Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 14

(1)
The sentence at the end of the second or third paragraph above the TOC says,
 * However, differences in average IQs among groups have been examined extensively.

It strikes me as being a non sequiter. Would it change your meaning to swap "Nevertheless" for "However"? P0M 04:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless is fine. --Rikurzhen 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

(2)
"The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect a genetic component, such as genes linked to neuron proliferation, brain size, and brain metabolism, that varies with ancestral background." How do we say things so that it is clear that the differences in the intelligences of individuals and the differences in the intelligences of [races] are hypothesized to be dependent on genetic heritages both in regard to genetic instructions for brain growth and structure, etc., and also in regard to genetically determined requirements for nurture? P0M 04:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe "reflect" really was intended to mean "are determined by"? Is the idea that there is a set apparatus for processing information that is rolled out by the body in conjunction with the blueprint in our DNA regardless of any environmental impacts (as long as the organism isn't killed)? P0M 05:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I could be written The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences are also partly genetic... --Rikurzhen 16:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing with that sentence is not solved by your emendation. I went back and tried swapping out the other language, but it didn't help. The problem that I see is that the text reifies or hypostatizes (i.e., makes an abstraction into a concrete entity) intelligence. That probably wasn't anybody's intention. At least according to my understanding of all our discussions, we all realize that genetic instructions do not simply crank out a "computer" with all its programming in ROM which the individual is stuck with for an entire lifetime. The previous paragraph mentions "genetic components," so the reader is apt to read conditionals backwards and say that if different [races] have different measured [intelligences] then the genotypes for different [races] determine their various levels of [intelligence]. That conclusion goes far beyond the evidence since nobody knows yet whether (as I think DAD pointed out) one [race] might get the same diet as another [race] but fail to get nutritional support for full genotype expression in the area of [intelligence] because genotype factors made the organism require higher quantitites of some nutrient to support brain development, and since epigenetic "programming on the fly" of the organism might greatly inhibit brain development if, e.g., most individuals of one [race] were subjected to a heavy diet of stress. (Sharing a physical environment may make it seem that the environmental conditions for all humans in that environment are the same, every breathes the same air, drinks the same water, watches the same TV, etc. So why are these green kids growing up great and those pink kinds growing up putrid?)

Would the following rewording be acceptable.

"The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect inherited genetic components that may vary across races both in terms of the nutritional requirements of the organism (in the broadest sense) and also in terms of the brain structures that would be produced under optimal conditions."

(Sorry if my responses to earlier suggested changes are slow. I'm on a few deadlines here and will get to math problems, etc. when I work back down to that part of the article -- if no kind soul has fixed them before I get there, that is. :-) )  P0M 18:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it. I didn't like the examples at first, but the editor who put them there is right, I think, that providing an example of what a genetic cause is helpful for the reader. I changed the sentence to make the fact that it is a hypothetical example clearer. --Rikurzhen 19:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that will avoid the problem. The problem is not just that it is hypothetical and might be assumed to be a real connection. The problem is that it suggests that the quality of genetic instructions for, e.g., "neuron proliferation, brain size, and brain metabolism" are (or would be if the hypothesis about their existence is correct) possible to be deduced from the outcomes. That in turn suggests that if pink people get putrid results on IQ tests then pink people are genetically determined to be inferior. But "If you have a poor genotype then you will get a poor phenotype" is not at all the same as "If you have a poor phenotype then you must have a poor genotype." People get their "...if and only if...s" confused with their "if... then...s" all of the time. The people who were reported in the article on epigenesis suggested that 50% of phenotypical characteristics may be accounted for by epigenetic changes. We know that simple malnutrition can permanently stunt growth. Lots of other inhibitory factors have been hypothesized. So what is wrong with the way I phrased the matter above? P0M 21:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No particular genes have yet been convincingly linked to variation in IQ (there are reports of linkage to chromosomal regions that include very many genes). However, there are measured biological differences (e.g., brain size, glucose metabolism, nerve condition measurements, etc.) which have been associated with differences in IQ. These biological difference have been used to do candidate genetic screens for IQ variation -- these candidates are "brain development genes", so to say. There's nothing logically wrong with any hypothesis, including a nutritional sensitivity one, but the only kind of genes that -- I know of -- that have been actually hypothesized by researchers as possible candidates are those involved in brain development. So with the idea of creating a hypothetical example of how genes could affect group differences, brain development genes are the safest example. --Rikurzhen 21:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Brain growth and structure, etc., should make the blue whale the most intelligent creature on Earth... And, maybe they are ?... Ericd 21:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Animal intelligence? Birds! They're so much better than mammals in a lot of ways. --Rikurzhen 22:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I like where you guys are going with this above. I keep re-reading the first paragraph. I just made a couple of changes because it isn't about all group differences (say sex or age), but about racial and ethic group differences. The article is also mostly about IQ, so I think we need to clarify especially IQ when mentioning intelligence. I also added "purported" which may be a little strong/POV. Jokestress 23:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'purported.' The differences in IQ are established and accepted. The meaning of those differences and their causes are what is debated.--Nectarflowed T 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue is that IQ does not necessarily equal intelligence (even though this article takes that as an assumption). I agree that "puported" is not quite right, though. Need to think on it. Jokestress 01:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of a 3 paragraph abstract, the distinction between intelligence and IQ can be permitted to remain a little blury. That kind of detail should go in the background section, which follows immediately afterwards, and if possible should rely on the intelligence (trait) and IQ articles to do the bulk of the explanation of why they are not identical. --Rikurzhen 01:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good fix to the intelligence assumption. I also propose that we link the word "controversial" in the summary to the "controversy" page (whatever it ends up being called). The summary should get readers to the information they need if clarification is necessary. I'd like to figure out a way to do something similar to the first assumption. As I mentioned before, self-identified race isn't really the issue, and you guys are dancing around some great ways to acknowledge the crux of the controversy (heritability). The first half of P0M's suggestion is dead-on, but I wonder if there's a simpler (more blurry) way to explain the second half (in italics):


 * "The primary focus of the scientific debate is whether group IQ differences also reflect inherited genetic components that may vary across races both in terms of the nutritional requirements of the organism (in the broadest sense) and also in terms of the brain structures that would be produced under optimal conditions."


 * Maybe something about potentialities or expression. The environmental questions are important, but the real nucleus of this debate is whether any heritable elements that affect intelligence vary by race or ethnicity. Jokestress 03:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The causes of the IQ gap are the primary focus of the scholarly debate, so it can't be an assumption of the research. --Rikurzhen 03:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then maybe the article should be called "race and IQ." I think a general reader needs to understand the difference between what an IQ gap and an intelligence gap might be. Jokestress 04:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But the gaps are in many other things besides IQ, such as SAT scores, school achievement, reaction time, brain to body mass ratio, brain structure, etc. Dd2 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict; Dd2 is right] Most critics of IQ claim that it doesn't fully measure intelligence. However, this concern is irrelevant for our current discussion because an IQ difference implies an intelligence difference. (For example, as a difference in leg-length implies a difference in height.) But the data goes beyond "IQ" tests, so IQ should not be substituted for intelligence. "Cognitive ability" is probably the preferable term from a technical stance, but article renaming for the sake of technical clarity is a slippery slope that eventually leads to rediculous titles that no one but an expert could interpret (titles have been discussed several times before and always we arrive at this conconlusion). --Rikurzhen 04:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you can see how this is the kind of distinction that isn't necessary in the article abstract, but can be mentioned in the background and described fully in the intelligence (trait) article. --Rikurzhen 06:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * The background section currently says: Cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence) is most commonly measured using IQ tests. These tests are often geared to measure the psychometric variable g, and other tests that measure g, such as the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, also serve as measures of cognitive ability.  All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the term "intelligence" is controversial. Some critics, such as Sternberg and Gardern, believe that there are important aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests. In this article, "IQ test" denotes any test of cognitive ability. Some critics question the validity of all IQ testing or claim that there are aspects of intelligence not reflected in IQ tests. See the articles Intelligence, IQ, and general intelligence factor for further discussion of the validity of these tests.


 * What we still need to resolve is the NPOV discussion in the section above. --Rikurzhen 04:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

(3)
Puzzling: "While the existence of average IQ test score differences has been a matter of accepted fact for decades, during the 1960s and 1970s a great deal of controversy existed among scholars over the question of whether these score differences reflected real differences in cognitive ability." Does this mean that average of one group is different than the average of another group? From year to year? Or what? I suppose the reader can guess what the intended meaning is, but avoiding such guesses is desirable because of what can happen when the reader guesses wrong. P0M 07:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"During the 1960s and 1970s, scholars debated the question of whether average racial group differences in IQ (which were firmly established by that time) reflected real differences in cognitive ability." Does that clear it up? --Rikurzhen 08:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Back to the chart caption
The first chart caption has been edited to remove the POV about the chart itself. It's not just the cause and meaning that are debated. There are significant criticisms about the fairness and validity of the data and its representation that need to be acknowledged in the caption.

