Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 11

a note for Ultramarine
What was wrong with the bold part of this sentence? --Rikurzhen 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Several published consensus statements agree that the large differences between the average IQ scores of Blacks and Whites cannot be attributed to biases in test construction, nor do they "simply reflect differences in socio-economic status" (Neisser et al., 1996).
 * This statement seems exclude any kind of influence of SES which is certainly debated today. Ultramarine 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they merely mean to exclude simple influences of SES. Can we say that instead? By simple, I think they mean in a model w/o a race X SES interaction factor, it doesn't seem like SES; but that's not easy to summarize... which is why I was going for a quotation. --Rikurzhen 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about, nor can they be explained only by differences in SES. Ultramarine 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * done... just by simple differences --Rikurzhen 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

We need to be careful with this sentence: --Rikurzhen 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Black-White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.

I don't doubt that the data exists, merely that we can be certain of the interpretation presented on this blog. I suggest is --> may be unless we can find a published secondary source to make that interpretation certain. alternatively, we can do the some reports indicate that... form.


 * "Some reports indicate" is fine. Ultramarine 16:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hybrid vigor
I've started doing a little research on hybrid vigor and my first Google hit produced an interesting illustration of what hybridizing previously isolated lineages can do. People are not maize, but maize may be food for thought. I just thought I'd pass it along: http://maizeandgenetics.tamu.edu/hybridvigor.htm P0M 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Figures
What software was used to draw the figures? Dd2 11:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Excel. Powerpoint to color the top figure. Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator for touch-up. --Rikurzhen 14:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions ex machina?
I have noticed 4 (?) cases of deletions, all since Wikipedia came back with new software or whatever it was they changed. That kind of thing has never happened before in the history of this discussion over the last 2-3 months. It seems always to be the po sting that follows newly inserted material that gets wiped. So I suggest that we just watch it for a while and not assume that anybody is maliciously or carelessly wiping stuff out.

It is possible that the page has grown to such lengths that some software is choking on the memory burden. P0M 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)


 * No, there is a bug in the new upgrade software. It has been discussed on the wikien-l@wikipedia.org email list.  Check after each edit to see if something has been deleted that was unintended.--Silverback June 29, 2005 05:30 (UTC)


 * SB is right. rant removed as requested -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 15:25 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks. Yes, developers are people too. ;) -Willmcw June 29, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
 * Deletions ex machina indeed! -Willmcw June 29, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
 * Uhhh. What I meant was that the deletions may well have been coming "out of the machine" rather than being attributable to any specific person. (I was seeing postings starting with, "XYZ please do not delete my postings." If you see one such deletion it may well be that somebody did it by mistake somehow, but four or five in a row makes that possibility very unlikely, and it appeared very unlikely to me that there was any malicious intent involved. Two possibilities occurred to me, one, that "there is a bug in the new upgrade software," and the other was that since some computers in the past have had trouble with large blocks of text something odd might be happening with what an individual's computer sent back to Wikipedia as the result of doing an edit. P0M 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)

European IQ
The third paragraph of 2.3 refers to a web page (it's also a boo-boo external link and needs to die). The web page itself lists I would be happy to link to any of these primary sources instead, and I think Buj is the correct one, right? So I would like the footnote to read:
 * Buj, V., 1981, Average IQ values in various European countries, Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169
 * Alexopoulos, D.S., 1997, Urban vs rural residence and IQ. Psychological Reports, 80, 851-860
 * Lynn R. and Vanhanen T., 2002, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Westport, CT: Praeger. [Online Table]
 * Demetriou, A., 2005, The architecture, dynamics, and development of mental processing: Greek, Chinese, or Universal?, Intelligence, 33, 109-141
 * Buj (1981), some of the data can be found at Greek IQ

Any objections?Arbor 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
 * None here. --DAD T 3 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)