Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 21

What about East Indians and Middle Easterners?
What is the average IQ for East Indians (South Asians) and Middle Easterners (since it is not noted here). Zachorious 10:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the data is not great for those populations, but Lynn gives estimates around 89 for the near East and 82 for South Asia, with 84 for the N. Africa to South Asia axis. See Race_and_intelligence and . My guess would be that there is a lot of variation among East Indians subpopulations. Emmigrants from these regions, of course, score higher when living in Western countries. --Rikurzhen 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, I was suprised to see South Asians ranked so low, considering their achievments outside South Asia (like being the highest median income for the US of any ethnic group). Seems like there are no data on Middle Eastern men (unless they group Middle Easterners with White Europeans). Zachorious 11:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * South Asian performance in western countries is likely influenced by selective top-tier migration. Near East and West Asia actually both refer to the Middle East area.  The discussion of this chapter in Lynn's book in this book review is pretty interesting (ctrl f "near east" to go to the section on that chapter).--Nectar 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What do they mean by top-tier migration and selective migration in this case? Zachorious 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably that the average IQ of those who have the resources to emigrate is higher. Nnp 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

ultramarine's latest edits
are generally destructive; meant to push his favored POV
 * reintroduced the self-referrential langauge of "within this article" to the race section, where "within genetcs" is what we really care about


 * That edit is correct. The meaning used within this article is far from consensus (or even majority) within genetics as a whole.  "This article" is allowed under WP:SELF, since wherever it might be reproduced, the "thisness" still applies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * he's deleted descriptions of several studies with the claim that they are irrelevant; they are strongly relevant to supporting the hereditarian pov


 * The deletion of the recent speculative results about some genes that "may or may not" have anything to do with IQ is appropriate. Citing that is a deceptive attempt to prop up the legitimacy of hereditarian position by insinuating that we're "on the verge" of finding specific genes (which is conceivable, but not yet supported by that evidence). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * we had achieved a good balance between detail and generality with the use of footnotes, such that (for example) the extensive praise and blame of lynn was reduced to a single sentence and the detail was in a note. this is too much detail for a summary style section (an massive paragraph to introduce a single sentence*); the detail either needs to be moved to a footnote or moved to the subarticle.


 * For the most part, Ultramarine is correct in her de-referencing of some large narrative sections. I did not want to touch the page while you were doing your excellent work on moving references to m:cite.php style.  But I think you generally went too far with that.  Footnote material should be only the narrative that is directly related to explaining the references themselves.  The narrative related to the article/section more generally should live outside the footnotes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * this is the single sentence: In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ
 * but noteably, he left the details of the IQ data in footnotes (an NPOV compromise to get the actual values off the main page)


 * I slightly reluctantly agree that the specific figures should be moved back out of the footnotes, despite how provocative and offensive Lynn's over display of racism is. But the criticism of Lynn should not be hidden away either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems good, please make an appropriate edit.Ultramarine 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * the hapmap senetence, which is an example that has nothing to do with intelligence, is not instructive for this article, but it may be a helpful example to the notion of an operational definition. the footnote is the appropriate way to offer that example without stretching out that summary section.


 * The hapmap material is extremely relevant to evaluating the operative constructs of race that cited researchers utilize. Putting it in a footnote as if it is a minor detail rather than central to the article topic is definitely wrong.  If the categorization by race is itself speculative and poorly supported (as it is), that should noted in main text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The hapmap data is instructive, but the choice of the 4 hapmap populations was not based on considerations of "race" so to speak, but rather getting unadmixed samples of the populations from which Americans decended. --Rikurzhen 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

--Rikurzhen 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't care about the trade book label, but AFAIK all of the books named in this article are trade books, so it's inappropriate to label jsut this book -- that IQ&tWoN is part of the scholarly literature is clear from the many references to it (33 citations by Google Scholar).
 * If there are other trade books, then they should certainly also be marked as such. Inclusion in Google scholar does not prove a book is scientific, Mein Kampf is also there.Ultramarine 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will continue to oppose all attempts to hide critical facts in footnotes. I removed the study the article is claiming has disproved a genetic cause for the Flynn effect. Nothing of this sort was stated in the abstract. The sentence quoted is taken out of context.Ultramarine 18:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The paper claims that the effect of the Flynn effect on cognitive ability is different in kind to the gap between Blacks and Whites, nothing about genetics. I think the text was clear about this. --Rikurzhen 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears in two places "Recent studies have identified some genes involved in the brain that occur in different frequencies in different races, but their roles in the brain haven't yet been studied." Misleading, the gene for sickle cell disease have different frequency but does not prove anything regarding IQ. "Some genes involved in the brain" can be anything from completely meaningless differences in protein structure to resistance to parasites like toxoplasmosis.Ultramarine 19:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] this should be a response to Ultramarine
 * About deleting: You're completely wrong about those two descriptions (acutally five papers). Either trust me on this or read the papers; read the papers that cite these papers; and read the news stories that accompanied their publications. I've done these tihngs and the relevance is clear to me. I believe Nectar actually wrote the brain allele entry, so the connection appears to be clear to him as well.
 * About footnotes: The footnote issue is actually a Summary Style issue. We cannot tolerate a lengthy discussion of Lynn in the text of this article. It must be handled by (a) the IQ&tWoN article, (b) the sub-article of this series, and/or (c) footnotes for details. The current situations -- where several paragraphs are dedicated to praising and blaming Lynn's methods/motives is 100% unacceptable. Something has to change. The Lynn data is exteremly relavant -- witness the question in a section above -- so it can't be deleted. If Lynn could be criticized in a few concise sentences, that would also be a solutions. The current text uses lengthy quotes and mentions irrelvant detail about the studies used in IQ&tWoNs -- which serve only to impune Lynn's methods, not the acutal results of his which we report. --Rikurzhen 19:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Presentation of Lynn's so-called "data" as if it were of scientific value is 100% unacceptable in an article allegedly concerned with a scientific issue. Move it to the Stormfront article or somewhere where it fits better.  Presenting enough context for readers to understand just how very biased and unreliable Lynn is is about the only way it's possible to include Lynn at all... but getting him out of the article entirely would be much more apporpriate. As-is, the balance gives far less weight to criticisms of Lynn that it should. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should leave evaluation the value of Lynn's data to those publishing on it: Iq_and_the_wealth_of_nations --Rikurzhen 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And peer-reviewed papers have criticzed it. Move this biased and factually incorrect trade book to the subarticles where it can be discussed in detail.Ultramarine 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't describe important, controversial topics by saying that because it has been criticized that we shouldn't describe it. You present both sides, (and note that there are at least as many positive as negative publications) hopefully with as little text as possible to stay withing the bounds of a summary style. --Rikurzhen 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This factually incorrect trade book has far too much space. I propose moving the material to the subarticles. Maybe we can keep a sentence or two in the main article.Ultramarine 19:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A sentence or two (which includes a sentence like In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ) is exactly what I am requesting and was trying to accomplish with footnotes. See my note About footnotes above where I list some options. --Rikurzhen 20:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I roughly inserted the Lynn RDiI material from this article into the subarticle some time ago. I or someone else should write a short paragraph on this. I thought we already had that short paragraph, with footnotes to support each claim, but we can go shorter and we can go without the footnotes. If someone has a good idea for the summary please feel free to delete what's there and start fresh (and/or fix up the subarticle, which is repeditive about between nation differences). --Rikurzhen 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletion of critical arguments -- what happened to the goal of cutting that down to a paragraph? --Rikurzhen 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

brain allele papers
Looking at the brain gene papers, I do not even see any mention of race in the abstracts. Please quote. Why should this be mentioned in the main article and somewhere in the subarticles? Whyu should this be mentioned two times when many critical studies have been removed to the subarticles? Ultramarine 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't use the word race, Ultramarine. They are looking at many dozens of populations. The sicklecell allele is clinal, but the sicklecell phenotype still affects one socially defined race more than others. --Rikurzhen 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see nothing worth including in the main article. Race is not mentioned. Some genes involved in the brain have varying frequency when measured at different places in the world. Looking at the Microcephalin gene, the distrubtion does not follow claimed IQ scores. Europeans have a higher frequency than East Asians and Latin America most of all.Ultramarine 20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at APSM, people from the Middle East and Europe have a higher frequency than East Asians. The highest is found in New Guinea. Hardly follows claimed IQ scores either. Ultramarine 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The point made by the description is that brain affecting genes can and do in fact vary by geography, not that these genes explain the IQ gap. I believe the context was the defense of the plausibility of a genetic contribution to the black-white-asian IQ gap. --Rikurzhen 20:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybee we should state that if there is a genetic cause, then these studies suggest that the smartest people are in Latin America and New Guinea.Ultramarine 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Right after we prove the monogenic inheritance of IQ. That's microcephalin, right? ASPM didn't make to the new world, no? --Rikurzhen 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ASPM have the highest frequency in New Guinea but a low frequency in Latin America. Overall, it seems that people from New Guinea are the smartest in the world.Ultramarine 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ironic given Jared Diamond's claim to that effect. are you now satisified that this stuff is relevant? --Rikurzhen 20:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw wrong, ASPM is slightly higher at some European places. I am not convinced, these genes do not follow claimed IQ scores between races. We could mention it in one of the subarticles.Ultramarine 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing for arguments sake? They (we) do not purport to explain the IQ differences, only to provide evidence that such difference could plausibly be due to genetic differences -- that is, that populations differ in the frequency of alleles, including alleles that affect brain function. There's no reason to expect that any single gene (even a gene knownn to affect IQ) will reflect the phenotypic gap 1:1. For example, each population may have it's own unique alleles that cause the IQ gap, in which case such a pattern would never be observed. --Rikurzhen 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's generally assumed and commonly argued in this area that races don't/can't vary in neural genetics. We could expand the sentence to include that the authors of one or two of those papers conclude some of the genes have been under selective pressure.  This is even more germane because it's commonly argued genetic change between lineages has only occured as climatological adaption since the migration out of Africa.--Nectar 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's good too. --Rikurzhen 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see little new for this article in these studies. That some genes vary with geography is nothing new, skin color does this. Again, lets mention them in some subarticle. Ultramarine 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it should be included, we clearly states that these genes do not follow claimed racial differences in IQ.Ultramarine 21:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly fine with that. I think before we said that they may have absolutely nothing to do with IQ differences, racial or otherwise. --Rikurzhen 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

lynn
Lynn is referred to as a white supremacist every time he's brought up on this page, but so far no evidence or reason to think this has been mentioned. Is this just rhetorical flourish? (I assume it's not).--Nectar 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no hard evidence, but Lynn supports eugenics. ViewFromNowhere 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

deleting footnotes
i added references inside footnotes to existing text in the brain size and reaction time sub-subsection. UL deleted them. These references were copied from the corresponding section of the subarticle, which those sentences were in turn summarizing. The references were not being hidden in the footnotes, they were being unhidden from the subarticle. A footnote that is printed on the same page as the noted sentence isn't hidden; it's explicitly easier to find -- it doesn't even take a new page load to bring them up. Footnotes that link to the relevant section of the subarticle would be a substitute, but I see no reason to delete them -- they're adding info, not taking it away. --Rikurzhen 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and factually incorrect
See this edit. Massive deletion of critical arguments.Ultramarine 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Gross misrepresentation and gaming of the system: "However, after analyzing IQ data, one research group concluded that "It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B–W differences in the United States." Something of this importance, an argument against the Flynn effect as an explanation, was never mentioned in that abstract. Hidden in the footnote is what this is really about. "Note that this result does not indiciate that the B-W gap is or is not genetic, merely that the kind of difference in cogntiive abilities associated with the Flynn effect is not the same kind of difference in cognitive ability associated with the B-W IQ gap." Ultramarine 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So rewrite it so that it's clear. I never imagined their quote would be taken to mean anything about genetics. --Rikurzhen 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So why have you hidden the clarification in the footnotes? Remove this and the other attempts to hide information you do not like in the footnotes most people will not read.Ultramarine 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been shown why any reader would misinterpret the argument that the Flynn effect is different than B-W differences as that B-W differences are genetic.--Nectar 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) see "Massive deletion of critical arguments -- what happened to the goal of cutting that down to a paragraph? --Rikurzhen 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)". keep deleting/rewriting until we've got a summary style presentation.
 * I said move to a subarticle, not just delete the critical arguments.Ultramarine 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't edit all at once. I'm sorry, it's just not in me. I edit a little at a time. Keep working at that section until it is correct. I moved all of that material to the subpage a long time ago. Edit it until it's down to the essential minimum. --Rikurzhen 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at you edit. You have just deleted all the critical arguments.Ultramarine 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the stuff that you seemed to agree that we should start deleting. Never mind. I copied the text below so that we can edit it on the talk page and leave the version that Lulu restored up for now. This would have been a much better way to have started the process and that's partly my fault. --Rikurzhen 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

(2) on flynn, that's exactly what they said and the note describes exactly what that means. change the sentence for clarity as you see fit, but don't delete things that are important. --Rikurzhen 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The study never argued against a genetic explanation. Your presentation is extremely misleading. Putting the information in the footnote where most people will not read it is gaming of the system.Ultramarine


 * Okay. You need to start assuming good faith. Misleading people is not my intention. If you saw the possibility of misreading that sentence, then you should have fixed it and left an edit summary to that effect. Instead you deleted it and called it irrelevant. Rewrite the thing so it's clear and we'll both be happy. --Rikurzhen 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

previous version
Cognitive ability scores for the ten global genetic clusters identified in previous genetic cluster analysis' have been surveyed by Richard Lynn'. Lynn regards these ten population groups as races, and extracts racial averages from 620 published studies surveying a total of 813,778 tested individuals. When taken as individual national averages, the data available, particularly regarding the developing world, is speculative due to limited sampling, year of testing, and varying type of cognitive ability test used. Lynn's previous work, including the trade book IQ and the Wealth of Nations with Tatu Vanhanen, have received widespread and strong criticism for both bias and error.(Sociologist Thomas Volken argues the data for national IQs is "highly deficient," citing limited sampling and varying tests and years (Volken). In a review of The Bell Curve'', Leon Kamin writes that "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity." In contrast to Kamin's strongly worded attack on Lynn, W. D. Hamilton described Lynn in a review of another of Lynn's books as doing "an excellent job with the facts" and being "brave [and] thick-skinned ... to swim against ... popular antirealistic currents." Examples of problematic national IQ figures include that the stated average IQ score of 59 for Equatorial Guinea is based on one test of 48 children aged 10-14 in 1984; the Ethiopian average is derived from a study of Ethiopians who immigrated to Israel a year prior, and whose low scores were thought by the original authors to be a reflection of temporary adjustment to a different culture and language (note that this data is not used in the averages presented below). Kamin also argued Lynn selectively excluded data showing a similar score in Whites and sub-Saharan Africans: "Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils." )''

In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ. According to Lynn, when the studies are grouped and taken as averages for the ten racial groups, the argument for their reliability is that, though additional evidence may be required to confirm some of the more limited estimates, many have very high reliability in the sense that different studies give similar results, as well as that they correlate highly with performance in international studies of achievement in mathematics and science and with national economic development. Lynn argues established environmental hypotheses can explain a substantial amount of these differences. The data set for sub-Saharan Africans around the world, the one most often criticized, is drawn from 155 different studies with a combined sample of 387,286 people. 57 of the studies are from countries in Africa, 54 from western countries, and 16 from non-western countries outside of Africa.

Some Ashkenazi Jews score significantly higher than any other group.(Lynn estimates United States and British Ashkenazim IQ scores of 107-115, in contrast to average IQ of Ashkenazim in Israel at 103. He suggests this estimate may be lower due to selective migration effects in relation to the U.S. and Britain, and immigrants from the former Soviet Block countries having posed as Ashkenazim.) An IQ of 70 is often associated with mental retardation, but deficits in adaptive behavior, such as telling the time, interacting socially, and looking after oneself, have only limited correlation with IQ, and are more important than IQ in determining whether a person is able to live an independent life.''((, p. 177).  reported that on the basis of IQ alone 10 times as many Blacks as Whites would be classified as retarded, but when adaptive behavior measures are added to the criterion, this difference completely disapears. Some ethnic differences in cognitive ability appear in some aspects of cognitive ability and not others (see below;, p. 178). The Black-White disparity seen in IQ does not appear in some basic cognitive functions that don't involve more than minimal elaboration, transformation, or other mental manipulation (, p. 178; ).)''

IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for related groups. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US. Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.. American Blacks average about 7-20% European admixture; UK admixtures are not as well-studied. Many studies also show differences in IQ between different groups of Whites. In Israel, large gaps in test scores and achievement separate Ashkenazi Jews from other groups such as the Sephardi.

new version
Cognitive ability scores for the ten global genetic clusters identified in previous genetic cluster analysis' have been surveyed by Richard Lynn'. In general, Lynn lists East Asians and Europeans as demonstrating the highest average IQ, indigenous Americans and other Eurasians with intermediate average IQ, and Africans and Australian Aborigines with the lowest average IQ. Lynn's previous work, including the trade book IQ and the Wealth of Nations with Tatu Vanhanen, have received widespread and strong criticism for both bias and error, but has also been used as a source of IQ data and hypotheses in several peer-reviewed studies.

IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for related groups. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US. Some reports indicate that the Black–White gap is smaller in the UK than in the U.S.. American Blacks average about 7-20% European admixture; UK admixtures are not as well-studied. Many studies also show differences in IQ between different groups of Whites. In Israel, large gaps in test scores and achievement separate Ashkenazi Jews from other groups such as the Sephardi.