Also, what's the general thought about moving the intelligence link to the first sentence? Seems like "intelligence and social science" is unnecessary, since that's covered in social science. Also, my eventual desire is to see a parallel in the contested assumptions: one bullet point on race, with the link to the race article, and one on intelligence, with the link to the intelligence article for parallel construction. This is all part of teaching the controversy, but keeeping the summary as brief as possible. I'd prefer intelligence first appear in the bullet point and be the link to the main article. Makes everything nice and symmetrical like a bell curve. Comments? Jokestress 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No one disputes the data itself. Only whether genetics are involved is a matter of dispute.  If you don't believe me, send an email to Lewontin, Sternberg, or Neisser and ask them if they dispute the data.  Dd2 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Race_and_intelligence articles are a good collection to be famaliar with. --Rikurzhen 17:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) Dd2 is right. (2) We need to have the Crux of NPOV issue discussion above before we can make any progress because you seem to have a different idea about the scope and proper treatment of the controversy. --Rikurzhen 16:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have seen questions about the sample size, esp. the Asian data and issues about the "race" of the self-identified Hispanics. Might take me a couple of weeks to read all the stuff to find it. Lemme go look at the crux of the NPOV issue, but then I am done for today. Jokestress 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's definitely less certainty about the precise numbers for "Asians" and "Hispanics" as well as the question of whether these labels refer to a homogenous group w.r.t. ancestry (clearly they don't - e.g., East Asians, Southeast Asians, and South/Indian Asians are readily distinguishable). But the averages of each group are definitely different than that of Blacks or Whites whenever sampled. That is, rank order of the means is certain, but the true population mean may differ slightly from what's shown. --Rikurzhen 22:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

may be gone
I may not be around for a while. Check User:Rikurzhen for details &/or notices. --Rikurzhen 20:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

what's missing? test bias background and controversy
Something is missing: a discussion of test bias w.r.t. (historical) controversy. S&R(1988, pp107-121) point out that this was the primary focus of concern about R&I research. The multiple definitions of test bias should be introduced in the background section when discussing cognitive ability, a summary of criticism should go in the public controversy section (along with the conclusions of experts), and we should use race and intelligence controversy to give the many details. Terms/ideas to distinguish:
 * cultural bias
 * cultural disadvantage
 * cultural loading
 * bias as mean differences
 * bias as improper standardization
 * bias as content
 * bias as differential validity/prediction
 * bias as selection model
 * bias as the wrong criterion
 * bias as atmosphere
 * bias as motivation

Related articles: --Rikurzhen 22:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Psychometrics
 * Validity (statistics)
 * Predictive validity

I wrote up a draft. As the controversy section gets bigger, we'll want to move material to the race and intelligence controversy article for the sake of Summary Style --Rikurzhen 05:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

APA and WSJ statements
Today's little project on this is to explain a little more clearly the frequently-cited APA and WSJ pieces. I have added a reference to Gottfredson's background piece from intelligence. I have noted that 52 signed, 48 did not, with a footnote to lay out the breakdown of non-signers. It's clear that it is Gottfredson's opinion this is "mainstream," but since half the experts wouldn't sign it for various reasons, this opinion is not without significant dissent. And before someone takes out "conservative," it appears on the entry here for Wall Street Journal, and I can rustle up at least 20 other published acknowledgements in places like National Review etc. saying the editorial page is the principal outlet for serious analysis of public policy from a conservative perspective. Jokestress 18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Although that is a problem, that's not the fundamental problem. Let me repeat DAD's comment from above. --Rikurzhen 18:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out what sorts of edits it would take to end the NPOV dispute. Here is a key phrase from Jokestress that I believe crystallizes the issue:
 * This research is based on two sets of disputed terminologies, so any attempt to separate the research from the dispute is POV-pushing.

My response is, roughly:
 * These minority positions are acknowledged at length. Efforts to entangle such positions with consensus research constitute POV-pushing.

That said, I'm willing to entertain Jokestresses' mandate. What's not clear to me are its operational consequences. Must we simply have a phrase at the beginning of each page that says, "Some researchers maintain that neither race nor intelligence can be scientifically defined or studied, making all related research invalid (see )"? I could get comfortable with that. --DAD T 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the scientfic concensus view is being obfuscated by using language that trivalizes the APA and WSJ consensus statements. This is an obvious violation of both the spirit and the literal reading of WP:NPOV. Scientists do not write "position papers". Position papers are written by political parties and political think tanks. Scientists write consensus statments (among other things). The APA is not a political organization or a think tank. It is the professional organization of scholars in the field of psychology. The authors of the APA statement don't work for the APA, they're academics who work at universities. The characterization of the WSJ statement is completely unacceptable. While it was first published in the WSJ, the mainstream statement was subsequently published in several scholarly venues. Thus, the bit about the Wall Street Journal editoral page is irrelevant. I have no problems stateing the numbers of signatories and not so long as the details are given in a way that doesn't bias the reader to think that scientific opinion is split 52 to 48, which the current draft does.


 * A more accurate and balanced statement would be 100 experts could be found before the submission deadline. 52 signed the statement; 11 did not know enough to say; 7 indicated that the statement does not represent the mainstream; and 30 indicated other reasons. Of the 37 who did not sign for reasons other than not knowning enough, 11 explicitly disagreed with at least one item, 14 declined to sign despite agreeing with the content, 2 did not want to sign "at this time", 10 gave no reason for not signing.

The fact that these statements are (approximately) representative of the mainstream scientific concensus is verified by their independent support of one another, by the fact that they approximately agree with the survey of expert opinion data from Snyderman and Rothman (1987) (actually the statements emphasize more uncertainty than the opinon survey indicates), and by reading the papers cited in the reports.

So... we need to stop skirting around the issue that DAD brought up with his comment that I pasted above. '''The mainstream view of scientists is clearly documented by multiple sources that paint a consistent picture. The existence of controvery is both noted and described in the article, but NPOV demands proportionality and appropriate attribution of majority versus minority views.''' --Rikurzhen 18:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, a more accurate statement would be of 131 signatures solicited, Gottfredson secured 52. Gottfredson's piece is an editorial and is marked as such in both the original and reprint. These are position papers. The APA (like any trade federation) frequently writes position papers. Gottfredson got less than 40% positive response. This is not like evolution or global warming where there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus. The word "mainstream" was introduced by Gottfredson but is clearly a POV move on her part. That needs to be acknowledged. Jokestress 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Qualitatively it is very much like evolution and global warming. Quantitatively, it is much more like global warming circa 1990: a great deal is known but the most controversial question is not resolved to unanimous concensus. Re: the WSJ responses... Unless you have secret knowledge, we don't know what the 31 experts who couldn't be found might have said about the WSJ statement. Only 7 indicated on their own that it wasn't "mainstream". Only 11 indicated disagreement with at least some aspect of the content. Another 11 claimed to not be knowledgable enough (i.e. they aren't experts). Another 10 gave no reason at all for not signing, which leaves us with no interpretation of what they think about the content. 14 gave reason other than disagreeing with the content for not signing, such as fearing the personal and political reprocussions of having their name appear on a list with Arthur Jensen (who has been physically and verbally assulted in the past). Another 2 did not want to sign "at this time", which is also impossible to interpret with certainty, but doesn't sound like a disagreement with the content. --Rikurzhen 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * We will get to the DAD thing in due time. The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence. Jokestress 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence. Have you read what the concensus statements say about that issue? Consider the WSJ statement: There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. What does that imply or assert? Perhaps you mean this statement: Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. This is not a matter of the authors' opinions, but a reference to the findings of the Snyderman & Rothman (1987) survey. --Rikurzhen 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

''the discussion between the bars below is irrelvant and has gone off topic. --Rikurzhen 21:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)''


 * Gottfredson (2005b); Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". We need to distinguish between people's opinions (expert or not) about genetic involvement and the evidence on which they base this opinion. See y'all tomorrow. Jokestress 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of response is that? In one sense, the collective knowledge of science consists only of the opinions of scientists. However, it is the method by which scientsits arrive at their opinions that give them merit. So yes, we do need to describe the evidence (done here and here), but for the sake of efficient summary in a section describing the controversy, accruately describing and attributing the mainstream opinion of scientists is essential. --Rikurzhen 19:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gottfredson is clearly a POV-pusher. I am sure in the ensuing 3 years before the analysis got published, she could have checked with the 31 people who blew her off to ascertain why. I am going to challenge "mainstream" until I see better evidence than something cobbled together in two weeks and unsigned by 60% of those solicited. A valiant but failed attempt at consensus.


