agree with you, you refuse to work with people who hold other views.  You have to be open at least to the possibility that they had good reasons for removing hte material they removed.  You do not have to agree with it, the issue is whether you can accept that someone you do not agree with was acting in good faith.  This is what our good faith policy is all about and you seem not to respect it.  Third, it is very obvious to me that there are good reasns for removing the material that was removed.  First, it failed to meet the standard of notability.  Rushton has no training in evolutionary theory and among scholars of human evolution his views are considered fringe and NPOV does not require us to include fringe views.  Second, it failed to meet the standard of relevance, since the section to which you are reffering is not about the evolution of human intelligence.  Instead Rushton is recycling some views common in the seventeenth century to explain th superiority of Europeans - views that were promoted before the theory of evolution and without scientific support.  And these views provide explanations for differences between different groups of humans.  They do not explain the evolution of human intelligence.  The evolution of human intelligence occured between 2.5 million years ago and 200,000 years ago, long before the time-period Rushton et al. are concerned with.  The mateial has nothing to do with the evolution of human intelligence, so why would anyone put it in an article on the evolution of human intelligence?  If we had an articl on the evolution of bipedalism in humans, we would never include in it a section on breaking the four-minute mile! So I really do not understand your point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only support slr's post, your "uncensored" version makes no attempt to explain the "evolution" of human intelligence, but is rather a crude attempt to include the fringe views of a few racists. Alun 06:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was a first draft so I doesn't have to meet your expectations. The controversy reminds me of when people were still clinging to the belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe. --Jagz 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and selection
There is, as usual, some confusion between evolution and selection in this article. The word evolution is overused and is confusing, most people do not know what it means, and it's use, even in academic circles, is ambiguous. To keep things clear and simple it is better to discuss things using precise language. I think using terms like selection and speciation lead to greater clarity. The "evolution" of human intelligence seems to me to be a non-subject, any discussion of the development of intelligence in anatomically modern humans should be in the articles about intelligence and human, where it belongs, it is too small and specialised a subject to warrant a whole article of it's own in my opinion. Alun 06:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the article was originally "Evolution of intelligence". I suppose you could change it back if you wanted. --Jagz 13:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And how would that help? My problem is with use of the word "evolution" and the idea that this subject is notable enough to warrant an article of it's own. You have failed to respond to either of these points. Did you actually read what I wrote above? Alun 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Evolution of intelligence would have to be a disambiguation page, as different species evolve different kinds of intelligence. It would be like an article on evolution of locomotion - a broad overview, but how fishes, birds, insects, quadrapeds, cetaceans, bats, and humans move all have very different evolutionary histories.  Same with intelligence.  I think the evolution of human intelligence is enough for one article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Human intelligence controversies
Can someobdy go take a look-see at the article mentioned above and give a second opinion on its contents? I don't want Jagz to think this is anything personal. At least, the title is slightly more in line with the content.--Ramdrake 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a POV fork of all the other nonsense articles about so called "human intelligence research". Wasn't there an AfD regarding the massive amount of crap articles promoting pseudoscientific nonsense about this subject? (Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)) I can't help but feel that this is just more POV pushing by editors determined to create as many pov forks as necessary in order to promote this pernicious claptrap. These should be speedy deleted as obvious pov pushing and pov forks. There appear to be more articles about the work of this small group of fringe pseudoscientific racists than about reputable scientists on Wikipedia. Alun 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've finally nominated the page as per CSD-G4 (recreation of previously deleted material).--Ramdrake 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alun 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CSD G4 was turned down.--Ramdrake 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)