Comments
First stop your practice of hiding information you do not like in footnotes. Restore the hidden information, then we can continue.Ultramarine 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Be nice. --Rikurzhen 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you going to restore the hidden information? Ultramarine 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave the version that Lulu put up for the time being while we edit this text on the talk page. There's no reason to fight over the footnotes as we intend to rewrite the entire thing anyway. Put your energy into the rewrite so we can replace the existing text, footnote and all. --Rikurzhen 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a sufficient minimal text? --Rikurzhen 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied that the very minimal description of world-wide scores is OK. If we limit mention of Lynn to the few sentences that Rikurzhen used, it seems perfectly fair also only to indicate criticism of Lynn in a sentence, as is done right now.  It's really only presentation of those detailed numbers claiming Africans and Aborigines have IQs in the moderate mental retardation level that heightens my concern that criticism be fully presented.  If all we say is (roughly) "Lynn ranks these half dozen groups in this order"... well, I still don't believe Lynn's right, but it's also not the direct affront of telling readers that there are whole continents of idiots who can't learn to read or feed themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

measurement invariance <> no measurement errors
it's about the factor structure of abilities, not measurement accuracy. the text surrounding the wicherts papers should be restored or whathever. --Rikurzhen 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Conversely, if factorial invariance is untenable, the between-group differences cannot be interpreted in terms of differences in the latent factors supposed to underlie the scores within a group or cohort."Ultramarine 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's about the factor structure of abilities, and about g, not about measurement error. the B-W gap could be a gap in Gq or Gf and/or whatever, or it could be a gap in g. this relates to spearman's hypothesis, as well as the question of whether the flynn effect is acting on g. --Rikurzhen 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed to a more correct text.Ultramarine 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Trade book
If what we mean by trade book is 'not published by an academic press' or 'intended for a general audience', than books like the Blank Slate, the Mismeasure of Man, Guns Germs and Steele (both published by W. W. Norton & Company), and Lewontin Rose and Gould's Not in Our Genes (Pantheon), are all trade books. However, it's not normal usage to refer to these books by this specific publishing term. If by tradebook we mean to imply "not a scientific work", we should take note that all these books, including Lynn's, are read by specialists and are reviewed and cited in scientific journals. Is there any reason to diverge from standard usage when referring to these books on Wikipedia? --Nectar 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. --Rikurzhen 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually convinced that the "trade book" phrase should not be used. But as to this notion of Lynn being cited in scientific journals: Rikurzhen notes that Google Scholar shows 33 hits on IQ&tWoN.  For context, I looked at two books by Richard Lewontin. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change is definitely an academic title; The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment is his most recent trade book, from 2000. I'm am about 98% certain that both titles have sold quite a bit less than IQ&tWoN, given the broad appeal of the latter in white supremecist circles. Lewontin's academic book is on Google scholar 1180 times, his trade book appears there 192 times. Which suggests that even as trade books go, IQ&tWoN is not treated seriously by scholars.  Stephen King horror novel Salem's Lot, FWIW, gets 38 Google scholar hits, so is somewhat more widely referenced academically than Lynn is. Lynn's newest book is not only not published by an academic publisher, but is not published by any reputable publisher. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your citation scoring metric is biased for more popular topics. There are far more scholars in terms of absolute numbers with a scholarly interest in genetics than race difference in IQ. You also do not have a control for the age of the publication, which is a lesser flaw. For a better comparison, look at Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth (2001; 4 citations), Race, evolution, and behavior (2000; 61 citations), Race, IQ and Jensen (1980; 15 citations), The G Factor: the Science of Mental Ability (1998; 544 citations), or even Handbook of intelligence (2000; 55 citations). --Rikurzhen 07:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weren't me that suggested Google Scholar hists lent legitimacy :-). (though I did take a minor effort to mention that Triple Helix is 2000, hence of similar age to IQatWoN). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Critiquing Google Scholars' numbers wasn't my point, only that we can't compare apples and oranges (so to speak). But this is back to the "is Lynn a reliable source?" question, which I hope we have put to rest. --Rikurzhen 07:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah... he's definitely not a reliable source, nor anything within a stone's throw of one. I'm glad it's settled. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just an aside, but responding to "98% certain," the Triple Helix has an Amazon.com Sales Rank of #175,819, and IQatWoN has a rank of 382,178. (The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, being published 25 years before these two, has a figure in a different category.)--Nectar 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding to Rikurzhen's figures above, I see The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (2003), edited by Helmuth Nyborg, has a chapter written by Lynn and refers to Lynn on 57 different pages (42 occuring in chapters by other authors), including reference to a cognitive ability study by Lynn conducted on Africans. I can't see how Lynn would be a reliable source for a well-reviewed survey of the field like this book, but not for this article. Blanket condemnations, at the very least, are out of the question.--Nectar 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of TradeBook
Tradebook (short for Trade Paperback Book) usually refers to the binding and size of the book. It is a Hardcover sized book with a thick paper cover. This is a publishing term, and has no direct relation to do with the academic value of a book. Universities routinely publish academic books in TPB format. --Eraticus 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

what happened to DO NOT HIDE IN FOOTNOTES
about 24 hours ago, Ultramarine tore thru the article with the edit summary DO NOT HIDE IN FOOTNOTES. i had no problem with the previous version that used footnotes, but from the present position, the reduced text i produced above seem superior in that it tells us the bare minimum while getting the point across -- as per summary style. we can go back to footnotes if that's the consensus, but let's figure that out on the talk page once and for all rather than switching back and forth. --Rikurzhen 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. You have made many subtle changes removing arguments for those advocating against a genetic explanation. Also, you just deleted the critical material from the footnotes. Ultramarine 08:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) I made small changes for concision, but they do not change NPOV. We can talk about them in a separate section. (2) I didn't delete anything, I put what I thought had become the acting consensus version into the article. We can work on a more detailed version in the section above if you like. --Rikurzhen 08:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely true that Rikurzhen's removal of material was pretty selective in deleting only critical material from footnotes. The overall simplification of the main text of "world-wide scores" is definitely good. But I really can't see a harm in retaining the criticism in the footnote only. To Ultramarine: Why are you restoring a version of the footnote w/o my minor touchups (i.e. that says "the above" which no longer makes sense in the footnote comment; and that goes off in a digression about "criticizing the critics")?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look guys, I used the reversion function to make my changes. I did not mean to delete anything in particular, just to reset things untill consensus could be reached on talk. If it's 2 for and 1 neutral on footnotes in that section, then let's have footnotes. You can retreive the original version from this page if you want to restore all of the material to footnotes. --Rikurzhen 08:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My "vote" is: (1) Use Rikhurzhen's much better, very brief, text for "world-wide scores"; (2) Leave the criticism of Lynn, but only in a footnote, not in the main text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your changes are constantly in favor of your pov and removed arguments. You have certainly deleted a long critical text previously found in the footnotes.Ultramarine 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of bad faith is totally unhelpful. I've suggested a method for reaching consensus. --Rikurzhen 08:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You did remove a long critical text from the footnotes. And why did your remove for example this which you had above agreed to include: " These genes do not follow the same distribution as that claimed for different racial groups." Ultramarine 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

41289695 to 41289166
this edit:

from top to bottom --Rikurzhen 08:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) okay
 * 2) "biological research" to "this article"; reintroduces verbooten self-referential language; is less informative than the undisputed claim which it replaces; don't believe me? -- see the many many works by genetics since 2002 on this topic such as Risch, Bamshed, etc.
 * On the narrow point: there is nothing "verboten" about self-referential langauge of this sort. WP:SELF is a prohibition on article referring to the fact they appear on WP (since they might not), it is not a prohibition on articles referring to themselves. In fact, terms like "this article" are explicitly permitted in WP:SELF Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, my mistake. i still suggest that the "biological research" phrase or something like it is more informative and less prone to being proven false as the reason that this articles does (if indeed it does) treat races in such as way is because that's how researchers treat it, not because we just decided it was a good idea. --Rikurzhen 09:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) there's no dispute about the correlations; i know about the wealth/genetic transmission paper, and that's about a relatively unrelated topic, so mentioning it here only serves to exaggerate
 * 2) ?? pioneer fund
 * 3) ?? pioneer fund
 * 4) this is (1) trivially true, but (2) the text doesn't say what is meant, but moreover (3) this is merely a result of restriction of range, as people drop out of school from elementary to college so as to restrict range -- when this is corrected for there is no age effect
 * 5) the 2 genes from the science paper follow a pattern that is only weakly correlated with observed IQ (i'm sure the correlation isn't zero); but there are hundreds of candidate genes from the PNAS paper, about which this new sentence misleads about
 * 6) okay
 * 1) Again, many criticisms of race concept so the article should not state that it is undisputed science.
 * 2) The text states that the link to wealth is disputed which is true.
 * the sentence implies that all real world correlations are disputed, we just need to rewrite the sentence to make that clearer; or ditch the wealth dispute and make a straightforward descrription of where IQ correlations are strong, medium, weak, and nonexistent. IQ has examples, as does the apa report --Rikurzhen 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten it. Any significant effect is very much disputed for accumulated wealth.Ultramarine 09:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're thinking of the genetic transmission of wealth via IQ, which is near zero. there is an IQ:wealth correlation, which is weak, that goes into their calculation --Rikurzhen 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good, we should include it.Ultramarine 09:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The importance of IQ decline when getting closer to the real world. This is important and should not be ignored.
 * We can say this without resorting to this kind of trickery. The correlation with income is substially less than, for example, the correlation with school grades. That's a perfectly good example. --Rikurzhen 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You agreed to include that these genes do not follow the claimed IQ distribution. This should certainly be mention as otherwise there is an impression for extremely strong support for the genetic arguments.
 * It can't stand as written because it's inaccurate. rewrite needed --Rikurzhen 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then rewrite, do not delete.Ultramarine 09:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the sentence I added covered it. I'll try to think of a fix. --Rikurzhen 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) - Ultramarine 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then rewrite, do not delete.Ultramarine 09:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the sentence I added covered it. I'll try to think of a fix. --Rikurzhen 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) - Ultramarine 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

kamin requires qualification
i would say the same for Richard Lewontin or Gould when it comes to this topic the topic of their descriptions of other researchers working in this field. it's important to know their strong opinions about the science when presenting their opinions about other scientists. for comparison, the section on "bias" currently lists by name Rushton, Jensen and Lynn in association with the phrase "hate group". --Rikurzhen 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Critics of critics of critics of critics of critics of ...
Despite your choice of username, Rikurzhen, this is just not sensible editing. If you want to add a footnote about critics of Kamin in main text discussing Kamin, I have absolutely nothing against it. But a footnote about Lynn (that includes both critics and supporters) is not the place to go off on a digression about each person mentioned. It just IS NOT. This is not a good foonote:


 * Kamin criticizes Lynn (blah blah). But Jensen criticizes Kamin (...).  And Gould criticizes Jensen (...).  Gould is criticized by Wilson (blah blah).  Wilson is criticized by Mertz (...).  And Hamilton, who is criticized by Jones, who is criticized by Smith, who is criticized by Wen, ..., supports Lynn.

Footnotes should be about the subject they annotate, not self-reflective. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you should look for someone other than Kamin, Gould, and Lewontin to terminate the string of back and forth criticisms. You ask Should we then include critics of Jensen and Mackintosh in response. You know someone who is a critic of the professionalism of Nicholas Mackintosh (Chair of the Department of Experimental Psychology at Cambridge University)? Or for that matter, someone how has something bad to say about Arthur Jensen's professionalism (rather than his conclusions) other than one of those three? Kamin is actually as unreliable when it comes to this topic as you have previously made Lynn out to be. --Rikurzhen 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll work on finding an additional or different criticism of Lynn than Kamin. But please no recursion in the meanwhile.  Of course, there alreadly is a different critic than Kamin mentioned in the footnote, but I assume whomever I mention will have someone Pioneer-funded "scientist" to snipe at them also (preemptorily excluding Gould and Lewontin as possible critics is quite perverse, at best.. but I guess the idea is that it must be a critic who does not criticize Lynn, huh?).  FWIW, it's quite easy to find critics of Jensen's professionalism... but again, just say no to recursion.


 * Again, as I say: a footnote critical of Kamin is fine, if Kamin is discussed in either the body of this article, or in the Leon Kamin article, or somewhere else in main text. But footnotes aren't articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for your changes. But you don't seem to understand the logic of my claim. Kamin, Lewontin and Gould are (were) admittedly driven by political motivations to discredit all research into human differenecs, especially those that fall along race lines. They have been broadly criticized for allowing politics to affect their professionalism, which is also broadly the claim they are making against Lynn. Your statement that anyone that criticizes Lynn will themselves be criticized seems implausible to me. Presenting Kamin as a representative critic of Lynn is like presenting Bill O'Reilly as a representative critic of the Clintons. O'Reilly has too much baggage to be taken seriously, as does Kamin. Find someone who doesn't tend to make dishonest/inconceivable statements about IQ research. There's no need for recursion, as the example of Mackintosh demonstrates. --Rikurzhen 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who doesn't tend to make dishonest/inconceivable statements about IQ research pretty categorically rules out mentioning Jenson, now doesn't it?! The political motivations of Kamin, Lewontin and Gould stuff is nonsense, of course. But even taking your analogy: if some article on the Clintons or something they did had a footnote to Bill O'Reilly, of course that footnote should not digress into criticisms of O'Reilly.  Readers are perfectly able to click on the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) link to read about criticisms of O'Reilly.  And readers are perfectly able to click on the Leon Kamin link to find criticisms of Kamin.  Or the Arthur Jensen link.  Or whatever.


 * The thing is, Rikurzhen, I don't believe for one millisecond that you yourself even believe what you are pushing here. You're a lot smarter than that.  You actually know what a footnote is.  Instead this is just tedious argument for the sake of argument, and as a chance to jab at Kamin or whomever.  Trust me, if you want pedantic, you're not even yet in the same league as I can do in my sleep (mostly I've recovered from that ability though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not bs-ing, being merely pedantic, nor arguing for arguments sake. I didn't add the criticism of Kamin -- Nectar did with the edit summary If we include Kamin's rhetorical quote, we should include some reference to his reputation among intelligence researchers -- but I agree that it is both appropriate and necessary for balance. If you're not serious about replacing the quotation from Kamin with someone else, then I'll insist on my view that he must be qualifed in this context. Moreover, I don't see how a footnote is different than article text, an image caption, or a cateogory list in the need for it to be balanced. --Rikurzhen 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you. I honestly just don't.  A footnote about Foo should discuss Foo.  It should not discuss everything and everyone mentioned in the footnote itself (that's for some different footnote, somewhere else).  You know this.  You know you know this.  And I know you know you know this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I need to check my copy of the Chicago Manual of Style, but I really think neutrality and honesty in presentation is more important than this matter of style. IMO, quoting Kamin (in this context and without full disclosure of his prejudices) is a trick. I would think the same if one were to write about paleontology, quote Gould on paleontology, then quote Rushton as a critic of Gould's honesty without pointing out that Rushton himself is the recipent of professional criticism. (For his professional practices, not just his conclusions.)
 * Note that Volken's criticism is of Lynn's conclusions (not ad hominem) which is completely fair game, whereas Kamin's criticism is about Lynn's professionalism and his person (ad hominem) which is an entirely different level of criticism and deserves a higher level of editorial scrutiny. --Rikurzhen 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that this footnote gives a problematic discussion of Foo that requires qualification. Kamin's methodological claim that highly correlated cognitive ability test results can't meaningfully be converted into each other will probably be a red flag for more centrist psychometricians regarding accepting his methodological evaluations at face value.  Given this and his position that the heritability of IQ could be "zero," elements of the quote on Lynn may be best interpreted as pathos appeals or ad hominems ("truly venemous," "scandalous"), which seem questionable for inclusion in a science article. --Nectar 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

human evolution was rapid during last 50k years -- only now confirmed
in response to ''"Evidence human evolution continues"?! What next, evidence that the sky is blue?'', etc.

prior to high-throughput genome sequencing of humans, it was a common claim from some scientists that any geographic component to human genetic variation must be shallow and small because 50k years isn't enough time for large differences to occur -- evolution is too gradual. many of them also had a habit of downplaying the role of selection in evolution, which would be consistent with their claims.


 * The topic of gradualism and allele distribution rates is no doubt an interesting topic. But it is not this topic.  Other interesting topics that are not this one include: quantifying reproductive isolation of human groups; the "eve hypothesis"; human geographic migration patterns; gene drift; the role of regulatory genes in phentotypic change; and so on.  Presenting something that is extremely distantly related to this topic, and only if you make a whole lot of guesses about what might be true of intervening logical steps, is what's known as original research. Moreover, it's a very deceptive attempt to insinuate something obviously false. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

a quick google search finds this example from Gould:

Science can be liberating as well as restrictive. We have now understood genetic variation in human beings - I'm not saying our knowledge is fixed for all time; it never is -- but I think we have seen just how shallow and superficial the average differences are among human races, even though in certain features, like skin color and hair form, the visual differences are fairly striking. They're based on almost nothing in terms of overall genetic variation, and that's because we now understand that human racial variation is much, much younger than we ever thought it was, that probably all non-African racial diversity is less than 100,000 years old.

That sounds like a lot of time, but to an evolutionary biologist that's an eye blink; that's not enough time to accumulate anything in the way of evolutionary difference. So science liberates as well as falls into the biases of its time.


 * Umm... OK. Gould's comment is pretty much right, and is not affected a whit by the recent studies some editors stuck in.  Neither Gould nor any other practicing biologist in the last century ever thought that all alleles are equally distributed in all human populations.  Nor that evolutionary pressure suddenly stopped X years ago. You do know, don't you, that 50k < 100k? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

there's a reason that the three papers nectar described were published in science and pnas: they are hot! who would have guessed that something like 10% of the human genome has human genes have a signature of recent selection? (well maybe some people.) but even more germane -- the functional categories aren't just skin color and hair form, nor just the things that evolve quickly in any animal (e.g. sperm proteins and immunity genes), but also genes for neuronal fuction. that's quite different than what Gould is suggesting in the quotation above, and it is also quite obviously germane to this article. --Rikurzhen 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WTF? There are two alleles in question in the cited article. That's what 0.0000001% of the human genome?  That 10% weird number is off by something like a multiple of a billion.  I suppose there must be some less absurd claim that you are trying to make, but I'm honestly not sure what it is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are three recent papers. This is the third: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0509691102v1 --Rikurzhen 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll let you mull that one over and you can reconsider your comments above with that in mind. --Rikurzhen 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research
It's argued in the race section of this article that race is "biologically meaningless." However, these studies find differences in neural genetics between races. That has clear relevance to the "biologically meaningless" discussion. No original conclusions have been drawn, and the additions, including the conclusion "These studies add further weight to the view that human evolution is still a work in progress" were derived from the NYTimes article.--Nectar 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you assume that many different alleles have a similar bio-geographic distribution, then race is "biologically meaningful". The articles in question suggest a small number of alleles that are distributed in a manner that does not closely match the operative definitions of race used by the researchers in this article.  It's conceivable that the above speculation is true, but the cited articles are not even remotely relevant to such a claim.  Nor is there any connection whatsoever between how rapid human evolutionary change has been in the last 50k years and whether "races" are ontologically distinct.  If you make a whole lot of additional assumptions about relative isolation of breeding communities (and a variety of other unknowns), then the notion might be plausible.


 * As to whether "human evolution is still a work in progress"... I honestly can't imagine what point anyone might think they're making (though I guess I can see why a popular source like NYT might use that as a headline). Yes, the sky is still blue.  Yes, objects are still attracted by gravity.  And yes, evolution didn't cease to operate when homo sapiens emerged as a species.  So the fuck what? I guess it's sort of a tautology posing as a conclusion... something like the irrefutable true (but still obnoxious and biased): "A woman is a woman, but a cigar is a cigar". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu, you seem to have missed the point on both marks. On (paragraph 1) you are conflating the (a) derivability of what we call races from genes alone with (b) the genetic (and probably phenotypic) differences that exist between socially + geographially delineated populations. These articles of course do not address (a). For new data that begins to answer (a) see . These papers are instead telling us about (b).


 * And yet several editors (inlcuding you) keep inserting the comments in the section about the ontological status of race. I never removed the comments from the section where the new studies were actually relevant, only from the section where they were trying to insinuate an unwarranted conclusion about (a).


 * Of course the question is not a binary yes or no to whether human evolution has continued during the last ~50k years (since the first humans left Africa), but rather to what extent. Gould et al thought very little, in part because they assumed that selection was not acting strongly and that neutral mutations would (of course) only add up to so much in that time. The early proponents of evolutionary psychology also made similar assumptions about the evolution of the mind. (And so you can see it's not a good versus evil thing ;).) If the PNAS paper is correct, then the magnitude of the change due to selection was much greater than Gould or most others seem to have predicted. And as the Science papers show, genes that are plausibly associated with human cognition were under (some kind of) selection as well. So it's not only that humans have evolved (as any species with finite population size will because of neutral effects), but that selection was been so strong and not restricted to skin deep biological processes. --Rikurzhen 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely inconceivable to me that Gould ever believed that selection stopped acting when humans left Africa. Sadly, he is now dead, so we can't ask him.  But I have read every book he had published without encountering any hint of such a thing.