 * OK, now I am really gone until Monday. Just FYI, at the rate we are going, I anticipate about 4-5 months to get this NPOV. We need to revisit the first graph caption again already, among other things. Jokestress 20:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gottfredson is clearly a POV-pusher True or not, that's irrelevant! If, by NPOV you mean making your personal POV about R&I the predominant one, then that should never happen (WP:NPOV). The WSJ statement is approximately identical in substance to the APA statement, both of which reflect expert opinion seen in the S&R(1987) survey, all of which are supported by easy to verfy literature references. Claiming that the scientific concensus is other than what these reports describe is a non-starter (unless you know of relavant literature that the rest of us do not). --Rikurzhen 20:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

From the point above the irrelevant/isolated section ... Jokestress, your actions suggest to me that you either (a) misunderstand what precisely the scientific concensus does and doesn't say, or (b) want to obfuscate the scientfic concensus opinion in favor of your own opinion. Based on your crux of the problem is the implication... comment, I am inclined to believe (a) rather than (b). Clearly, (a) is something we can overcome together, but (b) is a violation of NPOV. --Rikurzhen 21:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence
Because I anticipate that this will not be resolved until we discuss it in detail, here is some commentary on the APA & WSJ statement. Let's start with the WSJ statement, which is the shorter and easier of the two.
 * The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence (1-6) seems to reflect the opinions of all experts but the multiple-independent intelligences crowd, such as Sternberg, Gardner, and colleages.
 * Group Differences (7-8) are just a matter of fact
 * Practical Importance (9-13) is again old school stuff and seems to reflec the opinions of all experts except the same IQ is only academic crowd (i.e., Sternberg, Garder, et al)
 * Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences (14-18) is concensus, but take note that many non-experts confuse this issue with that of group differences and so attack both errantly
 * skipping ahead ... Implications for Social Policy (25) is just a statement about the relationship of facts versus values -- universal
 * Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences (19-24) we should examine one item at a time
 * 19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging... this is discussed in the article, and both sides are given plenty of room to make their point; but the phrasing "no persuasive evidence" is a safe way to say it because most people don't seem to be convinced
 * 20. non-controversial; you can read about it in the NY Times
 * 21. some controversy, but the opinions S&R opinion survey backs up this claim
 * 22. seemingly the "crux" that bothers Jokestress. Let's go sentence by sentence
 * There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. -- a broad reading of this should be noncontroversial; some may think they know what class of answer is correct, but no one can say to have the definitive answer in detail
 * The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). - a non-controversial warning about misapplying individual heritability to group heritability
 * In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. - again more warning
 * Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. - the phrasing "Most experts believe" indicates we're talking about the S&R(1987) survey again, where the plurality/majority of experts/informed-experts hold this opinion. "could be involved too", in one reading, merely says that most experts don't discount the possibilty that genetics "could be involved too". this would account for all experts but the ~15% who believe only environment is involved. although from the S&R survey we know that if anonymously asked their opinion, most experts think genetics really is involved too
 * 23. non-controversial, just a matter of fact
 * 24. non-controversial caveat to this research

I don't see anything in the WSJ statement that isn't (a) noncontoversial or (b) believed by a strong majority of experts (or nearly all experts depending on how you process phrases like "could be involved too"). So, the "implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence" is not a problem with the WSJ statement (nor with the APA statement).

(Hypothetically!) But even if they did present that view, they would be speaking for at least 52% of responding experts in the S&R survey. Indeed, your "problem" doesn't rule out the possibility of counter evidence against a genetic contribution, which could be driving the second most common response to that survey question -- The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion. Thus, it would hardly be a problem (for WP or them) to claim that a majority of experts believe there is some evidence. --Rikurzhen 22:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The current form of Jokestress objection about the reliability of the WSJ as representative of mainstream science is in the form of a footnote with the body text "but note objections[12]". That won't work. I understand Jokestress argument (even though I think she is wrong—that's not the point), but the objection needs to be attributed to somebody else. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source introducing Jokestress' argument. If the argument is novel (as it appears in the current form: Wikipedia is having objections) then it needs to be removed as per WP:NOR. If the argument has been made by somebody else, then that source needs to be cited. It was hopeful that the Sternberg/Miele interview contained such a passage, but came up blank. Remember that we aren't allowed to use common sense (especially not common sense that we don't agree on, as in the case of Jokestress' objection). Somebody else needs to make the common sense observation for us. We can report evidence, and are often tempted to report selectively, but we cannot introduce novel conclusions about evidence. So, Jokestress, please find any source that allows us say something like the following: "Jay S. Silver (2003) has questioned the representativeness of the statement based on the number of solicited signatures. Gottfredsson (2001) reports that yaddayadda....". ���If you must, write a blog entry yourself and quote that. But WP is expressively forbidden from becoming a primary source. We cannot have anybody, later, writing something like this
 * The encyclopedia "Wikipedia" points out that the WSJ statement may not be representative of...
 * To make this clear: any reference would work. Actually, I was sure that Sternberg had written something to that effect, maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Arbor 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

footnotes out of wack
some numbers are missing??? --Rikurzhen 00:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Something whacky happens when footnotes are placed inside of pictures (footnotes in pictures get numbering priority). I suggest you remove the two footnotes from inside the pictures and replace them with something such as "See footnote x below." &mdash;Wayward 02:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is fixed now. If anyone moves a section with a footnote, please re-order the footnotes, remembering that any footnotes in charts must appear before notes on the article body. Jokestress 17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Public controversy revision
Before we get into the WSJ editorial, let me show you my proposed revision to the public controversy section. Like the history section, comments are listed chronolgically. As I said, I am going to challenge Gottfredson's "mainstream" claim and this "consensus" claim y'all have come up with, both assertions being inaccurate IMHO.

Public controversy

Expert opinion is split regarding not only causation theories, but the scientific validity of the research itself. In a 1987 "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing,” approximately 600 respondents were asked the cause of the Black-White IQ differential:


 * 45% both genetic and environmental
 * 24% insufficient data to support any reasonable opinion
 * 15% environmental only
 * 14% did not respond
 * 1% genetic only

The 1994 publication of The Bell Curve prompted a range of expert responses. That year, the 10,000-member American Anthropological Association criticized “mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence” in a consensus statement:

"…differentiating species into biologically defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits)."

In 1995, the 150,000-member American Psychological Association issued a report titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns":

"It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis… Thus the issue ultimately comes down to a personal judgment: how different are the relevant life experiences of Whites and Blacks in the United States today? At present, this question has no scientific answer."

Also in 1995, a 52-person ad hoc coalition of researchers signed a Wall Street Journal editorial titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence" (though 60% of those selected to sign did not sign the editorial). )

Stephen Jay Gould revised his book The Mismeasure of Man in 1996 to address issues raised in ‘’The Bell Curve.’’ Echoing Gould, Tate & Audette (2001) argued that issues of "race" and "intelligence" are pseudo-questions because both concepts are arbitrary social constructions. Similarly, in a 2005 review paper, Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research: "In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists working on intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends."


 * 1)  American Anthropological Association. Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. Adopted December 1994.

I might check in later today. If so, we can discuss your counter-proposals, and we are going to get back to that first graph caption in the near future, too. Jokestress 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I skimmed it, and in principle the fundamental material looks fine. Obviously, an editoral opinion bleeds thru the word choices, but I won't go into that in fear that it would distract you from discussing NPOV in the Talk:Race_and_intelligence section. --Rikurzhen 17:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what this section is about. The WSJ ad/editorial is not the same as the APA position paper in tone or quality. Once we have the WSJ thing vectored for what it is, we can talk about the APA statements, which are more nuanced, qualified, and created with six months' input instead of rubber-stamped after a couple of weeks. I'll do a point-by-point comment on the WSJ ed/ad/whatever this week if you want, but I suggest we focus on the APA. Jokestress 18:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The two are certiainly different in size and detail, but the conclusions are essentially identical (I've outlined the WSJ statement above.) Vectoring on motivations is a foolish and inappropriate way to analyze scientific writing. --Rikurzhen 18:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gottfredson mainstream statement