 * Maybe you'd be better off taking this discussion over to the Intelligent design or Creationism articles, somewhere where a reader might for one millisecond not find it obvious that evolution exists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm... from the Gould quote above: "less than 100,000 years" is "not enough time to accumulate anything in the way of evolutionary difference" in humans. Where I think we can take "evolutionary difference" to mean salient phenotypic changes, rather than any evolultionary change at all. A selective signature on nearly 1 out of 10 genes is something like what human cultivation did to the rice genome. That's a huge evolutionary difference in less than 100k years. --Rikurzhen 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * C'mon, I know you are not really that tin-eared. I suppose that you believe also that Gould thought these plants are phenotypically identical too (which would follow from the overly literal reading you propose) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC):


 * I mention rice not to compare with the 100k number, but to compare with the genome change number. The rice generation time is substantially less and of course these plants were under artificial rather than natural selection. But his 100k number was for human generation times and made an assumption about the selective regime experienced by humans during the last 100k years which has since been refuted. --Rikurzhen 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem of "race"
(1) It's argued by some that the partly genetic hypothesis is problematic or even fundamentally invalid because of the criticisms against "race". E.g.: "If biologists have shown that genetically there is neither a black nor a white race, then IQ tests cannot have shown that the black race is less intelligent than the white—there is no black race, and there is no white race" (Francisco Gil-White 2004). (2) The observance of differences in neural genetics firmly establishes the possibility of genetic differences in intelligence (because some neural genes are known to influence intelligence). There is no way (2) is not relevant to (1).--Nectar 11:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess this is maybe settled already in the article. If that's the case, the criticism in the (very long) race section should probably be directed at more fruitful targets than implying criticism of "race" is a problem for the partly genetic hypothesis.--Nectar


 * This specific argument is obviously valid only in if you italicize white and black to refer to the words themseleves rather than what they describe. In the way it is actually written it makes as much sense as "If biologists have shown that genetically there is neither a black nor a white race, then skin colorometers cannot have shown that the black race is darker skinned than the white—there is no black race, and there is no white race".
 * The kind of argument Gould is making in the quotation I put in the section above may deserve a spot in the article, but it's not aim at IQ directly, so it may be inappropriate to state it as such. The form of the argument that is appropriate is intimated in the NYTimes review of Lahn's work: that there may have been selective pressure for pathogen resistance and sperm proteins (and skin color), but there's no reason to think the human brain has evolved much in the last 50k years. --Rikurzhen 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Genes and intelligence
(outdenting for readability): A tangential point to this is our current sentence "It's been suggested that a conclusive answer may not be possible until intelligence is directly linked to specific genes." in Section 4.4. There are several things wrong with this pronouncement. (1) Who suggests this anyway? (2) Don't use contractions. (3) The quote suggest that this link has not yet been established. We obviously do not agree whether or not this link has been established in any meaningful way in 2005, and whether it is conclusive. But many would think so, which means that the quoted sentence is misleading. The easiest way to tackle this would be to completely remove it. It's not a very good sentence anyway. Arbor 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've thought that sentence may be able to be replaced with reference to Pinker's statement: "Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously." Re (2), contractions seem fine to me; is there a problem with them?--Nectar 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "make it so..." :) --Rikurzhen 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Media portrayal
Why should a merely twenty years old study be mentioned in the intro? Provide evidence that this still applies today.Ultramarine 12:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sackett et al. study's identical results corroborate that study.--Nectar 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Full name and year, please.Ultramarine 13:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * . You can find this study discussed in the "Media portrayal" section of the race and intelligence article.  The references page has a link to the online article.--Nectar 13:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not evidence of that media portrayal is inaccurate in general. And one can hardly say that media portrayal differs from scientific opinion when the scientific journals state the same thing.Ultramarine 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra, what you would need would be that anybody (with a straight face) says something like this: "Today, media regularly represents the views of those who stress that individual and group differences may be partly genetic (e.g., Arthur Jensen) as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those of Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Kamin are described as minority viewpoints." From my own subjective reading of "the media", that claim would be a lie, but others may be reading other "mainstream media". We could, of course, do some more-or-less original research here in order to get an overview of what the media thinks, but unless my mainstream media sampling (which is indeed strongly biased towards left-wing publications) is completely off, the quoted study is an accurate portrayal. However, if I am wrong, and there has indeed be a notable shift in the viewpoints expressed in such publications towards acceptance of the hereditarian position, then that would indeed make a very welcome addition to this article. Until such evidence is produced (and I would accept original research at least for the sake of discussion), the quoted study is sterling quality, and miles ahead any other claim in Wikipedia of "many people think that" or "it is often said that" or "the media often describes X as". Arbor 14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] The Sackett study corroborates the earlier study's finding of a strong bias toward one side of the debate, and Sackett et al. do conclude it is a widespread bias. That being the case, if you can provide evidence against this trend, we can change the article.--Nectar 14:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Spare my the original research. A toll taken twenty years ago regarding voting preferences is uninteresting today. Again, the Sackett study is not evidence of general misrepresentation and one can hardly say that media portrayal differs when the scientific journals state the same thing. Some rephrasing may be possible. Ultramarine 14:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Original research means 'drawing original conclusions.' Sackett et al. argue there is widespread bias toward one side, thus giving any confirmation we need of the earlier study.  The burden of proof is now on your side, as you've provided absolutely no evidence for your argument.--Nectar


 * I have made npov changes to intro and also mentions the funding. And please do not just simply delete every addition I make. Ultramarine 14:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine, your "additions" are also "deletions". When you put the two together, and you get reverted, don't infer that your additions are unwelcome. I cannot in priciple abide by your attempts to hide the Snyderman and Rothman survey data. It's too widely known and discussed for your or my opinions about it to count. It has to go in, and it has to be mentioned as the thing we know about media portrayal in the intro. --Rikurzhen 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete all the changes and not only the things discussed here? For one thing, why should this one 20 years old study be mentioned in the intro and not the source of funding.Ultramarine 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I stepped away from the computer before leaving this note... I deleted the PF+SPLC sentence also because it needs to be replaced completely, not merely tweaked. The previous sentence was a mix of generality and specificity that made wide open implications of racism accusations with just a hint of specific detail -- that is, it wasn't NPOV worded. We can go general: direct and indirect accusations of bias and racism ... blah blah. We can go specific: the Pioneer Fund, which has given grants to public supporters of the partly genetic hypothesis, has been accused by the controverial SPLC organization of supporting racism. --Rikurzhen 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While we have Ultramarine's attention: on your user page you list several quotes from other WP editors about yourself. One of them is mine, about an old version of the Pioneer Fund section: "the argument is presented as a confused string of insinuations and petty pointers in some stream-of-consciousness prose". While I think this is an accurate description of the sorry state that paragraph was then in, and thus have no qualms about the presence of this quote, attributed or not, I take exception to being listed under Racialists. I had to read up on Racialist to see what the term means, and find very little there that is an even halfway accurate rendition of my views. Especially, the Appiah quote used to define the term seems to assume that racialists operate under an essentialist definition of race, and most of the other views described in that article are alien to me as well. Not that I think our own perspectives matter, but I would label myself (at least within this debate) as a Rawlsian. So if you want to keep the quoted jibe on your user page, please attribute it either to me, or to Rawlsians. Not to Racialists. Arbor 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your edit history on this page, Arbor, it's really hard to see how the label does not apply rather precisely. Edit histories speak louder than disavowals.  But in any case, I would think that whatever Ultramarine puts on her user page is pretty clearly her own editorial judgement, not a purport of encyclopedic and verifiable fact.  So I'd chill with it, if I were you (you should see the things people write about me on WP... though usually the ones that rant most wind up getting on indefinite block for unrelated matters; it's karma not any action I take). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)... I apologize on the struck-out comment: it is unnecessarily confrontational, and I do not mean to personally attack Arbor, nor create the impression of doing so.  Sorry. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Well, with Ultramarine I assumed it was a good-natured error. I have more difficulties in categorising your comment. So while I might chill with Ultra, I won't with you. What exactly is it that my edit history displays that is in any way concordant with Racialism? The only paragraph I can see isn't obviously false is the third, namely the quoting of Rushton, Lynn, Jensen. I would be surprised if I actually have quoted any of those here, but maybe I have. With almost everything else I disagree forcefully. Going through the linked article: I live in a "colour-blind" society (registering an individual's race or ethnicity is actually illegal in Sweden). I think that's the way to go. The US census policy on this makes me acutely uncomfortable. I take absurdly strong exception to any idea of racial pride, segregation, or identity politics. Appiah's definition, ""the view – which I shall call racialism – that there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, which allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race" (emphasis mine) is laughably essentialist and certainly not something I would agree with. The bit on DuBois is too short for me to decide if that is accurate ("differences between races exist" could mean anything, including stuff you believe in). So unless the term means something really different than what the article claims, I cannot see how it applies to me. Indeed, in many specific points that are crucial to me, politically and morally, I hold the exact opposite position. Arbor 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits
My latest edit. Please do not just revert. Explain objections. I have tried to make the intro neutral with statement from each side.Ultramarine 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

copied from above: I'm sorry I stepped away from the computer before leaving this note... I deleted the PF+SPLC sentence also because it needs to be replaced completely, not merely tweaked. The previous sentence was a mix of generality and specificity that made wide open implications of racism accusations with just a hint of specific detail -- that is, it wasn't NPOV worded. We can go general: direct and indirect accusations of bias and racism ... blah blah. We can go specific: the Pioneer Fund, which has given grants to public supporters of the partly genetic hypothesis, has been accused by the controverial SPLC organization of supporting racism. --Rikurzhen 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

more: sackett and "sterotype threat" is not a sufficient summary of the media portrayal data. as per necar and arbor above, there's no reason to think anything has changed since s&r did their survey. no contray data exists, and the only other data point we can find is supportive. prefixing s&r as "one study" suggests that there's something not right about that "one study" or that being "one study" is not a good thing. we don't add "one study" before any of the other unique reports we describe. --Rikurzhen 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary of controversial assumptions
I haven't checked this article in a while, but I see Ultramarine removed this on 27 February:

This research is grounded in several controversial assumptions: - *the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry. - *intelligence is measurable (see psychometrics) and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability.

The reason for having this in the introduction originally was to help unfamiliar readers (i.e. no one editing this) grasp the basic concepts and controversies. Then it got moved from the intro and now removed altogether. I thought it was a pretty good overview of the major issues. I'll let you folks decide how to proceed, but I don't think this article does a very good job of presenting the controversy in its present form. Both "race" and "intelligence" need to be explained in a way so readers understand that the terms have disputed meanings, especially in terms of quantifiable/measurable characteristics. The summary above is not original research, but a succinct summation of the issues with this research, the key points that scholars dispute.

Do what you will on this, but it feels way too wonky for a general article as it stands. I'm not saying dumb it down, but explain the academic dispute briefly, preferably in a sentence or two right up front to help readers new to the topic. Byeee! Jokestress 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Jokestress, thanks for stopping by again :) --Nectar 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rosenberg 1048people 993markers.jpg
Sorry, I should have done a couple edits rather than combine them. The mentioned image had a messed up caption when I took it out, but that was just a formatting/markup question. However, as a more principled thing, I find this chart confusing and tangential to the topic. It's certainly worth putting somewhere else, maybe in the Race article; but it's peripheral to this, and not really explained in the body text (nor should it be in this article; though again, doing so elsewhere is good). I would recommend including a short phrase about "multilocus allele clusters" or something like that, and making that a wikilink to an article with the Rosenberg chart. There's also an element that putting the chart here seems like some sort of effort at "argument by dazzlement" or something like that: i.e. readers who doubt if race is onotologically meaningful will be so wow'd by all those colors and labels as to think 'even though I can't figure that out, it sure looks impressive'". Once you do understand it, the chart is at best a very weak argument for what it's used to purport; certainly not worth so much room in this article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, it doesn't seem to do any of those things. Maybe it's because I understand the detail, whereas you seem to be suggesting what the average reader might infer. --Rikurzhen 05:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, it is extremely peripheral to this article. And so far, I cannot locate enough information to entirely evaluate it.  The description on the image page is so-so, and the caption only "explanation by insinuation".  I'm sure with another couple hundred words, all the details of what the chart means could be fleshed out... but some other article would be the place to do that.  Maybe a brand new one, like Race and multilocus allele clusters. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, race has more than enough about genetics. I'll get back to you on this later. --Rikurzhen 06:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article Race does have a bunch on genetics. But then, it's an absurdly huge article that is in desperate need of refactoring to conform to WP:SIZE.  I hadn't ever taken a look at that when I wrote my first comment in this section; but once I did, I figured that a new, narrower article would be a better place.  Actually, maybe some of the bloat over at Race could go in such a spinoff... however, I definitely don't want to add that to my way too long list of contentious pages I watch, so I'll leave that to someone else. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, actually. Very linkable, say from the current article, or from Lewontin's fallacy. Arbor 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wish granted. --Rikurzhen 07:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For an article on the subject of comparing ethnic groups, the genetic structure and inferred evolutionary history of the population seems on topic, if Rosenberg's right that that's what these studies refer to. The race section currently already covers some of the other fundamentals of the concept and the controversy.  I think Cavalli-Sforza's clustering at the level of 10 clusters could be even more informative, if that work were deemed to be of the same rigour.  Regarding the image, I think seeing the data visually is clarifying (a picture's worth a thousand words etc.), though merely including it for argumentative purposes wouldn't be very good.  (For convenience, the 2002 paper can be read here, and the 2005 paper here.)--Nectar 07:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, that was a good attempt, but I don't think that's an improvement. "proponent of the race as a genetic concept" probably doesn't accurately describe any researchers. race is a complicated concept that happens to map onto ancestry pretty well, which is itself tied with genetics. i'm reverting to get us back to square one and we can make another attempt at it. --Rikurzhen 08:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So change a word or two... don't just throw out what I did! If you notice, I removed about the same number of words for extraneous digressions pro-race-concept and anti-race-concept (and as you noticed, weakened overclaim about precise number of opponents of the race concept).  I disagree, of course, that "race is a complicated concept that maps ancestry well"... but then, I guess that's because I know a lot more about the intellectual and social history of the concept of race than do folks who naively naturalize it, and assume it was invented by modern genetics.  If you add enough epicycles, I guess you can get the motion of planets right though... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The original content that you added and ascribed to Collins and Risch is what I objected to, and it's what I reverted for. I still have to revert at least that part back because you've mischaracterized them. (AFAIK, the only other thing you did was delete the figure and rearrange the text -- so I didn't feel a need to preseve those change too.) --Rikurzhen 17:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One accurate description is -- some geneticists have claimed that many of these "well-intentioned" statements are false and do not "derive from an objective scientific perspective." They argue instead "that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." --Rikurzhen 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also removed the (pro-)Lewontin digression in my edit, since it's also a side issue (I think Lewontin is right, FWIW, but this isn't the place for it). On either side of it, I think quoting ad hominem insults is really not encyclopedic.  The Collins paraphrase is just that.  It's much more neutral to just say: Some say race is not ontologically warranted as a category; others say that multilocus alleles provide ontological grounding.  Reporting the name calling is just mean-spirited (yes, it's verifiable since it quotes people, but what's the point?). Anyway, we should definitely link back to your fine new page, Rikurzhen. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your text is still inaccurate, as is your interpretation of Collin's statement. First, and trivially, Collins was not attacking but praising the motives of those who have made such statements. I included it here to point out that this is not a blood feud, but rather that one side thinks the other is letting otherwise admirable politcial considerations to influence their conclusions. More substantially, your text about "gross phenotypic identifiers of racial groups" is nothing like what any geneticists that I've read have to say about this subject, and certainly not the ones cited. For example, Risch writes that "Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin." The conclusion of his 2002 Genome Biology paper is that not only is self-identified race/ethnicity/ancestry a valid categorization, but "that self-defined race, ethnicity or ancestry are actually more genetically informative than clusters based on analysis of random genetic markers", that is, the data he was analyzing actually "demonstrate the superiority of ethnic labels over genetic clustering" for the purpose of categorization of people for biomedical research. This is about the utility of people's self described ancestry to make inferences about their genotype. --Rikurzhen 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really hard to read the Collins the way you say. It reads like a patronizing dismissal, not as praise, as far as I can construe it.  But even if it were praise, why should that be here.  Scientifically, some geneticist think one thing, others think another.  I'm really not interested in whether the parties share beers or graffiti each others offices.


 * The "gross phenotypic identifiers" is an excellent phrase, and is precisely how characterization of race are always made (except possibly in a genetics lab). Not only skin tone, but face shape, hair quality, etc.  But all macroscopic and phenotypic.  No one walks down the street and asks passers-by for blood samples to analyze enzyme compositions... at least no one I know.  For that matter, no one asks for a geneology chart going back 15 generations either.  Let's not whitewash what racial identification actually is, nor try to pretend it was invented in the last 10 years by geneticists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an inapproriate and unnecessary oversimplification. Geneticists do not infer people's self-identified race/ethnicity/ancestry for them (despite your joke about enzymes and pedigrees). When Risch says that ethnic labels are superior to genetic clustering for categorizing people, he isn't specifying how he thinks people get their ethnic labels; he would not have any special knowledge about that. I am also not at all certain that people get their labels merely on the basis of "gross phenotypic identifiers", and I've never seen any geneticsts say that they think that's how people get their lables. Surely there is more to the categorization process than that, although I imagine that "gross phenotypic identifiers" would substitute for the labels about was well as genetic clustering does. We currently have it written that Racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin and self-identification. That should cover it, no? --Rikurzhen 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you think of a better way to describe it then? The claim of the multiloci folks isn't simply that "people can be divided into a small number of broad groups"... it's more specifically that these broad groups have a fairly good correspondence with "naive" theories of race (and naive theories of race simply are gross phenotypic identifiers). Otherwise it might be like the discovery of blood groups, however long ago that happened.  The claim that all people can be divided into the "races" A, B, AB and O would not merit the term "race".  Obviously I know the Mendelian arithmetic of blood groups, so it's not exactly right... but maybe some other genetic markers divide people into broad groups that look nothing at all like historical "racial" categories:  e.g. Group 1 contains the Khoi-San, South American Quechua, most Baltic and Slavic peoples, and the Tamil.  It might be interesting that all those people have some common genetic marker, but it would not warrant calling the group a "race". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Inferred ancestry is probably a better description of people mean by race. Despite the high between group differentiation of, for example, skin color, if you were to divide people into groups by skin color you might put South Asians with Africans, East Asians with Europeans, and native Americans with Southeast Asians. Ancestry is what connects race (whatever that entails exactly) with genetics. If race were just phenotypes, then there would be no good explanation for why race would be a good proxy for medical traits that have nothing to do with the gross phenotypic correlates of race (e.g., skin color genes do not affect hypertension). Moreover, no geneticists talk about how you go about doing racial classification, that's just assumed to work somehow. --Rikurzhen 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I changed it per your suggestion. I think the "gross phenotypic traits" is more clear, but this is fine too.  The idea, I assume with external traits corresponding with e.g. genes for hypertension is that the same way that clusters of genes for non-visible traits might diverge in relatively isolated breeding communities, visible traits will diverge in the same groups.  There are more traits than skin color, y'know.  So X, Y, Z have about the same skin tone; but of them, only X's have a nose shaped a certain way.  Ancestry is pretty much inevitably "inferred" from a collection of those several visible traits. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there concern that the image implies something it shouldn't? It is otherwise useful to portray how the population gets genetically sub-divided.--Nectar 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly, it's really, really huge, and requires a really long caption (which still isn't nearly long enough to actually explain it)... all for a point that is only barely relevant to this particular article at all. I mean, yes, it does also imply something it shouldn't, but that's actually a much smaller problem than plain old size.  Now that Rikuzhen created that excellent spinoff (well, working on excellent, it needs cleanup for sure), why not just point readers there? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good rewording
The recent changes to the wording of the "race" section by Nectarflowed read quite nicely. They keep the section more concise that it used to be, while presenting the two sides minus the ad hominem aspects. Good job with that. I still think the big diagram is better left in the nicely linked article. Even though it has a really well written caption now (not sure if that was Nectarflowed, Rikurzhen or someone else who wrote it), it remains a digression that merely explains some semi-obscure details of the paragraph text (i.e. the multiloci stuff). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the image helps illustrate the fuzzy nature of ancestry groups, in the sense of different numbers of groups resulting at different levels of detail ('are there 3, 5, or 10 ancestry groups?'). (See, for example, Francisco Gil-White's discussion of the fuzzy set problem in discussions of race, including Vincent Sarich's opinion.) This issue seems central to the general concept of biogeographic population subdivision (whether or not subdivision results in "races") and both sides of the debate reference the issue.--Nectar 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But reduced as much as you know have, the details are indiscernable. It's just a vaguely colorful blob.  If you were to enlarge it to be readable, it would dominate the section, and spill into the next three subsections.  We now have a perfectly good related article that we currently link to, that discusses the chart in better detail... readers just need follow that link.  Actually, though, I like the latest caption (I think that's yours, Nectarflowed) quite a bit better than the previous iterations.  So it might make sense to copy that caption to its appropriate article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Again
Ultramarine, since you were gone, here's the reason that was given for the removal of the operational definition paragaph: "unnecessary paragraph: population structure can be inferred at different levels of detail (6 clusters, 10 clusters etc.)" See, for example, the graph located in the race section.

As general practice, if editors move paragraphs around, even adding or removing a spare line, the paragraph appears all red on the diff page, meaning other editors can't read the changes.--Nectar 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and neutrality

 * POV: Removed "Scientist in their publications give operational definitions to the groups that they study and describe how the samples are drawn. The populations used may vary according to the purpose of the study, and there is no universally agreed upon subdivision of the races of man. For example, the very large collaboration of geneticists known as the HapMap project, which used four populations for its first extensive database of SNPs, studied not "Mongoloids" but rather Japanese from Tokyo and Han Chinese. Other parallel studies are examining other racial divisions than the four frequently mentioned groups, and there is no supposition that there is an exhaustive, unique list of the races of man. In most studies of intelligence, race and ethnicity are used interchangably, and individuals are categorized by self-identification."Ultramarine 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nectar, Lulu, and I agreed on a new balance of detail versus conciseness in that section. We reached a consensus. --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do agree. The issues of how HapMap sampling is done, and how it relates to historical racial categories is interesting, but just too far afield to need inclusion in this article.  A good article for that material might be in the new Race and multilocus allele clusters.  A certain skeptical position over in that article might be useful.  But this is not a level of detail we need here.
 * Ok. Ultramarine 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1

 * POV: Removed Pioneer fund "Grantees include the current head J. Phillipe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn." Ultramarine 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what a bore it can be to follow the changes made to an article, so let me direct you to the edit you're referring to.--Nectar 12:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, you link to an idiom? . Anyhow, Npov certainly requires mentioning this.Ultramarine 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the Pioneer Fund derives from the argument Tucker makes, that this organization has had a negative influence on science through it's choice of work to fund. The fund is known to not exercise any influence on the work the grants will be used on. Tucker specificially says scientists receiving grants shouldn't be harassed.  The idiom link was just in case it's not well known to editors from other countries, though I see that's unnecessary. Do you live in Sweden?--Nectar 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The fund is certainly not known for that. Read his book. As this is often mentioned by critics, it should be included. Remember, Wikipedia should include all significant views.Ultramarine 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tucker's criticism of the Pioneer Fund is focused on the fund's agenda. Here's his opening summation:
 * "if the many grants made by Pioneer ... mask other, less laudable goals, then the fund may be hiding an oppressive political agenda behind the protection of academic freedom."
 * Where does he conclude that studies accepting funding changes how they should be evaluated?--Nectar 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The source of the funding is important and should be mentioned. Again, this is often mentioned by critics and Wikipedia should include all significant views. "When Draper first founded the Fund in 1937, he was looking for "useful science." He was convinced that scientists had the answers he was looking for, but were too timid to admit the truth of race differences, Negro inferiority and the value of eugenics. From the 1960s to the 1990s the Fund has singled out individual academics whose work proved useful in the political struggles against integration, open immigration and other right wing causes. While organizations such as FAIR have received significant funding, preference has always been given to the more general purpose (or multi-purpose) scholarship supporting biological determinism, genetically based race differences, and eugenics."Ultramarine

Yes, we already know that the criticism of the Pioneer Fund is that it's pursuing these political goals through it's funding. What you need to provide before you can imply it in the article is note-worthy critics arguing that studies accepting this funding changes how they should be evaluated. David Lykken argues that's not the case: "If you can find me some rich villains that want to contribute to my research - Khaddaffi, the Mafia, whoever - the worse they are, the better I'll like it. I'm doing a social good by taking their money... Any money of theirs that I spend in a legitimate and honorable way, they can't spend in a dishonorable way." (1984) --Nectar 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Respected scientifc journals usually requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. There is no requirement for evidence that the science is flawed, the mere potential of bias is enough. Ultramarine 06:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Disclosure is already present in that section in the form of "[the pioneer fund is] the largest source of funding for proponents of the partly-genetic hypothesis." Editors on both sides have felt that it's unnecessary to change that section into ad hominems (e.g. "[Gould / Rushton] is a [Marxist / racist].")
 * Moreover, do we even have any sources arguing this funding creates conflicts of interest? Science writer Morton Hunt (and others) report a different picture: "One could spend hundreds of pages on the pros and cons of the case of the Pioneer Fund, but what matters to me--and should matter to my readers--is that I have been totally free to research and write as I chose.  I alerted Pioneer to my political views when making the grant proposal for this book but its directors never blinked."
 * Even Tucker went as far as to condemn ad hominems against Pioner grantees.--Nectar 06:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, respected scientifc journals usually requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. There is no requirement for evidence that the science is flawed, the mere potential of bias is enough. If there is no problem with the Pioneer Fund, then there should be no problem with mentioning that this is the source of funding? Ultramarine 07:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Your point about disclosure doesn't apply because disclosure is already present in that section in the form of "[the pioneer fund is] the largest source of funding for proponents of the partly-genetic hypothesis."
 * 2. This isn't siding with one POV, as the section doesn't name Gould as having the "conflict of interest" of "being a Marxist" (and both sides oppose these things).
 * 3. We can't argue Pioneer funding is a potential conflict of interest without a noteworthy reference making that argument (in fact, we have plenty of references arguing against that, including Tucker), so if a reference can be provided we can continue discussing this point.--Nectar 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The fact that all the major proponents have been funded from this source is remarkable and should be pointed out. 2. You can certainly add the Gould is a Marxist, if you want. I consider him an unimportant critic. 3. Again, there is no need for evidence of conflict of interest. That the Pioneer Fund may be biased is obvious considering its history, and Wikipedia allows obvious arguments. Otherwise it would just be a collection of quotes. Ultramarine 06:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be that Pioneer funding biases studies. That's a novel interpretation that, because it goes against the statements from defenders and critics alike, is not an obvious argument.--Nectar 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you name one opponent of the genetic hypothesis funded by them? That the Pioneer Fund support a certain view is obvious considering its history. That that funding may influence research is well-known, which is why respected journals require disclosure, regardless of there has been any evidence of misconduct or no. Again, Wikipedia allows obvious arguments. Otherwise it would just be a collection of quotes. Ultramarine 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We have many statements, even from Tucker, that the fund provides cash and then doesn't care what happens after that. On the other hand, we have your opinion that people are being bribed.  The default position is to go with the published statements available, which all contradict your interpretation. That's enough to settle the question, but if we were to ignore it, your argument that disclosure is not present would still not apply, as the section already states that the fund is the largest source of funding for this research. --Nectar 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2

 * POV: Counter-arguments excluded (Also Original researach) See the added graph from a subarticle. [[Image:1995-SAT-Education.png|right|thumb|356px|Family social-economic variables (education shown) are positively correlated with SAT scores. However, the score gap between races persists at all levels of family income and parental education. For example, in [[1995]] Black students from the highest income group have lower average SAT scores than White students from the lowest income group.]] Not mentioned is the counter-arguments from the subarticle: "IQ is correlated with economic factors. Blacks and Hispanics suffer poorer economic conditions than Whites. It has been suggested that the effects of poverty are responsible for some or all of the IQ gap. However, in the American Psychological Association report argue that economics cannot be the whole explanation. First, see the discussion in "Shared and nonshared environmental effects" below. Second, to the moderate extent that IQ and income are related, it appears that IQ determines income, and not the other way around . (Note there are many other potential environmental factors beside income.) Third, there are gaps in SAT scores that are slightly smaller but still persist for individuals with similar family income and parental education. This stability has suggested alternative explanations:


 * Some argue that Blacks are discriminated against such that they must have a higher or at least equal intelligence in order to achieve the same socioeconomic status (SES) as Whites. One should then expect that Black children should have a higher or equal IQ compared to children from Whites with the same SES. That they score lower on SAT tests can thus be interpreted as evidence for strong adverse influence from environmental factors different from SES or from SES factors other than income and parental education, like systematic discrimination discouraging school and achievement motivation and learning or cultural differences in nutrition like duration of breastfeeding.
 * It is possible that Black and Hispanic parents achieve higher SES with lower intelligence; perhaps by having (on average) greater amounts of a compensating character, or through affirmative action. However, affirmative action has lts largest effect on young people newly employed with lower income.
 * Another alternative explanation is that by comparing the SES of parents to the intelligence of their children, the score gap shown here reflects regression towards different average racial scores from one generation to the next; a partly-genetic origin of intelligence differences would predict this effect.
 * SAT scores correlate fairly well with IQ scores but they are not the same and may measure different things." Ultramarine 13:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) The observation that the B-W gap is not due to simple differences in education or income is part of the consensus statement, yet is difficult to understand if you don't see it directly. (2) The majority of these "counter-arguments" don't appear to be supported by citations, nor is a "counter-argument" needed for a consensus conclusion (that's uncontested in the scholarly literature). Moreover, it's important to understand why such exotic explanations as "being a caste-like minority" or "genetics" would even be proposed in the first place when simple SES differences would be the obvious explanation. --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is another consensus statement: "what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." The current text implies that SES is totally irrelevant. You simply dismiss all possible contribution from SES with the graph and "nor can they be explained by simple differences in socio-economic status." Npov requires including the above arguments and also studies supporting a partial role for SES.Ultramarine 00:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, if such arguments exist. I've never seen them. Those items listed above appear to be mostly original research or merely alternatives to SES. --Rikurzhen 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The above arguments are logically obvious and should be included. The paper "Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children" finds that the role of the environment is more important in poorer families. Again, the article now tries imply that SES has no role which is extremely POV.Ultramarine 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they're just random original research musings. I remember when you wrote them, before I was fully acquainted with the meaning of WP:NOR. Simple SES differences -- between rich and poor or between those with graduate degress and those without highschool diplomas -- do not in themselves account for the IQ gap. The gap is as large at the top as at the bottom. Whatever the heritability of IQ (be it zero or 100%), has no implications for this conclusion. Some sort of complex race-SES interaction may exist, which is not a simple SES difference. If this isn't clear, then we should make it clear. Sweeping this consensus conclusion under the carpet does a disservice to understanding all of the sophisticated theories which try to account for the gap. --Rikurzhen 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No sources are needed for obvious logical arguments. This is the view of the arbcom. Also, I see no paper that has used your arguments regarding SAT, so this seems to be your original research. Ultramarine 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1+1=2 is an obvious logical argument. Some argue that Blacks are discriminated against such that... is an unattributed statement. What argument about SAT? Are you asking whether the SAT is an IQ test? See Frey MC and Detterman DK. Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the SAT and general cognitive ability. Psychol Sci 2004. An simple editorial statement defining what simple SES differences impliles would be fine, a block of text of made up examples is inappropriate for summary style. --Rikurzhen 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I want a study that uses the above statistics regarding SAT scores as evidence against a SES explanation for racial differences in IQ.Ultramarine 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * mentions SAT in addition to IQ I believe (or maybe it's ), but the SAT data is a mere convenience as it is available on the internet and I can draw a GFDL licensed figure from it myself. --Rikurzhen 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So this is actually your original reserach. certainly does not use SAT scores as you have done to draw sweeping conclusions regarding SES.Ultramarine 01:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The conclusions of the consensus statement are that IQ differences (however you measure it, be it WAIS or the NAEP or the SAT) are not due to simple differences in SES (as they don't go away when you control for SES nor are they variant across SES). You can find such figures drawn for IQ in {AYref|Jensen|1998b}} for example. The SAT data and graph idea come from . --Rikurzhen 01:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The original research should be removed. You can of course use Jensen's data to redraw his figures. Using IQ data rather than indirect SAT scores would be far preferable and remove one of the objections.Ultramarine 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The SAT is an IQ test, a fact which is veriable as per I citation I mistakenly gave you above. And as you've kindly pointed out, it's a short logical step from IQ having a property, and SAT being identical to IQ, to SAT having that property. They merely serve as examples, not as the basis of an original argument. They should stay -- and this is absolutely tangential to the point you were originally making. You're just argument shopping now. --Rikurzhen 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This objection is far more serious than the original, although these objections will still apply if you can find data that supports you and redraws the graphs. The article now uses your own unpublished original research in order to dismiss the role of SES! Ultramarine 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This objection is baseless. "IQ test" is not a single thing, but a class of instruments for measuring cognitive abilities. It doesn't matter if it's WAIS, WISC, RPM, WPT, GRE or SAT, it's still a measure of cognitive ability. Your objection is like saying that you can't show example data collected with tape measures if the conclusions were based on data collected with yard sticks. --Rikurzhen 02:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

H&M's piece in TNR has a figure which I haven't seen, but I guess would look like the one from TBC (reproduced right). While this graph is more informative about the second part of the no simple SES explanation conclusion (that the gap is somewhere between constant and increasing with increaseing SES), the use of "SES deciles" is sure to lose most readers. Education is a much easier to understand measure of SES and the HOME scores that were probably used here. In this case, it's AFQT scores rather than SAT scores, but I can't see the advantage of preferring one to the other for the sake of a graphical example. One is typlically given to 10th graders, the other to 11 and 12th graders, both are measuring crystallized g: math, reading, analogies, etc. As for the source of using SAT to make this point, as far as I can remember La Griffe was the proximal source, as I modified the figures based on those he published. La Griffe reports that ''Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity'', which is why we're stuck with 1995 data, which is still the newest data I could find (newer than TBC or Jensen 1998). --Rikurzhen 07:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not contain original research because the reader may misundertand verifiable research! And SAT scores only have a correlation fo 0.76 with IQ. High, but certainly not the same thing.Ultramarine 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) The AFQT data is just harder to read. (2) This isn't a NOR violation because La Griffe published the SAT scores in this form to demonstrate the same point. (3) Are you famaliar with the range of correlations between two different IQ tests? The same IQ test given to the same person at different times? --Rikurzhen 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You link to a personal website that does not use the same categories or racial groups that you do in your original reserach. If you are going to dismiss SES, you need at least a peer-reviewed article! Again, Wikipedia should not contain original research because verifable research is "harder to read"! Regarding your questions, I guess you are trying to state some argument. If so, state it.Ultramarine 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The only argument presented in the graph itself is that the gap in cognitive ability test scores persists at all levels of SES. The argument in the caption, that simple differences in SES can't explain the gap, is attributed to the consensus statement, not La Griffe. As I see it, the only question then is if SAT scores can be substituted for IQ scores. It seems, based on Frey MC and Detterman DK, that SAT scores (even controlled for parental SES) can be considered in this context a sub-set of cognitive ability test scores, and they are of course regularly discussed in race and intelligence (see for example the consensus statement).--Nectar 01:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To summarize, an original research graph is used to dismiss SES. SAT score only have a correlation of 0.76 with IQ, it not the same thing. The counter-arguments mentioned at the beginning are excluded.Ultramarine 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is that of the APA statement, not a novel conclusion drawn from this graph. The graph is an example, not the basis for the conclusion. The data was reported by the College Board with the contrasts as shown in the graph, and La Griffe pointed out that this is another example of the same pattern seen many times before. There's every reason to treat data from the SAT like any other IQ test. Two different IQ tests only tend to correlate with one another in the .7 - .8 range, which is why Frey and Detterman concluded that the SAT is a defacto IQ test.
 * A listing of possibly NOR-violating theories about complex explanations for the failure to see a simple connection between SES and the IQ gap are inappropriate for the main article -- there's plenty of non-original material that expands on this conclusion in the sections that follow the graph. --Rikurzhen 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3 (done)

 * Dubious "In a 1987 survey of scholars in specialties related to IQ" The scholars were psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists. This information has repeatedly been deleted. Stating "scholars in specialties related to IQ" is at least misleading, sociologists and educators may well know nothing about this. It is implied that this is the opinion of the researchers on IQ and this survey is used as a evidence against the APA consensus statement "what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dubious? I've read their book and at one time manually transcribed the lists of professional organizations from which they sampled experts into the talk page. There's an option for "don't know" on every question to account for a lack of knowledge on most questions. --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * People usually have opinions on lot of things they know little about. Again, the specialities should be mentioned. Let Wikipedia readers form their own opionon.Ultramarine 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a different issue. We don't have room to write everything in the main article. It's my opinion that this is one of the details that adds less value than the room it takes is worth. (It appears that link in that sentence takes you directly to that list of organizations.) --Rikurzhen 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The text misleadingly implies that this is view of IQ researchers and is used as evidence against the consensus statement. Again, the specialities should be mentioned. Let Wikipedia readers form their own opionon. Ultramarine 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Education, Psychology, Sociology, and Cognitive Science are the disciplines listed in the sub-article. If you listed those, what people considered IQ experts would be missing? --Rikurzhen 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If this statements are so identical, why are you so reluctant to give this more detailed information and let the readers decide for themselves? Ultramarine 00:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I think I've been confusing this thread with the one below it. (I should have realized this when I wrote That's a different issue.) I have no problem with stating which specialities were surveyed, but it should be pointed out that the authors chose these groups because they considered them experts. --Rikurzhen 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ultramarine 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