 * It was a paid advertisement in the WSJ, not an editorial. hitssquad 12:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gottfredson's editorial certainly looks and reads like a full-page ad, but these guys are going to insist we cite evidence. Sounds kind of like the Discovery Institute renting out the Smithsonian last month to screen their Intelligent Design film, then using the Smithsonian's name to validate their POV. Kinda like her 1997 follow-up in a journal she edited... Anyway, her op-ed/ad/whatever is the opinion of a tiny number compared to the AAA and APA position statements. Jokestress 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The AAA and APA "concensus statements" (that's what scientists call them), have a small number of writers and do not have the quantifiable aspect that a publication signed by 52 experts does. (There were, however, a number of published responses to the APA report which chided it from several POVs for failing to mentioned relevant data.) Nonetheless, the APA and WSJ statements say approximately the same thing (discuss above). But what really alarms me is your focus on trivializing a single piece of data and villifying a single author, as if that somehow was supposed to be sufficient evidence that your personal POV is true. That's (1) completely out of line for a WP editor and (2) frankly the kind of tactic used by creationists. --Rikurzhen 18:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * villifying a single author: "Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading critics of race and intelligence research, has been accused of "scholarly malfeasance,"[17] tainting his research with a Marxist bias[18], and presenting misleading statistics.[19]"


 * Gottfredson (the one and only author of the WSJ) is gonna get equal treatment to Gould. Both are aggressive POV pushers. Spare me the ad hominems about creationism. See ya tomorrow! Jokestress 18:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Stephen Jay Gould..." That's from a paragraph saying hereditarians (>half of the expert sample) are associated with Nazi symphathizers, and right before the section that calls them racists and compares them to Hitler! Mentioning reliable criticisms of the the most politically charged critic is appropriate for at least a hint of balance. Spare you the ad hominems? "Sounds kind of like the Discovery Institute renting out the Smithsonian". I'm a biologist and I understand actual creationists; in this context, Gould and friends are the "creationist" (they're literally anti-evolution when it comes to human behavior, see Not in Our Genes). Do you know of any reputable published criticisms of Gottfredson's writings on this subject, specifically of the WSJ statement? --Rikurzhen 19:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are coming after me. That's different than my commenting on possible similarities with Gotfredson's WSJ and the Smithsonian thing. I'll get the Counterpunch and the other Gottfredson rebuttals in the fulness of time.


 * One last thing, please stop trying to school me on what you think scientists are or do with passive-aggressive jabs like "fundamental misunderstanding" and this:


 * "concensus statements" (that's what scientists call them): first of all, scientists spell it differently, and they often use "position statements" synonymously, , , etc..


 * You don't have the market cornered on what science is. Either do I. I suggest we stay cool and enjoy the collaborative process. I am learning lots, and I hope you are, too! Byeee! Jokestress 19:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A consensus statement (forgive the typo) is "a comprehensive analysis by a panel of experts (i.e., consensus panel) of a scientific or medical issue". A position statement is not synonymous, but I can't find a good definition; my impression from reading examples is that a position statement is generally focused on policy prescriptions, scientific or political. ... but that's mostly irrelvant now because I changed the wording in the article to "majority scientific view..."
 * If it seems that I'm coming after you, then I must appologize. However, your focus on analyzing small details of this article (or small details of the APA/WSJ statements) without taking in the totality of the issue is unhelpful right now. I won't stop insisting that we focus on the NPOV issues that I (tried to) describe at length in the section above; in particular we need to settle the question of exactly what is (among experts) noncontroversial, disagreed with by a small minority, or hotly debated with a large minority. see Talk:Race_and_intelligence --Rikurzhen 19:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Cite sources should be enough, but I detect a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific publication that I am inclined to comment on. Regarding publication: most (all?) scientific publications in scholarly journals are defined by U.S. law as "advertisements" because the authors pay a "page charge" to support publication. So if someone tells you that a paper is an "advertisement" they're not telling you very much. Ironically, the WSJ statement is a newspaper editorial(p.17), which AFAIK does not require a "page charge". --Rikurzhen 18:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * You sure it isn't an op-ed ad? Looks like one to me (layout-wise). The only reason I question hitssquad is that it is listed in the WSJ archives. Given Gottfredson's presentation style, I don't imagine she would volunteer that this was a paid placement, so maybe a note to WSJ is in order. Counterpunch had a contemporaneous rebuttal to the WSJ version. I might contact them for a copy. They may know if it was an Discovery Institute style move or not. Jokestress 18:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I had thought it was a full-page ad. Maybe it was an editorial. Gottfredson certainly seemed to be calling it an editorial in her article on the subject in the Journal Intelligence (24(1) 13-23): "I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts[...]". hitssquad 02:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The question is what sort of references is needed to make any sort of statement in Wikipedia. We want to say "Mainstream science thinks so-and-so about this-and-that". We are allowed to do that, according to the NPOV rules, if we provide a citation. Normally, this is pretty hard to do, even for widely accepted scientific facts, because such facts are basic assumptions and seldom made explicit in any kind of "referenceable" way. But in a few areas, like evolution and intelligence research, where there is a large disparity between public opinion and scientific fact, such references actually exist. To me, it seems like the WSJ and APA citations meet the "gold standard" of reliability. If that's not enough, I cannot see how the guidelines in WP:NPOV can be ever enforced, and in that case Wikipedia has bigger problems than the current article. (This would all be totally different if there were published "consensus" statements by other researchers (in relevant areas) that contradicted WSJ or APA.) Arbor 19:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is not what the WSJ said, it's that they are a higly unreliable source - it isn't a scientific publication, it's a right-wing newspaper. Or do we take their word for it that global warming is a fraud, and that there were WMDs in Iraq?  Guettarda 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't read right-wing publications, so I wouldn't know. The WSJ didn't issue the statement, scientists did. Find me some who disagree. Scientific publications that agree with the APA or WSJ statements are legion; many major journals are devoted to them. Arbor 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * AAA = position statement = "race" + "intelligence" = bogus research
 * APA = position statement = created by panel over six months, unanimously adopted
 * WSJ = editorial (paid?) = one author, got just 40% of those solicited to rubber-stamp it


 * As soon as the WSJ editorial/ad is dispensed with as not a consensus statement, I suggest we go through the APA for this NPOV discussion, which will be much more productive than AAA or WSJ. APA seems to be the middle ground between the two and by far the most widely accepted. I will continue to take issue with the Gottfredson piece as "mainstream." Comparing it to the APA statement shows just how deficient it is. Her publishing record, politics, and career do not suggest mainstream. She is a hardcore policy activist. I'm gonna do a WP biography of her soon. Jokestress 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a WP:NPOV issue, with a dash of WP:NOR. Why don't you re-read this talk page at "Crux of NPOV issue" and work your way down. --Rikurzhen 02:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jokestress, I want to respond to just one issue. I'm not sure you're being fair in your treatment of the Gottfredson statement. It was considered to be non-mainstream by 7% of respondents, and to be mainstream by 66% (9x as many), though only 52% signed. Most of the 14% that didn't sign despite agreeing gave the reason that they feared the personal and professional consequences, which in the past have included death threats.  Polls don't generally factor in non-respondents as feeling one way or the other.--Nectarflowed T 02:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 130 parties were contacted. 100 responded in time. 52 / 130 = 40%. Your statistics are only for the 100 and not the 130 Jokestess was apparently referring to. See my link above to the Intelligence pdf reprint. hitssquad 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I remember about statistics and surveys, a 77% response rate is excellent for a mail-back survey (maybe because it was short). The response rate for the Snyderman and Rothman survey was ~60% (it was long). Professors have pretty tight schedules and often put off doing things even when you can hunt them down personally. ;) But Nectarflowed is right, polls don't generally factor in non-respondents as feeling one way or the other. Also, if I were a professor w/o tenure and was asked to sign that thing in 1994 (a couple months after The Bell Curve was released), I wouldn't have. --Rikurzhen 03:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The arguments about the WSJ statement above are, broadly, spurious. None of the "paid" "advertisement" claims have been backed up with anything. The statement was drafted by a member of the editorial board of a primary research journal on intelligence (Gottfredson, Intelligence) and signed by more than 50% of respondents. Claims that Gottfredson is a "hardcore policy activist" are original research (the citation certainly doesn't say that), as noted. Those harping on the 130 invitees versus the 100 respondents, come off it; non-responders count as no data, not disagreement (and if you doubt, see Gottfredson's follow-up). The response rate is high enough to be beyond suspicion. The statement has never been retracted or modified. The signers have not pulled out. No other consensus statements have been published by the purported "true" majority of intelligence researchers -- as an ad, or anywhere else -- to counter the statement. The APA statement, the Snyderman & Rothman study, and the WSJ editorial are consonant. The consensus is clear. The one issue that merits discussion is the difference between the APA and WSJ language regarding a genetic component in racial IQ disparity. They're different. --DAD T 06:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes indeedy on the differences in WSJ and APA, since heritable intelligence by race is the crux of the NPOV issue. Now, the APA seems pretty NPOV, working to strike a balance and represent all views. Per Rikurzhen's definition of consensus, it was created by a panel and unanimously ratified. Gottfredson's editorial was not created with a panel and response was far from unanimous. I imagine the major sticking points for most non-signers were the claims of heritability, and that this was the "mainstream" view. Gottfredson is at least as controversial as Gould. Her activism has led to several major changes in hiring and employment policies at local and federal levels. [Jokestress]


 * Now you lost me. Nowhere are we claiming that the size of the genetic component in racial IQ has been settled by mainstream science, nor are the WSJ or APA reports making such claims. What you call "heritable intelligence by race" is indeed very much open. I thought that the article made this admirably clear, but I invite you to strengthen the language further. I also remain puzzled by you seeing a large dissonance in content or tone between APA and WSJ. This article uses these papers to validate claims about broadly accepted claims about intelligence (for example, its heritability) and its correlation with race (for example, the existance of large gaps in intelligence scores). On such issues, these articles agree. Neither article contains any conclusions about the importance of the genetic component. (That would be pretty strange, too, because there is no consensus about it.) Arbor 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It would help if we could be as specific as possible. I guessed (above) that item 22 from the WSJ statement is what you think is controversial. Here's item 22 sentence by sentence:
 * There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. -- a broad reading of this should be noncontroversial; some may think they know what class of answer is correct, but no one can say to have the definitive answer in detail
 * The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). - a non-controversial warning about misapplying individual heritability to group heritability
 * In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. - again more non-controversial warning
 * Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. - the phrasing "Most experts believe" indicates (to me) that we're talking about the S&R(1987) survey again, where the plurality/majority of experts/informed-experts hold this opinion. "could be involved too", in one reading, merely says that most experts don't discount the possibilty that genetics "could be involved too". this would account for all experts but the ~15% who believe only environment is involved.
 * Where (precisely) do we disagree? On what basis? Isn't the split in expert opinion already reflected in the article? --Rikurzhen 20:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

To close off an older discussion, the claims that "race" is so ill-defined that it cannot be properly studied is, by either consensus statement, a minority opinion so insignificant that neither even mentions it. (We can discuss the AAA statement; when anthropologists release a statement on studies of intelligence, I'm inclined to do no more than report their position.) That "intelligence" is similarly ill-defined is dispatched in both statements. The APA statement, after much hemming and hawing, states that the g-based hierarchy is the most widely accepted model, and the WSJ statement is quite concise. --DAD T 06:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is hardly closed off. It seems the opinion that "race" is biologically meaningless is the majority POV among those who are experts. That's a topic of the race page, though. If we are going to quantify intelligence and make claims of heritability, then "race" needs to be clearly defined. I have a whole slew of comments on the biological meaninglessness of "race" I will add whenever I can get off these talk pages long enough. Speaking of which, if there are no objections, how about we put the "public controversy" section I proposed above into the article, and y'all can start whittling away at places you perceive as POV. Jokestress 19:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be very exciting if you could validate your claim about the majority POV among those who are experts. That would be a valuable addition to Race. In any case, most people I have talked to (among researchers in biology, medicine, etc) who hadn't made up their mind before did so after the Tang (2005) paper, so I would be especially eager to see any recent data. Arbor 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, Neil Risch was the last author on the Tang (2005) paper . He discusses the results in an interview in the first issue of PLoS Genetics . --Rikurzhen 20:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anthropologists are the primary experts on race (evolutionary biologists certainly are as important as anthropologists when discussing evolution, but most people how are experts on human evolution and population genetics are anthropologists), and psychologists the primary experts on intelligence, which creates plenty of opportunity for confusion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Gottfredson biography
Responding to Jokestress' comment, I don't see anything questionable in Gottfredson's bibliography(here). Her career appears to have started with vocational issues, including promotion of Blacks, such as her paper "Providing Black Youth More Access to Enterprising Work," Vocational Guidance Quarterly, December 1978. Her early work also dealt with vocational issues and intelligence.

Her publications soon moved also into race, sex, and vocational issues, such as her paper "Race and Sex Differences in Occupational Aspirations: Their Development and Consequences for Occupational Segregation." Report no. 254, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1978. A number of her papers dealt with the role of aspiration in vocation. She published some papers on the role of dyslexia and vocation issues in the early 80s.

August 1986 is her first work explicitly on race and intelligence, when she reads her paper "IQ vs. Training: Job Performance and Black-White Occupational Inequality" at an annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. In "May and November" 1986 she received, through her university, the first of her grants from the Pioneer Fund ($51,000), which was awarded "to researchers at Johns Hopkins University "to conduct a symposium on crime and unemployment.""

--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Further summary
I collected the following notes while surveying it, in case anyone wants a summary (the source is pretty long).

Her grants from the Pioneer Fund, often labelled a funder of scientific racism, drew some attention at one point. This caused the University of Deleware, where she then worked, to refuse one of the grants (though they later accepted them again):


 * [2 July 1990. Letter from Andrew B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. (chairman of the University of Delaware Board of Trustees) to Harry F Weyher (Pioneer Fund).   He says that the University wants to "enhance the racial and cultural diversity of faculty, staff, and students" and that it is "hampered" in pursuing this goal by the acceptance of Pioneer Fund grants.  The letter is cited in Daniel Seligman, A Question of Intelligence (1992), p. 193.]


 * A response to the incident from Robert A Gordon: [30 March 1990. Letter from Robert A Gordon to University of Delaware administrators, cited in Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 113n34, and in Roger Pearson, Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Washington, DC:  Scott-Townsend, 1991), pp. 13-14.  Gordon writes:   "... it has been difficult for Federal granting agencies, which depend on Congress for their budget allocations, to provide for research in this hotly contested area for some time.  Accordingly private sources play a disproportionately large role, and are essential for maintaining the debate that is so essential to healthy science...having largely succeeded in interdicting Federal support, activists have been after one of the last sources of support that courageously operates at all in this intellectually taboo arena ..."]

Gottfredson explains the significance of the Pioneer Fund in her work:
 * Mercer, Joye. "A Fascination with Genetics:  Pioneer Fund is at Center of Debate Over Research on Race and Development."  Chronicle of Higher Education (December 7, 1994): A28-A29.
 * ["For scholars like Linda Gottfredson, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who examines I.Q. and employment testing, the Pioneer Fund has been a godsend. 'When I would apply to federal agencies to get funding to study the role of intelligence in the work place, I was simply dismissed,' says Ms. Gottfredson, who has received $335,000 from the Pioneer Fund since 1988 and hasn't sought support from other foundations since then.  'Any proposal that investigates politically incorrect questions with regard to race and gender tends to be blackballed in the peer-review process. For some of us, the Pioneer Fund has been the only option.'  ...  'What annoys me is that questions are asked about the Pioneer Fund that are not asked about other organizations, questions about a political agenda, about its history,' says Jan H. Blits, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who has worked with Ms. Gottfredson."]

From there she published things regarding cognitive ability tests and vocational issues, including a paper titled "The Flight from g in Employment Testing" (here). She also published more things that dealt with vocation, intelligence, and race. She wrote articles that were against affirmative action, such as "When Job-Testing 'Fairness' Is Nothing But a Quota." Wall Street Journal (December 6, 1990), A18. And also "Racially Gerrymandering the Content of Police Tests to Satisfy U.S. Justice Department: A Case Study." Unpublished paper, February 6, 1997.[To appear in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.] Available here.

Other notable excerpt:
 * [17 June 1997. Robert A. Gordon, "How Smart Are We About What We Broadcast:  An Open Letter to ABC News."  This is available at www.pioneerfund.org/ABCletter.html .   Gordon writes:  "The two American Agenda segments on intelligence, using different reporters, thus cannily excluded from the discussion of scientific issues scientists who were interviewed at length by ABC News, such as Professors Gordon, Linda Gottfredson, and Philippe Rushton, who could have addressed scientific criticisms knowledgeably if afforded an opportunity to do so ... Long interviews recorded with two of these individuals [i.e., Gottfredson and Rushton] were not included at all in either segment ... No notice at all, in fact, was taken of the large amount of material supplied to you by Professor Linda Gottfredson and me of the stature of many Pioneer recipients and their frequent citation in a standard work on intelligence other than The Bell Curve."]

--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just put up a basic Linda Gottfredson page to help people vector the source of the WSJ editorial. Jokestress 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

RfA process clarification
For those who were involved in the arbitration case* regarding June events on this page, here's a process clarification from James F. (talk):
 * "The Committee voted to accept the [arbitration] case, not to follow any particular course of action. The comments [given] in opening the RfAr [were] meant to be a guide to whether or not there was something to investigate, not evidence for final decisions. The evidence sub-page is [now] for detailed evidence of specific breeches of policy, etc.."