4 (done)

 * POV: Hidden counter-argument Again, regarding this 1987 survery. Hidden in footnotes in one place or not mentioned at all at the other place "Whether this still applies today is unknown." Ultramarine 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That counter-argument isn't a counter-argument. It's an editorial statement about our own ignorance of further studies, not a positive (and NOR-violating) statement about there being reason to suspect things have changed. --Rikurzhen
 * The claims from this survey are prominently and in length discussed at two different places in the article. Obviously opinions in the press can change greatly in twenty years. The age of the study should be pointed out in order to achieve NPOV.Ultramarine 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it does say the age of the study, or rather the year of publication. It's my opinion that editorial commentary of this kind is best left to the footnotes. We can offer no citations to support the claim that "Whether this still applies today is unknown", it may in fact be known to someone else and just not us, and so it is borderline original research. --Rikurzhen 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The text tries to imply that this still applies today. This is pov. No source is needed for an obvious logical statement, otherwise Wikipedia would just contain citations.Ultramarine 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, it's three sentences written in the past tense with a big blue 1988 at the start of the first sentence. The conclusion that things may have changed is no more an a priori truth than the statement that things may have stayed the same. What is the point of making either statement sentence number 4? --Rikurzhen 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

5

 * Original reserach. Regarding studies arguing against the genetic explanation, this is stated without source: "Hereditarians argue that these studies are flawed, or that they do support the partly-genetic hypothesis." Ultramarine 13:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a summary section: we don't need references for everything. We can append a partial list of references, including, , , etc... --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Having look at Rushton's "arguments", I am just amazed that his article could pass peer-review. Did the reviewers fail statistics 101? What is this? "Results from some other types of studies are also consistent with that hypothesis. In her review, Shuey (1966) found that in 16 of 18 studies in which skin color could be used as a proxy for amount of admixture, Blacks with lighter skin color averaged higher scores than those with darker skin, although the magnitude of the association was quite low (r =.10)."!!! Ultramarine 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, you've changed the subject. I assume you now agree that this is not original research. That said, I agree with Charles Murray (and the heart of your own comment) that all of the so-called "direct evidence" is of little or no value at all. From my reading of the genetics literature, skin color is a poor measure of admixture among African Americans. The opinions being summarized in the sentence you quoted from the main article are about criticisms aimed at things like the WWII children born to Black American fathers and the Scarr and Weinberg interpretation of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, and other such admixture/adoption/etc studies. --Rikurzhen 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rushton is trying to frame this study as evidence for his position! Your opinion is not very interesting. If the ab~ove is Rushton's argument, then he should have stated it, not claiming that the study supported him! Again, Amazing that the peer review process allowed to pass. Ultramarine 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Perhaps this sentence needs a footnote to point out what it actually refers to. The do support the partly-genetic hypothesis was meant to refer to the Minessota transracial adoption study, not this admixture crap. --Rikurzhen 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is false. These statements follow immediately after one another.Ultramarine 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. The sentence says that so called "direct measures" are flawed (such as the WWII thing) or actually support genetics (such as the MTRAS). What does this have to do with Rushton's statement? --Rikurzhen 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * as far as I can tell, the conclusion of the R&J 2005 review is that Although the studies of racial hybrids are generally consistent with the genetic hypothesis, to date they are not conclusive. They certainly discuss quite a few studies, pro and con their position, and point out flaws in many of them. I don't see anything incongruent between the what we've described as their views in the main article and what they say in the review. --Rikurzhen 07:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As noted above, Rushton and Jensen just grossly misrepresent the studies opposing them. Ultramarine 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As with 8 and 9, "I disagree" with Rushton and Jensen is not a concern for a WP article. NPOV takes that kind of concern out of our hands. --Rikurzhen 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

6
[outdent]Can you substantiate your claims about Hamilton's large controversiality?
 * POV: Repeatedly deleted "in Northern Ireland the IQ gap between Protestants and Catholics is as large as that between Blacks and Whites in the US."
 * Has anyone seen this written anywhere but on that partisan website? --Rikurzhen 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thomas Sowell has written vaguely about related data which could substitute -- can we find details? --Rikurzhen 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can include the trade book IQATHWON, then we can include this.Ultramarine 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Partisan web sites are the primary example given by WP:RS as unreliable sources. We need some kind of corroboration or alternative. This Sowell text sounds promising and is clearly reliable. --Rikurzhen 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It lists its sources. Partisan trade books are equally unreliable.Ultramarine 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-notable web sites by definition fail the requirements of WP:RS. There are already identifiable mistakes on that page.  I see The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (2003), edited by Helmuth Nyborg, has a chapter written by Lynn and refers to Lynn on 57 different pages (42 occuring in chapters by other authors), including reference to a cognitive ability study by Lynn conducted on Africans. Also note the citations of Lynn Rikurzhen listed above: Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth (2001; 4 citations), Race, evolution, and behavior (2000; 61 citations), Race, IQ and Jensen (1980; 15 citations), The G Factor: the Science of Mental Ability (1998; 544 citations), or even Handbook of intelligence (2000; 55 citations).  I can't see how Lynn would be a reliable source for a well-reviewed survey of the field like Nyborg's book, but not for this article. Blanket condemnations, at the very least, are out of the question.--Nectar 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There were numerous factual errors in the trade book, including direct misreporting of IQ scores. If that can be included, then this can also.Ultramarine 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lynn is an academic who is reliable enough to be highly cited in his field. Your quarrel is with the psychometricians who cite him, and you're welcome to take it up with them. Regarding the known transcription errors, it doesn't seem likely that 100 studies identifying a trend all have transcription errors in the same direction, and nobody has made that claim. --Nectar 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is what another researcher thinks about Lynn: "Anyone who uses Richard Lynn's national IQ values should be aware that this data is "massaged"; either that, or Lynn doesn't know elementary arithmetic." Ultramarine 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Dienekes is not making the highly unlikely argument that 100 studies identifying a trend all have transcription errors in the same direction. Dienekes' argument (about Lynn's old book) is merely that there were transcription errors as high as 2.4 IQ points.
 * The existence of vastly more important researchers who support Lynn, such as W. D. Hamilton, means blanket condemnations are undeniably out of the question. (Hamilton calls him in a review of another of his books "brave, thick-skinned, and very persistent to swim against. . . popular antirealistic currents," and states "Lynn. . . does an excellent job with the facts."--Nectar 11:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the very controversial Hamilton, see 15. Dienkes finds 5 errors out 19 original IQ scores in a single study made in Europe. Now the IQ scores in Europe are relatively well known and harder to "massage". What has happened with the IQ scores from the developing world? Ultramarine 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lynn's data is just as easily checked whether the original study is from Europe or the developing world. Note that Dienekes couldn't find a pattern to the transcription errors, so "massaged" is merely inventive rhetorical flourish. Even if you add 5 point transcription errors (twice what Dienekes found), all amazingly occuring in the right direction throughout 100 studies, the general trend is very clear. --Nectar 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very ironic that criticism of Lynn is being tied to this issue as Lynn is claimed to be the ultimate source of the Ireland IQ numbers. On that point however, a news story says Lynn actually finds a 3.5 point gap between Scotland/Ireland and England/Wales.
 * Professor Richard Lynn said the Scots average IQ of 97 was well below the England and Wales average of 100.5 and on a par with the Republic of Ireland. London and the south-east of England scored top in the UK, with an average IQ of 102.

This is even more reason to want to find independent reliable verification of this 15 point gap claim. --Rikurzhen 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

7

 * Dubious "Indeed, even proponents of a partly genetic interpretation of the IQ gap, such as Rushton and Jensen (2005a) and Gottfredson (2005b), argue that their interpretation does not in itself demand any particular policy response" They have in other places argued against for example school integration and affirmative action.Ultramarine 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a fact about the world in and of itself demanding a policy response and a fact about the world combined with an ethical preference demanding a policy response. --Rikurzhen 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This raises some deep philosophical questions. The text should be changed since it misleadingly implies a policy that Rushton and Jensen actually do not advocate. Ultramarine 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what they advocate, but I know what they and Gottfredson wrote in the papers cited. --Rikurzhen 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Their real views have been documented in the literature on the Pioneer Fund, like Tucker's book. Rushton and Jensen certainly advocate very specific policies, so the above statement is incorrect or at least extremely misleadsing.Ultramarine 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you offering to expand that section for us? --Rikurzhen 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Wait a second! I just read the half of that sentence that you didn't copy here. It explains exactly what I explained about alternative policy implications coming from the same fact but different policy preferences using the example of affirmative action. I missed this because I was only reading what you copied here, but surely you must have read it when you copied half of that sentence. Isn't that exactly what you claimed was missing? --Rikurzhen 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, even proponents of a partly genetic interpretation of the IQ gap, such as Rushton and Jensen (2005a) and Gottfredson (2005b), argue that their interpretation does not in itself demand any particular policy response: while a conservative/libertarian commentator may feel the results justify reductions in affirmative action, a liberal commentator may argue from a Rawlsian point of view (that genetic advantages are undeserved and unjust) for substantial affirmative action[80]." This is still misleading regarding what Rushton and Jensen themselves actually advocate regarding policy.Ultramarine 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider this the minimal description of this topic. I don't find the topic of individual scientists' policy proposals all that interesting, but you should go ahead and expand that section, which has yet to grow to the level of needing summary style restrictions. --Rikurzhen 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

8

 * Dubious "worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size" The evidence regarding "worldwide" differences in IQ is weak and the evidence regarding "worldwide" differences in reaction time and brain size almost nonexistent.Ultramarine 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence begins "To support these claims, they most often cite". --Rikurzhen 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Still dubious and npov requires mentioning this.Ultramarine 13:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As per (9) below, the structure of this section is: salient argument for each position in their own subsection and direct rebuttals limited to a single sentence. If the denial of this claim is a major argument cited for a cultural explanation, then it should be written in that section. I don't believe it is. --Rikurzhen 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dd2 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Again, extremelyh few studies show "worldwide" differences in reation time and brain size, the US is not the world. Misleading to show studies on IQ. Misleading to show studies done in the US when we are talking "worldwide". Ultramarine 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, here is a selection of studies showing worldwide race differences in IQ, brain size, and reaction time.


 * Has anyone actually disputed Rushton, Jensen, et al's claim of "worldwide" differences in writing? (Not that this should stop us from reporting their claim as such.) --Rikurzhen 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There has certainly been lots of criticism regarding the worldwide claims for IQ, although there is some evidence for this. Would you please list the studies done in the developing world on reaction time and brain size? Ultramarine 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As an example, regarding brain size, critic Zack Cernovsky refers to a study that "showed that cranial size varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equator), not race." (He uses this as an argument against Rushton's contention that differences in brain size are due to varying degrees of r/K selection).


 * Regarding cross-cultural reaction time, here are 3 example cross-cultural investigations of reactions times, together covering caucasoids, and mongoloids and negroids in their native countries:
 * Lynn, R. and Shigehasa, T. (1991)(above).
 * Lynn, Chan, and Eysenck (1991) Reaction times and intelligence in Chinese and British children. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
 * Lynn and Holmshaw (1990). Black-white differences in reaction times and intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality.--Nectar 11:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Studies on some very limited populations in two nations is not evidence for "worldwide differences". Here is a study disputing the claims.Ultramarine 16:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The three reaction time studies I gave are cross-cultural studies that cover 5 nations. Given that this is the expected result in that it agrees with world-wide cognitive ability and brain size differences, this is enough to show that in the hereditarians argument there's no reason to think Africans in Africa have better reaction times than Africans in the U.S. or Britain, or that Chinese in China have worse reaction times than Chinese in the U.S. or Britain.


 * Your reference to Cernovsky (the author of the article you link to) appears to refer to this sentence: Jensen's recent claims about racial differences in reaction time are biased and might lack in scientific integrity (Kamin & Grant-Henry, 1987). That's fine, because there are other studies that confirm Jensen's non cross-cultural results. Note that the genetics section has a sentence summarizing the standard criticisms, just as the cultural section does: "Critics of this view, such as Robert Sternberg, argue that these studies are flawed and thus inconclusive or that they support the culture-only hypothesis."  There's no reason to state "critics argue their opponents arguments are flawed" after every point in both the cultural and the genetic sections.--Nectar 17:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. It should certainly be clearly stated how weak the evidence for "worldwide" differences in reaction time and brain size is. 5 nations is cerainly not the world. 2. There is every reason to believe that blacks in Africa may be different from those in the US, the later are not a random sample of those in Africa. A very select group become slaves. Ultramarine 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That would first depend on there being a reference to support the claim that the evidence is weak for having only looked at 5 countries (per NPOV), and second the considerations of SummaryStyle imply to me that the number of countries backing Rushton and Jensen's claim (given that it's >1) is not important for a summary section. It would be a point to consider putting somewhere if someone published the criticism that 5 does not support the claim of "worldwide", but SummaryStyle implies that the sub-article (or if it's urgent, a footnote) would receive that detail, as this article can't handle back-and-forth. --Rikurzhen 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Variation in 5 African, European, and Asian countries does indeed represent global variation (that conforms to expected patterns), even if from a limited sample. These 3 studies are the ones Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior references. Other works, such as Jensen's the g Factor may reference additional studies. 2. African, European, and Asian Americans are related populations to Africans, Europeans, and Asians, which can be seen in many traits.--Nectar 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

9 (Done but note how Rushton and Jensen misrepresent this!)

 * Dubious or Npov"race differences are most pronounced on tests that are the best measures of g, which also show the highest heritability (see Spearman's hypothesis)" Very misleading, from the subarticle "Dolan and Hamaker 2001 have reanalyzed the data from several previous studies (Jensen and Reynolds 1982; Naglieri and Jensen 1987) that used the statistical method invented by Jensen (the method of correlated vectors) with a more recent and improved method (multigroup confirmatory factor analysis). Their results statistically were consistent with the weak form of Spearman's hypothesis that black-white group differences were predominantly on the g factor. However, their analysis of the data set failed to "establish Spearman's hypothesis as an empirically established fact". They also speculate that "it is possible that the analysis of all available data sets ... will demonstrate that a model incorporating the weak version of Spearman's hypothesis provides the best description of the data."[8] This leaves the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, considered a central justification for the genetic explanation, an unresolved question." Ultramarine 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence begins "To support these claims, they most often cite". --Rikurzhen 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedis should not contain incorrect statements on factual topics, even is someone has stated them.Ultramarine 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, that's one big dose of your opinion about the meaning of the research they cite. I happen to directly disagree with your assement of the data. But that's not important because what you're suggesting is nothing like and in direct contradiction to the meaning of NPOV. --Rikurzhen 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only giving one view is POV. Especially when that view has been shown to be incorrect by other researchers.Ultramarine 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a section describing the arguments made in favor of a genetic explanation. The other section is supposed to describe arguments made in favor of a cultural explanation. A brief sentence of mutual disagreement was included in each section. This is the only way to cover this material in a brief manner. There's a sub-article where full descriptions are made. We can only summarize that article. --Rikurzhen 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So the subarticles are used as a POV fork while keeping the arguments from one side in the main article. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. Dubious statements like this should not be allowed without an opposing view in the main article but should be moved the subarticles where all views are presented, if there is lack of space in the main article.Ultramarine 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Look at the article! There's an entire section called Cultural explanations for positive arguments for a cultural explanation which comes before the section you pulled this quote from. In that section, a single sentence marks the disagreement of hereditarians with pro-culture arguments. The pro-genetics argument is presented in the section titled Genetic explanations, which also includes a single sentence marking disagreement by critics of hereditarianism. There's not enough room in a summary section for describing repeated reciprocal back and forth disagreement, which as Lulu described in a recent thread would lead to infinite recursion. If you think skepticism about Spearman's hypothesis is an important argument for the main article, then it belongs in the culture section. However, the culture section is already swelling in size. We need only the most salient info in the main article presented in the absolutely most concise way possible. IMHO, a paper which concludes that it can neither confirm nor deny a hypothesis and that it needs to examine a larger data set to get statistical power is not germane to the main article. Before the recent expansion, I had the entire pro-genetics argument down to a single paragraph with the added sentence of disagreement, and the entire summary section for casual hypotheses was only three paragraphs long. --Rikurzhen 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Spearman's hypothesis is the very cornerstone of the genetic argument. Leaving out this argument is extremely pov. Most of the rest of the article should be deleted before this.Ultramarine 01:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * At present, the text says that critics of the partly-genetic hypothesis reject all of the claims made by supports of the hypothesis: Critics of this view, such as Robert Sternberg, argue that these studies are flawed and thus inconclusive or that they support the culture-only hypothesis. If the results of Dolan and Hamaker (2001) are so important, then you should be able to find a critic of the partly genetic hypothesis who says as much and cite them in the section of arguments for a cultural hypothesis. --Rikurzhen 01:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Help! This is what Rushton's writes about this study "The results statistically confirmed the conclusion derived from the method of correlated vectors regarding a “weak form” of Spearman’s hypothesis: Black–White group differences were predominantly on the g factor" Here is what is actually stated: "On the basis of the present, as well as other results (Dolan, 2000), we are convinced that the Spearman correlation cannot be used to demonstrate the importance of g in b-w differences with any confidence." and "It is possible that the analysis of all available data sets (perhaps using an appropriate meta-analytic procedure) will demonstrate that a model incorporating the weak version of Spearman's hypothesis provides the best description of the data. However, until this work is undertaken, we cannot accept Spearman's hypothesis as an "empirically established fact" How can anyone believe anything that he writes??? Ultramarine 02:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

10 (done)

 * Dubious or POV"regression to differing means for different races (No known environmental factor can have this effect)." Even Rushton and Jensen admit that this is possible.Ultramarine 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (No known environmental factor can have this effect) is AFAIK false. It's more like, no environmental theory would have predicted this effect, but only in the sibling regression data, the parent-child regression would be predicted I would think. --Rikurzhen 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed. Ultramarine 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11

 * POV: Removal of important contradicting information The article in two different place mentions some studies showing different frequency at different geographich locations for some genes that may be involved in the brain. Repeatedly deleted is that this distribution do not follow the claimed IQ distribution for different "racial" groups and that different populations are likely to utilize different alleles to respond to similar evolutionary pressures. Ultramarine 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would a reader misinterpret "occur in different frequencies in different global populations" as specifically referring to "different races"? It wouldn't be a big deal, though, to replace that phrase with "strongly biogeographic distributions between Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and (indigenous) South America."--Nectar 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New paper has found a couple more brain size alleles under selection with differences between populations: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 --Rikurzhen 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Obvious POV to exclude this distribution do not follow the claimed IQ distribution for different "racial" groups and that different populations are likely to utilize different alleles to respond to similar evolutionary pressures. Ultramarine 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Re "obvious POV." The genetic explanation section currently states exactly what the distribution is, so readers can probably see for themselves what the distribution is. If you're talking about the race section, "strongly biogeographic distributions between [continents]" has zero implication of how that distribution might match various predictions.
 * 2) This new study found a microcephaly allele that had been selected for in Africans and not Europeans and East Asians, so the section needs to be updated.--Nectar 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For readers not familiar with the topic it will be very difficult to keep in mind and compare the distribution of both these genes and that of claimed IQ. The difference should be clearly pointed out. Ultramarine 07:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