--Nectarflowed T 10:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sternberg on WSJ "consensus"
Skeptic: At Skeptic magazine, we are interested in examining the evidence for all claims. Herrnstein and Murray present what they consider to be the consensus of scholars working in the field of intelligence. Snyderman and Rothman (The IQ Controversy) present similar data and there was a statement recently in the The Wall Street Journal. You summarized this so-called consensus, if I can paraphrase, in the following manner, "IQ exists, it's heritable, there are group differences, and all this matters." But in your review of The Bell Curve you say, "the lay public remains sadly uninformed. Nothing could be further from the truth." So as Skeptics our question is, if there is this much disagreement, is psychology even a science in the same sense that physics is?

Sternberg: There is disagreement in physics and there is disagreement in biology. Active sciences always have disagreements within them. The general public usually doesn't get the full sense of the amount of disagreement because the information is filtered through the media and what comes out is only a portion of what's actually going on in science. Normally they would not even be aware of the disagreement in psychology except that this book (The Bell Curve) was written for the media. It was written with the purpose of stirring up this kind of controversy. So the general public becomes aware of these types of disagreements in psychology, but they exist in every active science.

Skeptic: Which then is a fairer description of your own position-(1) there is a consensus on the topics that Herrnstein and Murray discuss, or (2) yes, there is a consensus among psychometricians, but I (Robert Sternberg) and others disagree with it?

Sternberg: To the extent that there is a consensus it is certainly not Herrnstein's and Murray's. You mentioned the statement that appeared in the The Wall Street Journal, which a number of psychometricians signed. This statement was not totally coincident with the views of Herrnstein and Murray. It certainly wasn't coincident with mine. I would say that I don't think that consensus in science makes much difference. Science isn't done by majority rule. There is a misperception on the part of the public that even if you took a vote and 51% of the scientists said, "I think this is true," that would have any impact on whether it's really true or not. Science is not politics. There could be one person who believes something and that person might be right. In fact, most of the really important work in science has been the result of one person saying, "You guys are all wet, you're full of it!" and then proceeding to show that he is indeed right. So I think the conception of science as taking a vote, and whichever side gets 51% is right, is simply wrong. Science is not politics, we're not electing anyone. 

I'll continue to dredge up statements along these lines until we have this WSJ thing properly contextualized. The whole Skeptic article is quite interesting (especially his thoughts on the g factor) and worth a read. Jokestress 05:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Yale University" is listed as an author on the APA consensus statement. --Rikurzhen 05:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * My issue isn't with the APA statement, as I have said before. Jokestress 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sternberg is completely inconsistent here. (1) He's going on a rant about consensus statements being pointless when he is himself an author on a statement that is concurring on most points with the WSJ statement. (2) Not only that, but a statement which backs The Bell Curve's summary of the science. --Rikurzhen 06:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dredge all you want. It would be great if Sternberg (Sternberg, Mr. Contrarian himself) actually said, "Those views are not consensus."  But he didn't.  I wonder why.  Heck, enough ancient history.  Let's look at a recent review in Nature Reviews: Neuroscience (Gray and Thompson, NRN 5:471-482 [2004]), the #2 journal in neuroscience (by 2004 impact factor).
 * "In this review, we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf), it is related to analytical intelligence. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1). Empirically, Gf is the best predictor of performance on diverse tasks, so much so that Gf and general intelligence (g, or general cognitive ability) might not be psychometrically distinct. [emphasis added]  Conceptions of intelligence(s) and methods to measure them continue to evolve, but there is agreement on many key points; for example, that intelligence is not fixed, and that test bias does not explain group differences in test scores. Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is widely realized, and permits some definitive conclusions about the biological bases of intelligence to be drawn."
 * Sternberg gets a citation here, from a pair of authors who are quite sympathetic to him, but I can't imagine he was happy about it; the consensus has passed his work by. --DAD T 06:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hard to comment without seeing the paper or the comment on Sternberg, but their stated assumption about what intelligence is appears to be the same assumption Gottfredson makes. I don't think Sternberg would have a problem with the article you cite, since they point out they are talking about psychometics. Sternberg's saying that that does not = intelligence.


 * I suppose it makes sense that a bunch of people who do a lot of analytical thinking and problem solving would define intelligence as a lot of analytic thinking and problem solving. See what I mean? I mean, I'm good at it, too, but I do not think that is necessarily an accurate or complete definition of "intelligence." More importantly, that's not just my opinion, it's that of several of the most renowned experts in the field.


 * While you are looking up impact factor (I don't have access to ISI and all that), can you see where Intelligence ranks?


 * PS: I loved how Murray explained in the Skeptic piece how Muhammad Ali could be so quick-witted and physically nimble yet have a near retarded IQ. That summed up the problem with IQ=intelligence perfectly for me. Jokestress 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress, of course we know this interview. It is from the issue of Skeptical inquirer that I mentioned on the "Skeptics reading list" that I left on your talk page. By the way, the interviewer is Frank Miele, and if you want to read up on all of this, why not read his interview with Jensen [], which appears as a book. The main thing to get from the Sternberg interview is that Sternberg does not contradict the claim that WSJ is the scientific consensus, and that he himself holds a minority viewpoint. Miele tries to corner him by giving him only two possible answers (1) and (2), but Sternberg evades and says that consensus is not important. (This may be true, of course. "They laughed at Galileo" etc. etc.) It's a very good interview, but it supports the view that WSJ is consensus. (It does not, of course, support the view that WSJ is the truth. That's not what we are discussing, neither is it relevant for a WP editor.) Arbor 08:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is from Skeptic Magazine. Skeptic is not Skeptical Inquirer. The former is published by The Skeptics Society and the latter is published by CSICOP. [Hitssquad]
 * My bad, thanks for correcting this. I got it right on Jokestress's talk page, at least! Arbor 09:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Murray on WSJ "consensus"
And for balance:

Skeptic: In your book you present a summary of the current evidence on I.Q. on pages 22 and 23. Snyderman and Rothman's on The I.Q. Controversy in 1991 surveyed expert in the field, and just yesterday the Wall Street Journal contained a 25-point statement by experts in intelligence. Based on those it seems your summary represents the consensus of experts in this field, even on the controversial issue of the involvement of genetics and the black-white difference in intelligence. As skeptics, we are skeptics of everything, including psychology. If we get this great a controversy over what looks like consensus, is psychology really a science in the same sense as physics?

Murray: I'm not comfortable with a blanket statement saying yes or no. But I think we can talk specifically about the basis for those statements in the Wall Street Journal and the book, which is certainly based on the kinds of methods that fall under the scientific method-- falsifiable hypotheses, the use of predictions, etc. A test is valid in so far as it predicts something of interest, or criteria measure, to use the jargon of the trade. More than most of the other social sciences, psychologists and psychometricians are prepared to have their results tested against classical statistical criterion of validity, reliability, and reproduceability.

Skeptic: One of the complaints about the Snyderman and Rothman survey, the Wall Street Journal survey, and your own survey of the literature, is that you are working in that standard psychometric paradigm, but that is yesterday's news. The real forefront is Sternberg's approach to practical intelligence and Gardner's seven intelligences. You are sticking with something that is a very small portion of the discussion, so naturally you are going to get concensus.

Murray: Let me make a couple of other points about intelligence. One, the general mental factor, g, is very robust. You can take all kinds of different ways of creating your factors, and you will always get g. It doesn't matter whether rotate the matrix orthogonally, or obliquely, or whatever else, you always get the same thing. The second major point is that when you try with factor analysis to produce a situation where you do not have a general mental factor g, guess what? All the factors are correlated. Which goes back to Spearman's initial insight, which is why are the different measures of mental ability so consistently correlated with each other? What's going on here? The answer is: there is an underlying general factor. That does not mean that it blocks out a whole territory of human talents or intelligence, and we say so in the book.

Gardner has made a variety of assertions about intelligence which, if true, are falsifiable. He is not only saying there are different talents, which Dick Herrnstein and I would agree with, he is also saying they are independent. With something like kinesthetic talent, which is quite physical, this is easy to say. It gets harder to say when he talks about interpersonal skills, versus verbal skills. If you are going to make that kind of statement, the next logical step is to come up with measures of these different talents and demonstrate that they are, in fact, independent.

Skeptic: So you are saying that some of these disagreements are empirically testable?

Murray: Yes, and Gardner has consistently been unwilling to subject his own work to that kind of empirical defense. He has stood apart from quantitative attempts to describe what he is doing and to enable other researchers to replicate it. Of all the different types of intelligence that Gardner wants to treat as co-equals, there is only one kind that will put you in the retarded class--namely the plain old fashion general mental ability. 

Jokestress 05:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sternberg's Triarchic Theory
Does Sternberg still publish on his triarchic theory? The latest paper I know of was this:
 * Nathan Brody, Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis, Intelligence, Volume 31, Issue 4, July-August 2003, Pages 319-329. This paper presents an alternative theoretical analysis of several analyses presented by Sternberg and his colleagues of studies designed to validate the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT). The paper contrasts a triarchic theory analysis of the data with one that emphasizes the relevance of g to an understanding of the results obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues. Three relationships are considered: (1) Relationships between triarchic abilities and other measures of intelligence; (2) Relationships between triarchic abilities and academic achievements; (3) Relationships among triarchic abilities. It is argued that the g theory is required to understand the relationships obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues.

I don't know the full literature that well. --Rikurzhen 06:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * An ISI search for publications including the term "triarchic" from Sternberg suggests that his most recent paper on it is a 2003 reply to Brody (the above paper) and to Gottfredson (who also published a critique, "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence", Intelligence 31:343-397 (2003)). --DAD T 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WSJ point by point
Rikurzhen has asked several times for a point by point on the WSJ, so here goes:

Major issues:


 * IQ = intelligence
 * racial-ethnic groups are self-defined, yet genetic in origin
 * therefore, racial-ethnic group differences in intelligence are (partly) genetic in origin

Title: disputed
 * 1. disputed
 * 2. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 3. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 4. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 5. disputed
 * 6. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 7. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 8. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 9. disputed
 * 10. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 11. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 12. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 13. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 14. disputed (uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably)
 * 15. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 16. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 17. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 18. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 19. disputed
 * 20. disputed (after 5)
 * 21. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 22. this one is probably the best example of the inferences being made from the assumptions
 * 23. not disputed to my knowledge
 * 24. this is the second-best example
 * 25. this is the third-best example, an apologia for the policy prescriptions at the end of TBC, as well as her own activism in regards to policy.

The problem with this is, as with the name of this article or the sub-articles, as with the research being done in this field, assumption layered upon assumption leads to a skewed conclusion. It's the reason we need to revisit the assumptions in the first paragraph. Each assumption must be a simple declarative sentence. We start running into multiple fallacies as the assumptions pile up.

Having done this exercise, I would still very much prefer to focus on the APA, which is much more nuanced and acknowledges the debates about most of the things assumed here. Jokestress 07:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "therefore, racial-ethnic group differences in intelligence are (partly) genetic in origin": Therefore? As in, "logically, it follows that"?  But that's exactly what the WSJ statement doesn't say, that no consensus statement has ever said.  Where'd you get this?  And what's with the "are (partly) genetic"?  The statement says, "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too."  Turning "genetics could be involved" into "differences...are (partly) genetic" is unconscionable.  Kindly fix these errors.  Then we'll return to the mistaken assertion that assumptions lead to conclusions.  --DAD T 07:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I got that from this title: Race_and_intelligence_%28Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation%29. That is the inference being made by Gottfredson, too. Of course, if no one has ever said that, then I suppose we should change that title as I have suggested. I think "unconscionable" is a good word for it.


 * And (regarding below) I have a new rule that whenever I experience an edit conflict I leave for the day. Byee! Jokestress 07:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm apparently thick-headed here. Where in Race_and_intelligence_%28Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation%29 does it say anything logically equivalent to "IQ measures intelligence, races are partly genetic, therefore racial disparity in IQ is partly genetic?"  I can find sentences that say it could be so -- but this is not an inference or an assumption -- and I can find, for example, this statement in the WSJ editorial: "In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others."  Your post attributes exactly this flawed assumption, disavowed in the WSJ statement, to...the WSJ statement (!).  Let's be really exacting.  Where is the inference being made?  Kindly quote it, rather than providing a link, since I'm obviously too dense to find it on my own.  --DAD T 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's try this:
 * 1. definition of intelligence
 * 2. this can be measured
 * 5. not culturally biased
 * 7. groups differ in intelligence
 * 8. blacks have lower, model minorities have higher
 * 19. group differences not converging
 * 21. differences partly genetic
 * 22. genetic differences in group


 * As a set of assumptions (using blacks as an example):
 * Intelligence = IQ
 * IQ can be measured
 * IQ is partly heritable
 * Blacks as a group have lower intelligence (= IQ)
 * Genetics could be involved in blacks' lower group intellignce


 * In a sentence, the takeaway is: Intelligence as we define it is measurable and largely heritable, and the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias, but may in fact be partially genetic.


 * Add the powerful persuader of the chart and make a subpage called Race_and_intelligence_%28Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation%29, and voila! Instant inference. While that is a POV, I am not sure it is either "mainstream" or "consensus." The APA doesn't make these same inferences, and as you note, that difference needs to be explained to a casual reader to help teach the controversy. Jokestress 07:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You lost me at Voila! You have yet to show that anyone makes an inference; you've shown that they could, but we don't live in theory-land.  I maintain the opposite: mainstream scientists haven't made the voila! inference, and they condemn just that inference (see the statement from the WSJ editorial above).  I hope all posters stop mischaracterizing the mainstream on this point.  Quite separately, many scientists maintain that the evidence favors group IQ differences that are partly genetic, and others have pointed out that Niesser et al.'s statement was roundly criticized for sweeping this plurality POV under the table.  Meanwhile, two other reads of the consensus (WSJ and S&R) demonstrate that joint environment/genetic causation is, in fact, the most widely accepted POV among intelligence researchers.  Are you claiming to have evidence that it's not?  I can't find anyplace that Sternberg says, "Most people don't believe this," just, "People shouldn't believe this." --DAD T 23:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's back up, then. Do you agree that the WSJ says this (in so many words): Intelligence as we define it is measurable and largely heritable, and the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias, but may in fact be partially genetic.
 * If you disagree, what part of that do you think it doesn't say? Jokestress 01:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Intelligence as we define it is measurable - APA, S&R and WSJ in one way or another say that most experts endorse the hierarchial view of intelligence with g at the vertex and the view that IQ tests are good measures of both g and the kind of behaviors called "intelligent"
 * largely heritable - APA, S&R and WSJ agree it is (APA spells out the increase from childhood to adulthood)
 * the reason blacks as a group are less intelligent is certainly not test bias - APA and WSJ agree, the average estimate from S&R is a small/non-zero amount of test bias (S&R note the literature disagrees with the average estimate of experts on this question)
 * but may in fact be partially genetic - WSJ says "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." Note that this is the only item in WSJ that isn't stated matter-of-fact but rather reports expert opinion (S&R is the obvious source); it seems to me that the "could" (in your version "may") language is intentionally softened so that you can count both the 45% "both genetic and environmental" along with the 24% "insufficient data to support any reasonable opinion" as saying that a genetic cause is possible; the APA report gives very little credence to the partly genetic hypothesis, mentions only "direct" evidence (most evidence is indirect), and essentially says there's no data for either interpretation but that they would prefer an entirely environmental one; but as the article says "The Janurary 1997 issue of American Psychologist included eleven critical responses to the APA report, most of which criticized the report's failure to examine all of the evidence for or against the partly-genetic interpretation of racial differences in IQ."
 * If I'm interpreting your summary correctly, then that's just what a consensus statement should say and that is the consensus of the consensus statements. --Rikurzhen 01:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not an accurate summary of the APA, and now that DAD has found a "consensus" citation, I think we are now ready to compare APA & WSJ.

Jokestress, (discussions about "assumptions" aside) my impression of your writing on the talk page and the addition to the public controversy section is that you still don't understand what points are considered settled (by all by ~15% of experts). The ~15% number comes from the S&R survey data. About 15% of respondents picked multiple intelligences. About 15% picked "environment only" as their opinion about the heritability of racial group differences. I don't know what to call an 85-15 split. "Majority" is under-reporting. "Mainstream" sounds sensible to me, and at least that's a published suggestion for what to call it. (Issues of what "consensus" means in relation to a "consensus statement" can be discussed later.) Also, note my explanations of where there is and is not controversy about the WSJ items you claim are disputed and the extent of the dispute (below). It's important that we nail down for the reader precisely what is and is not controversial and the extent of expert disagreement where quantifable. Conflating different issues where there is disagreement (e.g., the definition of intelligence and heritability of group differences in IQ are logically separate) and not indicating what is the "majority"/"mainstream"/"whatever" view is not acceptable wrt NPOV. --Rikurzhen 19:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * My impression of your writing is that you still don't understand the difference between a majority and a pluralty. Majority is absolutely over-reporting. Consensus is absolutely over-reporting. S&R indicates a plurality but not a majority, and it is certainly not "settled" because less than half agree on something. I can make a chart of S&R or cite a definition for majority if you want. I am happy to stay on WSJ until this is hashed out. Jokestress 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's your view, then most likely you are misunderstanding what the WSJ statement says. (Or I and seemingly the rest of us are.) Check what's I've written so. More later... --Rikurzhen 20:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * What DAD said, plus:
 * 1. g theory is the predominant view of intelligence. in the 1984 S&R survey only 13% agree with Gardern/Sternberg
 * 5. not disputed by the APA report
 * 9. predictive validity of IQ tests is a simple matter of fact
 * 14. (uses IQ and intelligence interchangeably) - a generally safe direction of inference is IQ -> intelligence (but not always, g -> intelligence is better); heritability of IQ is not disputed
 * 19. disputed by Neisser and colleagues -- we cover the dispute in detail, but the description recognizes their claims; comes down to g again
 * 20. not disputed, merely a matter of fact about scores; I read similar claims in the NY Times a month or so ago when the latest NAEP data was released
 * 22. "Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." is a noncontroversial reading of the S&R survey data
 * 24. a simple matter of fact, just do a regression of IQ on SES variables; APA report concurs
 * 25. "They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means." Disputed?
 * --Rikurzhen 07:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have a few minutes to start a reply... The issue of mentioning the APA, WSJ, and S&R reports was originally in the context of telling the reader that some people have fundamental objections to R&I research results, but that these objections do not reflect the views of a large majority of experts. The text as it was a few weeks ago:
 * Some researchers have argued that race and intelligence research is fundamentally flawed. Stephen Jay Gould expressed this view in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. Tate & Audette (2001) argue that issues of "race" and "intelligence" are pseudo-questions because both concepts are arbitrary social constructions. Similarly, in a 2005 review paper Sternberg and colleagues question the basis of race and intelligence research[1]: [paragraph] In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists working on intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. [paragraph] These views contrast with those expressed in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,"[2] a report from the American Psychological Association, and "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[3], a statement signed by fifty-two professors, including researchers in the study of intelligence and related fields, meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".