12

 * POV: Undue weight Several of the arguments for genetic position are repeated several times in the article and outside the section where it is supposed to be. Examples include [1] the studies about some genes that may be involved in the brain and [2] the 1987 Survery. (As noted earlier above, at the same time excluding that [3] the distribution do not follow claimed racial differences in IQ and excluding that [4] the age of the survey makes it unknown if the results still apply today) This while at the same time [5] deleting information about the Pioneer Fund from the history section. Or as noted earlier [6] making the subarticles into POV-forks while keeping information from one side in the main article.Ultramarine 19:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) It would be hard to not discuss that there are genetic differences between races in the race section.
 * (2)The 1987 survey is discussed in the expert opinion section and the media portrayal section. It would be hard to not note the results of the 1987 survey in the media portrayal section when comparing the results of the survey with media portrayal.  Prior to your edits some time ago, the media portrayal section didn't emphasize the 1987 survey as much.
 * (3)The genetic explanation section currently states exactly what the distribution is, so readers can probably see for themselves what the distribution is. If you're talking about the race section, "strongly biogeographic distributions between [continents]" has zero implication of how that distribution might match various predictions.
 * (4)This is discussed above.
 * (5)(a) Your addition was:
 * "The Pioneer fund has supported much of the partially-genetic research and has a controversial history with critics arguing that many associated persons have supported racism."
 * (b) I changed that to:
 * "Biological perspectives on behavior in general had fallen out of favour following WWII in relation to schools such as behaviorism. The controversial Pioneer Fund played some role supporting biological perspectives until they returned to prominence in the late 20th century. . (See also below)"
 * The Neisser reference is based on his quote: "Lynn's claim is exaggerated but not entirely without merit: 'Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science.'"
 * My edit summary was: "if pioneer is included here, this is the impact its funding has had in the history of this and related fields. "
 * (c) I then removed the reference to Pioneer stating "the pioneer fund's impact isn't on the same level as the publication of Jensen's 1969 paper or Gould's MoM."
 * (6) Discussed above.--Nectar 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (2) Note that Snyderman and Rothman had two publications on surveys of opinion about IQ: the 1987 "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing" in American Psychologist, and the 1988 book The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. The content of the 1987 survey is re-reported in the 1988 book. It's the 1988 book which is being cited in the Media portrayal section, and the 1987 article which is cited in the Expert opinion section. (I've tried to fix the date in the Media portrayal section a few times, but it always seems to get put back to 1987.) --Rikurzhen 01:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The gene findings need only be mentioned in one place, I do not understand why it is mentioned in the race section which is supposed to state a definition. Similarly the survey should be condensed, maybe to one section about media and expert opinion. Ultramarine 07:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The race section covers the discussion about whether or not race exists biologically. That neural differences exist among races clearly has implications for the question of race in the context of race and intelligence.
 * 2. Many of the discussions of race and intelligence in the literature begin with reference to the difficulty of knowing what's what in this area. This is probably considered necessary because most people's prior ideas of this area are based on popular misinformation, as discussed in Snyderman and Rothman 1988 and seen in Sackett et al. 2004.  Thus, before discussing whether or not this research has utility, the article currently addresses the popular misinformation on this topic.  Along these lines, Gregory Stock's treatment of the subject, for example, begins with:
 * These are highly charged matters, and they have been the object of enormous debate and misinformation. Whether it is the 1994 bestseller The Bell Curve, in which Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray argued that genetics is responsible for most of the racial differences in IQ test scores, or the aggressive rebuttals by Stephen Jay Gould and others, the arguments are hard to evaluate and harder still to untangle from the political and social biases of their advocates. (Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, 2002, p. 44)
 * --Nectar 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

13

 * POV: Removed Imagine if something like this war removed when commenting on research showing no adverse health effects from smoking: "In accord with the tax regulations governing nonprofit corporations, Pioneer does not fund individuals; under the law only other nonprofit organizations are appropriate grantees. As a consequence, many of the fund's awards go not to the researchers themselves but to the universities that employ them, a standard procedure for supporting work by academically based scientists. However, in addition to these awards to the universities where its grantees are based, Pioneer has also made a number of grants to other nonprofit organizations, essentially dummy corporations created solely to channel Pioneer's resources directly to a particular academic recipient—a mechanism apparently designed to circumvent the institution where the researcher is employed.
 * Although the fund typically gives away more than half a million dollars per year, there is no application form or set of guidelines. Instead an applicant merely submits "a letter containing a brief description of the nature of the research and the amount of the grant requested." There is no requirement for peer review of any kind; Pioneer's board of directors—two attorneys, two engineers, and an investment broker—decides, sometimes within a day, whether a particular research proposal merits funding. Once the grant has been made, there is no requirement for an interim or final report or even for an acknowledgment by a grantee that Pioneer has been the source of support, all atypical practices in comparison to other organizations that support scientific research ." Ultramarine 13:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * These paragraphs in their present form are just many details about the fund's administrative functioning. Is there a reason to discuss them, or, in other words, are the details in support of an argument or thesis?  Tucker's argument appears to be that "Pioneer's administrative procedures are as unusual as its charter."  However, a fund having unusual procedures is not itself relevant to this article.  An argument about those procedures, such as that they mean Pioneer is racist, would be relevant.--Nectar 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, imagine that this was research showing no adverse effects from smoking and that this research had been funded by the tobacco industry in this way. Obviously this should be pointed out.Ultramarine 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a (non-original) argument to report about these details beyond that they're "unusual," as Tucker argues, there's no reason (argument) to include them in the article.--Nectar 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

14

 * POV: RemovedWhen Rushton's claimed supporting references were examined they were found to include a nonscientific semipornographic book and an article in Penthouse Forum. Ultramarine 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that those two non-scientific references agreed with the results of his and others' studies on variation in penis size among ethnicities. Variation in penis size is not discussed in this article.--Nectar 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Rushton thinks it is related to IQ. Ultramarine 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If we ever reference the characteristics Rushton surveys that appear in the same order as IQ differences, such as primary and secondary sexual characteristics, we can rely on the hundreds of scientific studies he references, rather than on a penthouse article. Problem solved?--Nectar 10:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, Rushton's claims have been thoroughly debunked. For example, the latest meta-analysis find no evidence for his claim that blacks are more psychopathic. Ultramarine 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rushton surveyed the studies available on more than 60 characteristics. The issue is probably more complicated than blanket condemnations. For example: "The World Health Organization bases its specifications for condom width on consumer preference and penis size, citing three studies. Taken together, the studies show significant variations in penis size within all population groups, but also indicate that men of African descent on average have a slightly wider and longer penis size, Caucasian men have a medium size, and Asian men a slightly narrower and shorter size. (WHO)"Family Health International --Nectar 13:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously no one denies that there are physical differences. What is serious is the unscientific methods that Rushton uses, which the above is just one example of. Ultramarine 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the point that Cernovsky was trying to make by making the claim about a nonscientific semipornographic book and an article in Penthouse Forum? He makes the claim as if it's meaning were obvious, but given the information Nectar has presented here, I'm not sure what it is supposed to demonstrate. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

15
The text states: "Some scientists, including W. D. Hamilton, [24] considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century," and a long quote in the footnotes. Exluded is " (and controversial, thought that the origin of the AIDS epidemic lay in oral polio vaccines)," Ultramarine 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * POV: Removed
 * Hamilton's support for the OPV AIDS hypothesis doesn't seem to deserve mention in any summary of his notability that's less than one paragraph long, and it's irrelevant to this topic.--Nectar 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * POV to have a long statement glorifying him and not the opposite view. Ultramarine 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hamilton is, in fact, a prestigious evolutionary theorist. If a reference discussing his overbearing controversiality can be provided, we can continue this point.--Nectar 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

16
"Speculations about innate differences in group intelligence as an explanation for different cultural achievement have a long history. J. B. S. Haldane claims that the Moors who invaded Europe in the Middle Ages thought the Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought. Southern Europeans long had had their doubts about northern Europeans -- Cicero warned the Romans not to purchase the British as slaves because they were so difficult to train (Sowell, 1994, p. 156); though Caesar did feel they "had a certain value for rough work," Arguments about Northern Europeans removed, very interesting about this supposedly high IQ group. Ultramarine 07:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * POV: Removed
 * That version looks like plagiarism, but we can't not copy Nisbett's wording because we only have the inadequate amount of information he gives us. We would need to check his references. Discussed below: .--Nectar 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The following copied from another discussion

(1) Let's read sources carefully. Nisbett doesn't say anything about "explanation[s] for different cultural achievement."

(2) Non-scientific speculation of this sort is likely found in most or all cultures. An occurence one thousand years ago doesn't add to contemporary data, though it does provide the insight that cultures have a tendency to make such speculation, implying this could be the case today (in which case the statement should be in the Cultural section). Note that the "British" of Cicero and Caeser's time were a different people than the substantially Anglo-Saxon etc. "British" of today.

(3) "Had their doubts" and "difficult to train" don't constitute a claim about congenital intelligence, and Nisbett doesn't state that.
 * 1. The Arabs and the Roman republic had a more advanced culture than Europe and Northern Europe at these times. Obvious logical arguments are allowed in Wikipedia, otherwise it would be only a collection of quotes.
 * 2. I disagree, it should be in the history section or best in the between nations sections. The inhabitants of England at this time were certainly "white".
 * 3Looking at the context in the original article, Nisbett clearly argues that this is a similar case to that of the Moors. Ultramarine 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Even if we just compare the Iberian Moors with their neighbors (that is, not counting the existence of the Eastern Roman Empire), it doesn't seem easy to say there was a significant gap in the level of the two civilizations. I'd like to rely on references if we're going to argue that there's a noteworthy history of cultures attributing differences in cultural achievement to innate differences in intelligence. (We're arguing it's a noteworthy trend by including it.) As it is right now, we wouldn't have any examples to support such an argument. (This is regarding whether to include the version at the top of this section or the version presently in the article "Speculations about innate differences in group intelligence have a long history.")
 * 2. In order for it to be in the History section, non-scientific speculation would need to be historically noteworthy.  The two examples we have didn't have any noteworthy historical impact.  Otherwise, I think we mean the section World-wide Scores rather than Between Nations, because this argument doesn't have to do with the significance of national differences.  However, I think the argument under discussion doesn't bear on world-wide differences themselves (the subject of that section), but rather supports the Cultural explanation (because cultures have a tendency to attribute lower innate intelligence to other cultures and which cultures those are changes over time).
 * 3. He may imply that argument without stating it, but there's no support given for such an argument.  Other peoples have been considered difficult slaves for characteristics other than innate intelligence deficits.--Nectar 02:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing the referenced passages in the Flynn and Sowell books could solve these problems.--Nectar 02:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

End copy

1. That the Arabs had an advanced culture at this time is well known. Here is something online:

2. Cicero and Caesar are certainly famous and noteworthy. Nisbett is a well-known critic. However, I agree that it may be better in the cultural section.

3. Which people and who has claimed this? Ultramarine 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

tag

 * 1) 8 and #9 appear to be the points still disputed; do people think we can just remove those two sentences until the points are resolved, rather than label the entire article disputed?--Admissions 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We cannot remove those two sentences, as they are key information. I would repeat again that personal disbelief in this context is not a basis for NPOV objections. As written, the text is accurate and NPOV -- it's written as x is cited by hereditarians as support for the genetic hypothesis, not as x is evidence for the genetic hypothesis. Even if we could demonstrate on the talk page that they were mistaken, we would still have to write what we've written. Unless some has something else to object to, we appear to be done with the tag. --Rikurzhen 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly still dispute all points excepted as stated in them. Ultramarine 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You've had time to make 200 edits since conversation stopped here. If you have any reason for the NPOV tag to remain, please bring it up in a timely manner (remember, this article is live). Cheers, Nectar 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the article-level tag is being overused. I continue to have some issues with the article, and it tends to creep in the direction of pro-hereditarian and reductionist POV relatively quickly if Ultramarine, me, or a couple others don't object strongly to many such additions.  Nonetheless, slapping an NPOV or fact tag the whole article because of some relatively limited issues goes much too far.  The bulk of the article has remained fairly factual and neutrally POV.  I think using section-pov tags, at most, is much more appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Serious issues remains regarding the whole article as noted above. That the opposing side have written the last word regarding some dispute do not mean I agree. However, I agree that maybe it would be better to have specific tags in each section that describes exactly what the dispute is about. Ultramarine 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you've had time to make 250 edits since the last contribution was made to the NPOV discussion. If you have anything more to add, it's welcome. Otherwise, the tag is disagreed with by editors on both sides, and not every disagreement with articles requires a tag.--Nectar 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have had time to correct the errors and pov but have not done so. The disagreement remains. The editors who are pushing this are mainly those who seem to spend all their time editing race related articles from a particular POV. Ultramarine 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * correct the errors and pov -- Oh come now, that's begging the question. I don't think there are errors or POV problems, and it seems that Nectar is generally of the same opinion. It's not just that I think there are POV problems but disagree with your solution, it's that what you call POV issues I think aren't even POV issues. Disagreeing with a published opinion (so long as its attributed and neutrally described) is not a POV problem, it's completely outside the pervue of WP. The other issue seems to be that you would like to see each hereditarian argument indiviudally refuted, which is simply impossible given space constraints; the sub-article where that is done is actually (slightly) bigger than this entire article. Accepting this constract, I am satisfied with seeing the best arguments for culture and the best arguments for genetics written as they are with a single instance of noting the disagreement. Anyone who wants to read the subarticle can, but otherwise they should just get the executive summary. --Rikurzhen 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When editors on both sides of an issue disagree with a tag, it's the responsibility of the claimant to advance his or her own arguments and thereby convince other editors. If you're concerned about editors' POVS, ironically (given the disputes that sometimes have occurred), this article has been written entirely by left-of-center editors, with the exception of a couple of editors who periodically have participated on the talk page.--Nectar 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely false.
This article is completely false.Oh my God this is really really unbelievable and 100% untrue. This is just another white racist propaganda against the blacks no doubt it was written by a white american.

I have withnessed on the average over 18 times seen a lot of different black students in a single school get top scores in class during tests with white and asian pupils in it. And this is really true.

So i dont know where most whites get the idea that they are generally more intelligent than blacks. probably they think that because many black countries are poor. But there are many white countries too like that like those many communist european countries that have a poorer economy than than most countries africa.

This is just the same white american article we see almost everyday saying blacks are the poorest,blacks are not intelligent,AIDs came from blacks, Blacks are the most curropt and so on. Creating an indoctrinated teaching to put the blacks down as usual. White Americans must not be trusted because they are racist themselves. I am beginning to loose confidence on a white mans propaganda article because they have no solid evidence to prove anything they are posting.

This article is completely false and racist.

No it is not. It is the scientific truth. A recent comprehensive review by experts in the field just confirmed once again:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php

The article reads:

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.'''

'''Summary: Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

So there is no controversy, no false assumptions, no propaganda. It is a simple fact of life and the sooner we accept it the better off for humanity. Asians and whites are smarter, period. Blacks are dumb, period. That is not to say that blacks are useless in modern society. Blacks have unique talents in other areas such as sports (physical prowess) and arts. So blacks will be always indispensable in jobs that require physical strength, etc.'''

Mamadasll 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this article is nothing but "White racist propaganda" then why is it admitting that East Asians and Jews score higher than Whites? And that East Asians average larger brains than Whites?  You say there is "no solid evidence".  Did you see Race and intelligence (References)? And isn't your claim "White Americans must not be trusted" itself racist?  Dd2 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it unfortunate that people should use emotional language ("oh my god") when trying to make an accademic point, and this user does not help the case by providing noreferences or backup for the claims apart from annecdotal comments apparently from their memory.
 * However it is also unfortunate, and I would say, lamentable that someone contributing to this article would say that "blacks are dumb". There is no supporting references given for using this word, and those who have made it through preschool should have learned that it is never OK to call someone dumb, whether they are or not. I think both writers hurt their cases by their unrestrained and un accademic use of language. -bradby
 * Bradby, as far as I can see the contributions of User:Mamadasll to this article have been zero. Arbor 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Rushton and Jenson (2005) paper does not represent the view of all experts. Rushton and Jensen created this "comprehensive review" and they draw these conclusions, but their paper is criticized by Nisbett (2005) and Suzuki & Aronson (2005) in the same issue. ViewFromNowhere 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the statement that "White's cannot be trusted" is racist, terribly so, and out of place in an academic discussion. So is the poster's terrible spelling, mashed-up grammar, and obvious lack of education. View, you have a point that Jenson and Rushton do not represent the view of all experts, but then again, no one's view does. Their research is meticulous, and publication in the APA journal is hardly something one gets if one is spouting raving lunacy. The TAG should be removed from this article, the facts are not in serious dispute, just editor's feelings about them. Nowhere does the article make racist statements, though it might make statements that this or that race might not like - not the same thing at all. Finally, it is not true that Mamadas's contributions have been zero, they have been far clearer and calmer than the poster becoming apolectic about the "racism" of the white's who aren't to be trusted. However, the statements about blacks as "dumb" were asinine in the extreme, and I take them as an attempt to incite further argument, rather than an actually held opinion. Which in many ways makes them worse. One does not combat racism with racism - and one does not joke about it, either. Morgaledth 06:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Vertical navbox on main article page
I'm considering putting a vertical navigation box (see Template:Race and intelligence vertical navbox) on the main page for the article series, but the bell curve image at the top of the page is currently taking up the space. Two options I'm considering are putting the vertical navbox next to the table of contents or trying to integrate it with the large bell curve image so it looks something like this:

Opinions? Dd2 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you put it below the lead block (to the right of the table of context) or will the TOC not go next to it? --Rikurzhen 07:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary style
from the Summary style article... In order to make Wikipedia maximally useful to a diverse readership, many people believe that articles should be written in summary style. Since Wikipedia is not divided into a macropaedia, micropaedia, and concise versions like Encyclopaedia Britannica is, we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;


 * many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section),
 * others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and
 * some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).

Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span—20 minutes.

--

The article is currently at or above the recommended size limit. We've already made extensive use of summary style, but some of the summary sections are running too long, especially Cultural or genetic explanation?. We need to make things a bit more concise, and limit details to the most important, essential information. Comments? --Rikurzhen 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving the whole largely irrelevant section Race and intelligence elsewhere would make a big dent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can do without a description of why people care about this topic (i.e. it's significance). The text of that section is 8kb, which is probably too short to apply summary style effectively. By the same measure, the summary section Cultural or genetic explanation? is itself 11kb, summarizing a ~76kb article. But any efforts to make any section more concise might help. --Rikurzhen 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Ultramarine 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We need to mention arguments for both culture-only and partially-genetic wherever they are relevant. Dd2 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, many of the arguments for the genetic explanation are repeated two or three times. Like the studies on some brain genes or the 1987 survey. This should be consolidated to only one place. Ultramarine 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [Discussed above ]

Inbreeding depression?
I'd like to know what this thing is about mentioning inbreeding depression: "race differences are most pronounced on tests that show the highest inbreeding depression scores". Are we saying that inbreeding is more prevalent in say, Blacks than European Whites? Where is the evidence for that? And where is the evidence for relating that to intelligence? I'd be tempted to edit this line right back out unless it is supported by a proper citation. Ramdrake 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * copied from the subsidary article here: Nichols (1972) using differential heritabilities among Blacks and Whites and later Rushton (1989) using inbreeding depression calculated in Japan found that the Black-White gap is least on IQ subtests most affected by the environment, and greatest on subtests that are least affected by the environment. It is difficult to attribute the relationship between inbreeding depression from Japan with the Black-White IQ gap in the U.S. to an environmental (not-genetic) cause.
 * --Rikurzhen 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, how is it that: "the Black-White gap is least on IQ subtests most affected by the environment, and greatest on subtests that are least affected by the environment" has become "race differences are most pronounced on tests that show the highest inbreeding depression scores" unless you show a direct, causal effect between inbreeding depression and environmental effects (or lack thereof). Ramdrake 13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've got things backwards. The actual data collected is IQ scores and inbreeding depression coefficients (a property of a single person based on their genealogy). This data can be used in turn to estimate heritability coefficients for IQ subtests. High heritability (i.e. high inbreeding depression) implies little environmental impact, whereas low heritability (i.e. low inbreeding depression) implies high environmental impact. In this particular case, the inbreeding depression data is from Japan, and it's being compared to B-W IQ data from the U.S. It has nothing to do with inbreeding in the U.S. --Rikurzhen 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we have mixed semantics here. I believe you mean that the data collected was (among other things) inbreeding coefficients. This is quite different from inbreeding depression. Simply put: a non-null inbreeding coefficient does not entail any degree of inbreeding depression, whereas inbreeding depression always requires a high inbreeding coefficient. As any animal breeder will tell you, you can rack up a rather high degree of inbreeding before it leads to inbreeding depression. Ramdrake 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was imprecise in my comment above, but what's being correlated really is "inbreeding depression" effects. Here's a quote on this: "Jensen (1998b) showed that a test's g loading (g being the general factor of intelligence) is the best predictor, not just of that test's correlation with scholastic and workplace performance, but of heritability coefficients determined from twin studies, inbreeding depression scores calculated in children of cousin-marriages, brain evoked potentials, brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well as nerve conduction velocity, reaction time, and other physiological factors." --Rikurzhen 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, the actual quote I have from Jensen on the subject, found at is: The loadings of various tests on g, from tests of sensory discrimination and reaction time to those of highly complex problem solving, predict those tests' degree of correlation with a number of non-psychometric variables: the test's heritability, inbreeding depression, coefficient of assortative mating, brain size, reaction time, brain nerve conduction velocity, brain glucose metabolic rate and features of brain evoked potentials.  Please note the comma between "inbreeding depression" and "coefficient (of assortive mating" - actually a variant of inbreeding coefficient)

Ramdrake 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the original data, but I imagine they have IQ scores from both the children of cousin marrigaes and out-bred children. The effect of inbreeding is then measured for each subtest, factor analysis contruct, etc. These are probably normalized to form an inbreeding depression "score", which quantifies the effect of inbreeding on each variable measured. --Rikurzhen 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My point remains the same: inbreeding depression is observable, but not quantifiable (as inbreeding usually must occur more than once in order for a depression effect to be observable), whereas an inbreeding coefficient (or coefficient of assortive mating) can be calculated for each individual. Not every individual displays inbreeding depression.Ramdrake 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently inbreeding depression is observable for IQ in first-cousin marriages. IQ is a complex quantitative trait, so this seems prima facie reasonable. The important point is that inbreeding depression effects vary for the same set of individuals across IQ subtests. Thus, it's the depression effect, and not the inbreeding coefficient itself which is correlated with the other factors of interest. --Rikurzhen 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, we are running here into a sort of oxymoron: if IQ is very sensitive to inbreeding depression, heterosis (outbreeding - including racial hybridization) should have the contrary effect on it, and actually that is said verbatim in an article quoted from Jensen . However, according to most of the studies cited here in support of the partially-genetic hypothesis, racial mixes only yield IQ scores that are partway between the respective IQ scores of their parents. So, either the effect of inbreeding depression on IQ is not to stunt it, or the racial hypothesis of IQ cannot be true (as it would predict that some degreee of inbreeding would produce positive effects on IQ, not negative). Ramdrake 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit off topic ... I don't think it's safe to assume such a simple model. It could easily be both, depending on the molecular basis of intelligence in each population. --Rikurzhen 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say it is on-topic with the article as a whole. But I'll bite: show me how it could be "both", with appropriate references if you can. I say that if we accept that IQ is negatively affected by inbreeding depression, this goes counter to a scheme in which IQ differences between races have at least a partially-genetic explanation.Ramdrake 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just "original research". As an off the top of my head example of why this all depends on details we don't know about ... I can imagine there are deleterious recessive alleles in population 1 which are also synthetically worse with another common loci in population 2, which is itself uncommon in population 1. --Rikurzhen 21:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, there's the phenomena of outbreeding depression, which is generally understood as resulting from the breaking up of beneficial allele clusters. The phenomena that causes inbreeding depression and the phenomena that causes outbreeding depression are not mutually exclusive, and would in the most simple model be additive. Only inbreeding depression is measured from cousin marriages, and so the existence of outbreeding depression for IQ is something we are ignorant of. Depending on the strength of the two effects, a range of outcomes is possible from outbreeding humans. --Rikurzhen 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

racial mixes only yield IQ scores that are partway between the respective IQ scores of their parents -- i guess you meant half-way, but FYI according to the Jensen (2000) paper you quoted from above, there is an outbreeding elevation of IQ scores among the children of interracial marriages, with a reference to Jensen (1998). --Rikurzhen 06:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Malnutrition And Intelligence
It is a bit hard for me to imagine why Indians (South Asians) have the same IQ as indigenous Americans when in fact Indian civilization was far more developed and advanced. In fact Indian civilization has always been ahead of the West until the end of the middle ages in science, mathematics, philosophy, ect. In fact the achievements of the South Asians probably were not caught up with until the 1700s, at least in the sciences and mathematics. We today even use the Hindu numerals. Where as many Native Americans lived like hunter-gatherers. Even the more advanced civilizations like the Aztec had no writing system or steel weapons. Steel was invented second in India far before the Europeans and indigenous Americans never invented it. Sophisticated writing systems have been in India thousands of years ago. In fact many historians think all Indo-European languages came from the Indian language Sanskrit. Hindus found the world was round and circled the sun thousands of years ago. They even figured the cyclical theory of the universe, a theory only to come very recently in science! I have a feeling malnutrition has a big effect on these IQ tests. I also wonder what people the IQ tests were done on. If they were done with malnutritioned Indians with no formal education it is obviously going to be lower. Can someone explain? Zachorious 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * South Asians living in Britain score much higher. --Rikurzhen 09:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the US Census Indian Americans have the highest median income of any ethnic group in the United States ($60,093). Has any tests been done in the US as well? Anyways it must be malnutrition considering India is one of the most malnutrioned nations in the world. India's cultural and technological achievments can't be equal to IQ of a hunter-gatherering and tribal societies of America for example. Zachorious 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that economic success within western industrialized society is assumed to be correlated with a universalizable construct of "intelligence." It seems class and race bias is inherent to the very definition of the Quotient. We are told that IQ is a predictor of socio-economic advancement, but that seems a rather circular argument given that the test is designed to test for cognitive abilities that are adaptive within the socio-economic environment of industrialized society. In such societies, particular skills involving mathematical ability and textual literacy are adaptive, so people with those skills are often considered intelligent. But one might simply say they have particular skills that are adaptive to their particular environment, skills which are not in themselves indicators of some kind of abstract, universal notion of intelligence. It would make a lot more sense if we stop treating these tests as tests of intelligence and started treating them as tests for one's socially adaptive cognitive abilities. That would go a long way in explaining the supposed intellectual discrepancy between minorities and majorities within a given culture. You might say that intelligence is the accumulated historical and cultural memory of a people, and therefore perceived differences in group intelligence may be attributed to the differences in how we value and preserve the cultural memory of different peoples. Gregor Samsa 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indians had regular access to the gradual transfer of people and ideas from throughout the Eurasian Supercontinent. That's a distinctive advantage. Indians are also not a homogenous ethnic group. The mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroup data suggest that India has been a hotspot of human migration from the first wave homo sapien sapien expansion out of Africa up to migrations and invasions within historic times.

The proposition that Indo-European language and culture was born in India and spread Westward is academically indefensible. The Kurgan/Aryan people invaded India from Eurasia, leaving a trail of Eurasian language, culture, and Haplogroup R and R1a1 Y-chromosome DNA. Neither science nor history defend your "Indocentric" proposition and even the anecdotes offered don't support it.

The average intelligence of a population is only one factor. It has strong causative and correlative effects on the population, but it is not the only factor. Nobody claimed that there weren't exceptions to these correlations. They're too numerable to count. India's history just doesn't happen to be one of them. --

Moors in Europe
In this more complete version Nisbett attributes the statment to "J. B. S. Haldane, cited in " (Race, IQ and Jensen). It is an interesting statement, as Iberia retained some of it's Roman culture under the Visigothic rulers, and was Catholic by the early 8th c. when the Moors conquered most of Iberia. As well, around this time, the neighboring Franks were undergoing the Carolingian Renaissance, so I wonder how literally intended such a statement (if this is indeed based on a historical statement) could have been. I might note Nisbett states the Moors (Berbers) invading Europe were blacks, though they are today and have been for the last 50,000 years caucasoid.
 * Nisbett 1998: "The question of whether IQ differences between blacks and whites have a genetic basis goes back at least a thousand years, to the time when the Moors invaded Europe. The Moors speculated that Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought."

Can anybody look at Race, IQ and Jensen for more details?--Nectar


 * I find this fascinating as well. Thank you for cleaning up the reference. Should it be moved to the start of the History section, by the way? Arbor 13:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The History section is currently a history of the scientific investigation of race and intelligence. This particular example of non-scientific speculation doesn't seem to be any more notable than the hundreds of other examples that are probably out there, and right now the statement doesn't have very high reliability for the reasons discussed above, including that there's already a known mistake in that sentence.  It seems most appropriately used in the way Nisbett used it, as a argument for the cultural explanation.--Nectar 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

moors 2

 * "[1]Speculations about innate differences in group intelligence as an explanation for different cultural achievement [2] have a long history. J. B. S. Haldane claims that the Moors who invaded Europe in the Middle Ages thought the Europeans might be congenitally incapable of abstract thought. [3] Southern Europeans long had had their doubts about northern Europeans -- Cicero warned the Romans not to purchase the British as slaves because they were so difficult to train (Sowell, 1994, p. 156); though Caesar did feel they "had a certain value for rough work,""

(1) Let's read sources carefully. Nisbett doesn't say anything about "explanation[s] for different cultural achievement."

(2) Non-scientific speculation of this sort is likely found in most or all cultures. An occurence one thousand years ago doesn't add to contemporary data, though it does provide the insight that cultures have a tendency to make such speculation, implying this could be the case today (in which case the statement should be in the Cultural section). Note that the "British" of Cicero and Caeser's time were a different people than the substantially Anglo-Saxon etc. "British" of today.

(3) "Had their doubts" and "difficult to train" don't constitute a claim about congenital intelligence, and Nisbett doesn't state that.
 * 1. The Arabs and the Roman republic had a more advanced culture than Europe and Northern Europe at these times. Obvious logical arguments are allowed in Wikipedia, otherwise it would be only a collection of quotes.
 * 2. I disagree, it should be in the history section or best in the between nations sections. The inhabitants of England at this time were certainly "white".
 * 3Looking at the context in the original article, Nisbett clearly argues that this is a similar case to that of the Moors. Ultramarine 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Even if we just compare the Iberian Moors with their neighbors (that is, not counting the existence of the Eastern Roman Empire), it doesn't seem easy to say there was a significant gap in the level of the two civilizations. I'd like to rely on references if we're going to argue that there's a noteworthy history of cultures attributing differences in cultural achievement to innate differences in intelligence. (We're arguing it's a noteworthy trend by including it.) As it is right now, we wouldn't have any examples to support such an argument. (This is regarding whether to include the version at the top of this section or the version presently in the article "Speculations about innate differences in group intelligence have a long history.")
 * 2. In order for it to be in the History section, non-scientific speculation would need to be historically noteworthy.  The two examples we have didn't have any noteworthy historical impact.  Otherwise, I think we mean the section World-wide Scores rather than Between Nations, because this argument doesn't have to do with the significance of national differences.  However, I think the argument under discussion doesn't bear on world-wide differences themselves (the subject of that section), but rather supports the Cultural explanation (because cultures have a tendency to attribute lower innate intelligence to other cultures and which cultures those are changes over time).
 * 3. He may imply that argument without stating it, but there's no support given for such an argument.  Other peoples have been considered difficult slaves for characteristics other than innate intelligence deficits.--Nectar 02:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing the referenced passages in the Flynn and Sowell books could solve these problems.--Nectar 02:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anglocentrism?
The article and its references give a distinct impression that (with a few scattered exceptions) most of the research on this has been by English speakers, and of those, the majority are American. Is this because most of the editors here have English as their first language? Or is interest in the subject stronger in Anglophone countries, especially the United States? (I notice only one interwiki link, and I think the Finnish article started as a translation of this one.) Is there a great deal of contemporary research on the subject in French, German (hah!), Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese? If so, does it come to the same conclusions? Has anyone else commented on this pattern (if it is in fact a pattern)? 67.68.196.195 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right in observing that most of the research here is American. Despite the obvious reason (namely, that most research in anything is American), there are additional factors. For example, the US uses racial classification in pretty much anything (school admissions, grant applications, etc.). In other countries, "SAT by racial group" is simply not available because people aren't routinely classified into these groups. In fact, few other countries display the ethnic diversity of the US in the first place, so the question hardly comes up. That being said, quite a number of international studies are included in the References list. Arbor 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [I respectfully disagree]. (Personal attack removed)


 * Arbor, I too respectfully disagree that most research in anything is American (while I agree that most research in anything is published in English), and that few other countries display the ethnic diversity of the US. I think if you will take the time to find out, you will discover that the US is about average in multiethnicity for a first-world country and while it is also one of the world leaders in research, it is by no means the only one. I tend to side with user 67.68.196.195 on this one, that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of the research which comes from the US. The United States people seem more preoccupied by this question than most of the rest of the world, although I won't try to guess why. It just is. --Ramdrake 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I realize I should have said anglophone instead of American. Sorry. I was merely trying to explain why Americans are more obsessed by this than (say) Germans. In Germany, data like "SAT by ethnic group", or even "income by ethnic group" or "crime by ethnic group" simply doesn't routinely exist, so there is no reason to wonder about why Race X fares worse than Race Y. More to the point, Lynn is British, so I am not sure about the American predominance. For what it's worth, I think Jensen is half-Danish, half-Jewish, but an American citizen and publishes in the US, of course. (As an aside, I find the question about the heritage or nationality of researchers about as interesting as claiming that "Most quantum mechanics is Jewish".) I think what can be observed is that the criticism of R&I research (by people like Gould or Lewontin, but also Sternberg, for example) is predominantly American. In any case, the American focus (which I, as a European bemoan) leads to this subject (and this article) being unduly focussed on (1) the Black–White gap and (2) uniquely American "races" like Hispanics. I would prefer to focus on the three big ones (Asian–European–Subsaharans) and blur the American focus and think the Jensen–Rushton paper gives enough precedence for such a presentation not violating WP:NOR. Arbor 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, I believe we agree on this. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the discussion on the topic, both for and against, is American (meaning US - I am Canadian). They have good historical cause to be still torn over the matter. --Ramdrake 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding some of the issues that come up in this section, a new article in the Economist states that "most" research on race and biomedicine is done in the U.S. (ctrl + f America). Also, it would be pretty surprising if the U.S. weren't more multiracial than most wealthy countries. Where Germany, for example, has less than 3% Turks, 1.5% Asians, and .4% Africans, the U.S. has 13% Africans, 13% Hispanics, and 4% Asians.--Nectar 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong statistics. The German one is about citizenship, not ethnicity. You would find about again as many German citizens with Turkish and African roots. (Not that it matters for your point -- of course that is still less than in the US.) But you wouldn't need to search hard to get a more multiracial society than the 70+% white US. Just take Brazil - or any of the African countries like Mauritania where black and caucasian populations are about equally mixed... -- Marcika 12:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. Those figures do appear to be confirmed by the CIA factbook as reflecting ethnic figures (Germany is 92% ethnically German). We're talking about science funding, so my reference was to wealthy countries; Brazil and Mauritania aren't on the same level of science funding as the US and Canada, Europe, and East Asia etc.--Nectar 13:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Other ethnicities and causes
Can we get a footnote explaining what's being referred to here? --Nectar 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "These results are further supported when the artificial black-white dichotomy is supplemented with statistics for other ethnicities."


 * East Asians? --Rikurzhen 05:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

addition
I want to make this addition, but someone is erasing it.

It should be noted though, that the traditional classification of peoples into races does not overlap the actual genetic lineages found across the world. For the global genetic make-up of the peoples of the world see: and [https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

I think that the information is very interesting in relation to the concepts of race and genetic ancestry.

So, Rikurzhen, let other people judge whether it is relevant or not, becasue the information is quite reputable.


 * This addition would be more appropriate for a subsection of race that deals with human genetic variation, rather than the summary section of this article. The accuracy of the finding that the non-recombining mtDNA (and NRY) haplogroups do not divide continental races is not in question (I'm guessing this is the finding -- that's what I'd expect). The problem is that impilcation that these single gene lineages should tell you anything about race. Second degree relatives could easily have different mtDNA haplogroups, and thus it should not be surprising that individuals of the same race can differ at these loci as well. The term genetic is being misused as written to imply whole-genome where only a single gene is being studied. When many loci from across the genome are used, they do in fact classify people into groups by geography. --Rikurzhen 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Race is being used here in connection with intelligence, and in connection with genetics. The links are very interesting in relation to race and genetics. They are reputable and the national geographic one has to do with a project that up to now no individual, team or university has even come close to. So I think it is inportant to introduce it. By the way, to introduce Hispanic as a race here is the most ridiculous thing that I have seen. HCC.