Note that this is describing objections that in theory come before any discussion about data or interpretations of data that are presented in the article. So this is not about the split in expert opinion about the heritability of between group differences. (At least as I intended to write segment.) ... more later ... Rikurzhen

Gottfredson: WSJ editorial not paid
Just heard back from Linda Gottfredson about the WSJ. I also asked if she tried to contact any of the 31 non-responders after the WSJ to see what their opinions were. Her note is below.

It most certainly was not a paid advertisement. Note also that the title did not include the word "race" (the piece was much broader than that). As noted in Table 1 of the Intelligence article, the 31 individuals I could not LOCATE by the deadline. I telephoned all non-responders I could locate--they were usually persons who did not want to sign. They (and their reasons) are included in the stats reported in that article. The article in Intelligence is not a follow-up, but the identical statement accompanied by the history for it. (There was a long lag time in publishing it in Intelligence because we were waiting for the other articles to come in for the special issue.) The 25-item statement has been reprinted numerous times--one place, if I recall correctly, is in Oxford's Intelligence: A very short introduction by Ian Deary. I would be happy to send you the entire 1997 special issue ("Intelligence and Social Policy"), if you like. Half of the six major articles in the special issue have won research awards.

I took her up on the offer for the Intelligence and Social Policy. Dettman's intro is here.

Jokestress 21:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool, but read the Hawking example here WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 22:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * The assertion that it was an ad and not an editorial came from me and me alone. Since my assertion is not verifiable, there is no need to verify that it is not true. hitssquad 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If true, it would be very relevant. As I said, it kind of looked like an ad in its original form, though it is listed on the WSJ archive. It is certainly fine to raise the issue and discuss it here, as verifiability issues and questions like that frequently get hashed out on Talk pages. It was certainly worth a follow-up, and I would not have put it on the entry unless it had been verified. Jokestress 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The No Original Research problem remains. Please see my comment about it, it's right before section 40. You cannot introduce original arguments or viewpoints on WP, and until you attribute it to somebody, your argument against the validity of a mainstream statement based on the number of signees vs non-signees is your own. (It's easy to fix, just attribute it to somebody.) You are allowed to report the data, but you are not allowed to call it an "objection" (Linda G certainly doesn't think her data discredits the validity, quite on the contrary.) Arbor 11:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gottfredson reports the number of non-signers, which taken with the Sternberg comment above is enough to help a reader understand if the editorial is "consensus" or mainstream. The non-signers are a primary source; a fact. I believe "consensus" was introduced by editors here. I have not seen Gottfredson characterize this as a consensus statement, and the non-signers and comments by Sternberg I cited above belie that characterization. We need a citation characterizing this as a "consensus statement." Jokestress 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Sternberg's writing does not belie the characterization of WSJ as consensus; it's consistent with it. Read his interview again.  Sternberg's views reflect a minority view; he never claims to be in the majority.  He claims the consensus is not Herrnstein and Murray's (but that's not at issue), and his opinion on what the consensus is hardly seems comparable to a signed statement or a survey.  Given the opportunity, Sternberg even rails against people who think majorities are important.  We all understand his views; what evidence do you have that they're mainstream/consensus/majority (all of which I am happy to interchange should one or the other become taboo)?  --DAD T 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Cite a publication that calls WSJ a "consensus," and we can move forward. WSJ is considered an alternative to APA that differs in purpose, emphasis, and degree of equivocation from the APA statement. A unanimous statement refined for six months by 11 experts on behalf of 150,000 APA members might be more of a consensus than something one expert wrote in two weeks and got signed by about half those solicited. Jokestress 01:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Detterman's article in Intelligence (from the link you provided): "Compare this consensus with the one that followed by the APA in 1995 Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns..." --DAD T 03:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In the Deary book referred to by Gottfredson (Amazon, Search Inside the Book): "Two documents recording agreement among researchers in the field about the core aspects of human intelligence (...) are also worth looking at. The first was, rather astonishingly, a full-page declaration in the Wall Street Journal..."  Also, from Lubinski et al., J. Appl. Psych. 86(4):718-729, "...the mainstream scientific view outlined by Gottfredson (1997a)..." (referring to the WSJ reprint in Intelligence).  We have "agreement among researchers" and "mainstream scientific view"; I'm fairly sure "consensus" was used because it's short and adjectival. --DAD T 06:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. That works for me. I think we should cite Detterman, too, since that is also an excellent summary of another important resource. In fact, now that we can move forward from "consensus," let's compare the APA and WSJ as Detterman suggests and how it differs in purpose, emphasis, and degree of equivocation from WSJ. Jokestress 07:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be away from WP (conference) till midweek but look forward to joining the discussion. --DAD T 15:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I sincerely doubt, on second reading, that the link you provided was written by Detterman. Reads more like an amateur neo-eugenicist tract to me.  The other references I provided appear reliable. --DAD T 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right. It is definitely slanted a little, and the exclamation points suggest the sort of breathless excitement of an amateur neoeugenicist. My bad for introducing this without checking more carefully. Gottfredson said she would send the issue edited by Detterman, so we will be able to check the published source directly. I'll look into the Deary you cite above while you are away. Jokestress 16:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Detterman's intro from an online PDF: Editor’s Note This special issue of Intelligence was edited by Linda S. Gottfredson. The articles were invited but were put through the peer review process. The issue was planned as an informative extension of the collective statement, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” which was published in the Wall Street Journal in December 1994, and which is reprinted here as an editorial. I asked Dr. Gottfredson to guest edit this special issue because of her role in organizing the “Mainstream” statement. That statement was designed to be a clear explication of what we in the field regarded as well-known despite popular opinion to the contrary. The statement was effective and had some impact on popular opinion. I thought, however, that it should be followed by a more detailed account that would provide a source of references for its assertions. Dr. Gottfredson agreed and took on the editing of this issue. She has done an excellent job. The issue has developed into more than just an elaboration of the “Mainstream” statement. With an impressive panel of authors, it has extended the boundaries of the field of intelligence, showing more compellingly than ever how intelligence affects the lives of individuals and societies. Even those who know the field well will find much of interest. Most readers of Intelligence are familiar with the work of Linda Gottfredson. I think her greatest contribution has been showing the relevance of basic research on individual differences to the concerns of applied psychologists and policy makers. She has been a tireless commentator on issues of test use and test fairness. Dr. Gottfredson is currently professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society. She obtained her doctoral degree from Johns Hopkins University in sociology and her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. Guest editing is not new to her. She edited two special issues of the Journal of Vocational Behavior which considered the relationship of intelligence to employment testing and to fair testing practice. I regard them, like the current issue, as required reading for anyone who is interested in intelligence and its implications for social policy. -Douglas K. Detterman


 * I rather like "collective statement." That seems the most accurate characterization of WSJ so far. Jokestress 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose it depends on the context of the point being made. On a related note: Based on feedback from the FAC, details of non-"expert" opinion is the weak point of this article. I've summarized the thesis of the S&R (1988) book, and added a summary of views on test bias from the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure how helpful it would be to describe older debates on other issues that are less direclty related to R&I. So... I'm running out of ideas. Maybe I'll take another trip to the library this weekend. Later --Rikurzhen 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)