 * Agree with Rik, for what it's worth. It's all interesting, but too fine-grained for the present article. Arbor 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to explain why your conclusions are false -- the patterns of allele frequencies of a single loci tell you very little about the rest of the genome. (You're also mistaken about the novelness of these findings -- people started looking at mtDNA decades ago -- see Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza). If that appeal does not work on you, then I must point out that Wikipedia policy forbids the inclusion of material in articles which is "original research" (see WP:NOR) -- the creation of novel conclusions by an editor based on an original analysis. In this case, you've merely looked at the mtDNA haplogroup frequencies and drawn your own conclusions about the correlation with geogrphy and the meaning of this for race and genetics. I'm going to remove the material for this reason and for the reason that a Summary style section has to be written with the minimum essential details -- mtDNA is not an essential detail. --Rikurzhen 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, the conclusions are possibly over-reaching, but not necessarily false. At this point, it is original research, however. Should it be proven right, though, it would be a potent argument that the "phenotype" of observed races does not correspond to a major genotypical differentiation in the human race, thus making the observation of "racial" differences in IQ distribution a moot point. I don't think this is a detail at all. --Ramdrake 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But the problem with any such conclusion is that what's being examined isn't a major genotypical differentiation. It's a single small genetic locus, the mitochondrial DNA, which is only inherited thru the maternal lineage, and variation in which is assumed to be selectively neutral -- a product of random accumulated mutations. mtDNA is interesting for anthropology because it is a single unbroken thread going back thru the maternal lineage, unlike nuclear DNA, which recombines with each generation, breaking up allele clusters that would identify ancestry relationships. As I've tried to explain, mtDNA should tell you very little about the rest of the genome because of its inheritance pattern. My mtDNA could be completely different from my father's mtDNA, despite the fact that I inherited half of my total genome from him. Likewise, the mtDNA most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans is ancient, while the actual MRCA for all (most) humans probably lived in historical times. Thus, mtDNA is not going to be the key to any kind of genotypical analysis. Whole genome analyses have been done, they are currently described in the race section, and expanded in Race and multilocus allele clusters. --Rikurzhen 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you speak only of the mtDNA, the sources also point to the Y chromosome, which is inherited from father to son. If fact the sources cover both DNA markers. How can you claim that genetics is important, on the one hand, and that those markers are not?. Then you have the ridiculous Hispanic category as a race, and you find that reasonable? Those markers are more important to trace back the ancestry of people than any other markers, and if you are a geneticist you should know better than that. Then you speak of origianl research. The only one doing it is you. I am just introducing the links for people to judge for themselves. Or you think those links are my original research?. Now I have ontroduced the sources without making my own judgements. Let people make theirs. Or you just want to get rid of the links for some reason? HCC.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. mtDNA and NRY tell you about 2 out the vast number of lineages in each person's ancestry, and thus they tell you very little about the the rest of the genome. According to the Hapmap Phase I paper, it takes at least 250k - 500k SNPs to capture most common variation across the human genome, whereas you can capture most common variation in mtDNA and NRY (non-recombining portion of chromosome Y) with about 250 SNPs. Moreover, there's no expectation that a single locus should uniquely divide population groups... from the Hapmap paper: "As expected, we observed very few fixed differences (that is, cases in which alternate alleles are seen exclusively in different analysis panels). Across the 1 million SNPs genotyped, only 11 have fixed differences between [European] and [Nigerian], 21 between [European] and [East Asian], and 5 between [Nigerian] and [East Asian], for the autosomes." --Rikurzhen 22:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They tell you of two fundamental lineages, especially the Y chromosome. You are not the first person I come across who tries to underplay the most important genetic research project ever undertaken yet, the one by national Geographic. Who are you? It seems that you are so important and reknown that feels to be in the position to underplays such a project?.

And then, you who seem to be so well versed, accept a graph including Hispanics as a race, when everyone with the exception of the know-nothings knows that it is not a race. It would be the same as to say that Jamaicans, Maoris, African-Americans and Irish are all "Anglos" because their mother tongue is English and pretend that that is a race. so, do not revert it again, or I will report you. HCC.


 * There's nothing "fundamental" about the NRY and mtDNA lineages w.r.t. the genome; they're just a useful tool for anthropology. There's nothing wrong with the NatGeo project -- only with your contention that it tells us much at all about questions of race and genetics -- it's a good and interesting anthropology project, so long as it's properly interpreted. Most "Hispanics" in the United States are "Latinos" of predominately Amerindian ancestry. We're stuck using the terms found in the literature, which appears to be "Hispanic". --Rikurzhen 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think that Hispanic is a race, then you really need some basic concepts about a few things. And the way races have been tradionally viewed is very much questioned by projects like the National Geographic and authors like Cavalli-Sforza. 21st century research is leaving the speud-scientific concepts of race stemming from the 19th century in the dust. HCC.

I'm not so sure I would qualify "Hispanics" as being ofpredominantly Amerindian ancestry. They are of mixed ancestry, period. One such project in Canada calculated that, of all those who have Native Amerindian status, the average proportion of "Amerindian" ancestry is around 30%. Besides, lengthy mention is made in this article of microcephalin and the fact that it is differentially distributed in the worldwide population, yet the fact that this distribution is at odds with the observed deltas between the races as we defined them seems to be glossed over. The fact is, until we find some genetic factors that are distributed the same way that we see the IQ differences distributed, the genetic hypothesis for the IQ gap differences remains unsubstantiated, at least, by direct evidence. The mtDNA and NRY studies can be construed as indirect evidence against the genetic explanation. As is, I believe the references shoud stand as valid, even though they are a far cry from definitive proof. --Ramdrake 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think mtDNA and NRY should affect IQ? --Rikurzhen 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know that they do or don't, for that matter. --Ramdrake 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The figure I saw was for Mexican Americans. A quick search confirms that 60% European + 30% Amerindian looks like the average for other "Hispanic" groups. --Rikurzhen 00:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which still makes them predominently "white".

Well, I think it is two now who agree on leaving the references. You are in the minority, so I will put it back again. I hope you will now leave it. I would rephrase your question. Do you think that something as vage as race affects IQ. Well, no. I will not engage here on the long string of reasons that have to do much more with levels of living, schooling, social status, nutrition, mentality, etc. But that is a differnt question, now I am just leaving two reputable and interesting references without making any judgements myself. HCC.


 * I count Arbor, Nectar and Rikurzhen against. --Rikurzhen 00:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well here we have Nectar, whom I know from the Germanic peoples's page. I begin to see the kind of people I am dealing with here. Nectar is a guy who uses The March of the Titans as a reference. Very interesting + a guy who claims that Hispanic is a race. HCC.

By the way, count well, because nectar is not even in this thread. HCC.


 * Oh, I guess this discussion is probably not worth continuing. The answers to your concerns are explained above. I remember your comment on that page.  I responded: You appear to have not read anything I've said. The page I referred to was provided by another user above, and I'm not so dogmatic to disqualify studies from discussion because they're linked to from some ethnocentric site.  (And mtDNA and NRY don't constitute the global genetic make-up of the world).--Nectar 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I leave you here my friends. I can see your scientific foundations: guys who speak of race and genetics and confuse linguistic groups with race and others who are not so dogmatic as to disqualify references from the White History Page. I have better things to do. Too sad for this site that attracts this kind. HCC.

Re:Ramdrake. The article doesn't assert the microcephalin etc. studies are necessarily direct evidence of any variation in intelligence, but they are important, as they show that significant variation has developed in genes involved in the brain, which has previously been argued against.--Nectar 01:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nectar, with enough research, I am sure we will find that genes involved in the development of a number of organ systems (including the brain)express biogeographic diversity. Whether this corresponds to racial categorizations as we make them today is unknown. So far, except for a couple of genes responsible for nasty disease genetic diseases, this hypothesis hasn't panned out, leaving many to believe that "races" as we understand them today is much more a social than a biological construct. My point is, if microcephalin stays in, even thouhg its distribution does not support the observed IQ gaps, then 172's references should stay in, as they present a very nice model of the evolution of biogeographic diversity. Please don't try to remove it once more. Let's talk it over like grownups before this turns into a revert war. --Ramdrake 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Here is another interesting article about race. I will shortly be adding information from this source to this article, very interesting. Ultramarine 17:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What reason is there to point out the distribution of mtDNA and NRY haplogroups -- the two loci that have an inheritance pattern different from the remaining 99.9% of the genome? Alternative links to provide include Rosenberg (2002) and (2005) which look at hundreds of recombining loci across the genome from populations across the globe, the HapMap phase 1 paper I linked to above which includes >1 million SNPs from 4 populations, etc. --Rikurzhen 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Biogeographic distribution
1. I think this has all just been a miscommunication. What do you see in these two sources? The national geographic link appears to allow readers to view Y and mtDNA haplogroups in isolation. However, we know from "Lewontin's Fallacy"(ctrl+f "dimensional") that, as expected, the genetic structure of the population is seen by looking at the correlation structure of alleles, rather than looking at single haplogroups alone.

Mcdonald's Y and mtDNA haplogroup maps do show clusters, as expected, as opposed to somehow showing random distribution. The degree of relatedness between groups appears to be obscured in this source by the use of randomly distributed colors. The phylogenetic tree on p. 3 shows the degree of relatedness between groups, but note the colors on that page are random rather than being assigned by degree of relatedness.

A more comprehensible tree can be seen in Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s much praised work on human phylogenetic clusters (not just Y and mtDNA haplogroups; viewable here; p. 78 of The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994)). (The major difference between the two versions in that link is whether the SE Asian and Pacific island cluster clusters more with Caucasians and Asians or with Australians and New Guineans.)

To view other works that look at the genetic structure of the population using many loci, rather than just Y and mtDNA, see Risch et al. 2002, Rosenberg et al. 2002 and 2005. The 2 sources user 172 provided constitute an inaccurate summary of the literature, and are not important compared to the four sources discussed here.

2. Re microcephaly etc. studies. Genes show biogeographic distribution that corresponds with race as long as alleles occur in different frequencies in different races. These five studies are present to demonstrate that genetic variation in the brain exists that corresponds with race (and thus it's possible that there's phenotypic variation). It would be simplistic to assume that a gene is not involved in intelligence if it's distribution, considered in isolation from all other intelligence-related genes, doesn't, to the naked eye, relate to the distribution of IQ; intelligence is likely controlled by a host of genes, involving very complex interactions. For this reason, the article doesn't make original speculations either way on the issue.--Nectar

I did a quick pubmed search. Here are a few more: --Rikurzhen 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

These articles do not speak of races or IQ, only geographic distribution, often not corresponding to races, and brain, which can be anything. Ultramarine 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm dubious. The relevance of the geographical structure of human allele frequencies (particularly of alleles that have risen recently in frequency due to positive selection, in genes that have a known impact on brain size and retardation) to questions of race and intelligence must be obvious to all of us. --Rikurzhen 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Brain size have only a weak correlation with IQ and only some of the studies mentiond may be associated with with brain size. That these genes do not follow claimed racial groups should obvioiusly be mentioned. Unfortunately, one group of editors here do not want the readers to see this clearly. Ultramarine 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not obvious. The point of interest is not that these alleles necessarily explain any of the IQ gap, but rather that these alleles prove the existence of recent evolution that is probably associated with brain function, making it possible (or even probable) that other such alleles exist, which themselves might partly explain the gap. --Rikurzhen 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It should certainly be clearly pointed out that these genes do not follow claimed racial groups. Recent evolutionary pressure certainly do not have to be for IQ. What is important for humans is social interaction with other humans, so it seems equally or more likely that it may have been pressure for remembering persons and personality, detecting lies, hiding lies, or something similar. Ultramarine 19:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All I know is what the paper says: "Previous studies have shown that Microcephalin is a specific regulator of brain size (13, 14) and that this gene has evolved under strong positive selection in the primate lineage leading to Homo sapiens (7, 8). Here, we present compelling evidence that Microcephalin has continued its trend of adaptive evolution beyond the emergence of anatomically modern humans. The specific function of Microcephalin in brain development makes it likely that selection has operated on the brain. Yet, it remains formally possible that an unrecognized function of Microcephalin outside of the brain is actually the substrate of selection. If selection indeed acted on a brain-related phenotype, there could be several possibilities, including brain size, cognition, personality, motor control, or susceptibility to neurological and/or psychiatric diseases. We hypothesize that D and non-D haplotypes have different effects on the proliferation of neural progenitor cells, which in turn leads to different phenotypic outcomes of the brain visible to selection." This answers the challenge that there's not been enough time in the last 10k years for differences between groups to evolve in brain related phenotypes. --Rikurzhen 19:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Who has made that challenge? Seems to be a straw man. Anyhow, I do not understand this emphasis on brain size. It correlates only weakly with IQ. Neanderthals had larger brain size than present human and I hope none has used this as evidence for superior intelligence. Ultramarine 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cochran and Harpending 2002 argue: "Evidence of adaptive genetic variation affecting human psychology should be of interest to evolutionary psychologists, particularly because they have argued that it cannot exist. For example Tooby and Cosmides (7) claim that there are only two kinds of human nature, male and female, and that apparent variation in personality is either facultative response to environmental cues or nonadaptive." There are many quotes on this subject that dismiss the issue, even if they don't actually come out and say it's not possible. Regarding the second issue, variation in genes involved in the brain - whether in brain size or neuronal functions or anything else (the 5 studies discuss a variety of genes, not just related to brain size)- poses the possibility of phenotypical variation.--Nectar 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gould spoke directly to the topic:"probably all non-African racial diversity is less than 100,000 years old. That sounds like a lot of time, but to an evolutionary biologist that's an eye blink; that's not enough time to accumulate anything in the way of evolutionary difference. So science liberates as well as falls into the biases of its time."
 * But it is frequently stated indirectly. For example, Sternberg et al, writing in "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics" finds it important to point out that observing different allele frequencies does not, in and of itself, imply that local selection has operated. --Rikurzhen 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact Check
Is this statement sourced?..."even though affirmative action discriminates against East Asians in the admissions process (relative to Whites as well as to other minorities)" Is this all colleges or just the Ivy league? Sentence is ambiguous(sp).198.176.188.201 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The newly added statistics are for elite universities. I don't know about all colleges.--Nectar 05:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments in footnotes
there's no need to say the same thing multiple times in the race section. the detail UL added about 6.5% is the flip side of lewontin's 85% number/argument which is given in the first paragraph. it isn't a new/additional argument, just the supporting detail of the one already given. --Rikurzhen 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is hidden in a footnote where no one will read, should certainly be mentioned in the main text. Let the readers make up their own mind. Ultramarine 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Make up their own minds about what? The 85/6.5 number is uncontested, only it's interpretation is in debate. The article clearly says "more genetic variation exists within such races than between them", with the footnote giving the detail and citation. If they want to get details about race, they should read that article. --Rikurzhen 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is precisely 1 argument based on several pieces of data and some unstated reasoning. The pieces of data are noncontroversial/uncontested and don't need to be stated in any more detail than "more genetic variation exists within such races than between them". The material footnoted is a restatement of that data in several ways that gives more detail. Perhaps you didn't realize it was the same argument, but that's why I put it all together. --Rikurzhen 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop avoiding the question. Why did you delete: " The distributions of these genes do not well follow claimed racial groups."? Regarding "more genetic variation exists within such races than between them", this is certainly not the same as that one study has found that only 6.5% is explained by race. Do not hide arguments that oppose your POV, let the reader decide themselves. Ultramarine 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, I didn't delete " The distributions of these genes do not well follow claimed racial groups."
 * You're simply mistaken about the 85% and 6.5% figures not being the same thing. They come from exactly the same analysis (analysis of molecular variation AMOVA), which divides total genetic variation into three categories: (1) variation within popultions (~85%), (2) variation between populations on the same continent (~7%) and variation between continents (~7%). This first such analysis was done by Lewontin (1972) on a few loci, but now we have averages across millions of SNPs which basically give numbers in the same ballpark. --Rikurzhen 01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. You did delete this, in two separate places: . Explain. 2. Again, "more genetic variation exists within such races than between them", this is certainly not the same as that one study has found that only 6.5% (or 15%, if you prefer, this I agree that they basically refer to the same thing and have not stated otherwise) is explained by race. Do not hide arguments that oppose your POV, let the reader decide themselves. Ultramarine 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the link I provided below for more examples of the same analysis with a range of values. Notice that the variation is split into 3, not 2, groups. Look at the subsection I started below. --Rikurzhen 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your point? Why should these numbers not be mentioned in the main text. They are very low, simply stating "more genetic variation exists within such races than between them" is misleading. And why do not mention in the main text that genetic variation is largest in Africa? Ultramarine 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all interesting (e.g. for anthropology) but not clearly relevant to R&I. You claim that 6-15% is low, but that's without any context for making that interpretation. The AMOVA is telling you about the age of populations -- humans/races are young -- but not about their distinctness, which requires cluster analysis. The African variability data tells you that Africa is the origin of most human genes (and by inference modern humans, plus the fossil evidence). It would be simpler to state these conclusions directly, but I'm not sure how relevant they are. --Rikurzhen 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's some more AMOVA analysis of human data --Rikurzhen 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer the above. Ultramarine 01:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The distributions of these genes do not well follow claimed racial groups.
UL, looks like you added that between edits without my noticing - notice my edit summary says "rv" which means I reverted to an earlier edit. that's your interpretation of the ASPM and microcephalin allele frequency patterns, but between the five papers there are dozens or more loci. i don't know the pattern of distribution of each of them, but we need to be careful about writing precisely as that phrase would refer to all of the genes -- something i'm sure we haven't looked at, and which then borders on original research to try to draw an inference about -- unless we can find someone whos published that observation. --Rikurzhen 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Put another way -- any allele is likely to look clinally distributed with no sharp boundaries between regions except where mountains/oceans bound. It's all but certainly going to be the combined effect of many allelic differences that contribute to a genetic cause of the IQ gap. That's probably something we can find written somewhere and would make the same point. --Rikurzhen 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Microcephellin is highest in South America Indian population, certainly not a group claimed to have high IQ. This is an obvious argument which is allowed, otherwise Wikipedia is just a collection of qutoes. I find it amazing that you can argue that this should be excluded as original research when you yourself have created and incorporated an unpublished graph and used this to dismiss SES as an explanation!!! Ultramarine 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My entire concern is based on the fact that there are now dozens of genes, and while it may be obvious to see that 1 or 2 are not following a pattern, it would require an original statisical analysis to say that about (the sum of) all of them. --Rikurzhen 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The text currently says: However, so far, the geographical distribution of those genes that were studied (when said geographical distribution was also studied) does not follow claimed racial boundaries, at least not in an order directly supporting a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ.

Here's what I actually find when I do the math on ASPM and MCPH1:
 * average group ASPM haplotype D frequency does not correlate significantly with average group IQ (it's only high in Europe).
 * average group MCPH1 haplotype D frequency significantly correlates (p < .001) with average group IQ at r^2 > .6

No one here has claimed to have looked at any of the other alleles under selection, but I don't think it's safe to assume that they will not also correlate with IQ. --Rikurzhen 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, that's Original Research if I ever saw any.


 * However, I dispute your point about microcephalin; here's what the reference had to say:


 * ''They report that with microcephalin, a new allele arose about 37,000 years ago, although it could have appeared as early as 60,000 or as late as 14,000 years ago. Some 70 percent or more of people in most European and East Asian populations carry this allele of the gene, as do 100 percent of those in three South American Indian populations, but the allele is much rarer in most sub-Saharan Africans.


 * With the other gene, ASPM, a new allele emerged some time between 14,100 and 500 years ago, the researchers favoring a mid-way date of 5,800 years. The allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples''


 * I don't see how the South American Indian people's IQ correlates too well with the fact that MCPH is most prevalent in their genes. I still don't consider this settled, and I'd much rather we left the reader make his own mind. --Ramdrake 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While the significant correlation of MCPH1 should settle this concern, it should also be noted that complications such as epistasis (when the action of a gene is modified by others) and environmental modification (e.g. the effect on IQ of the genetic disorder phenylketonuria can be erased via dietary influence) means it can't necessarily be assumed that alleles will have the same effect across populations (and thus correlate in a simple manner with IQ variation). APoE, for example, although implicated as a risk factor for Alzheimer's in Whites, is not associated with elevated risk in Blacks or Hispanics.--Nectar 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's precisely true. I would prefer a more general statement -- maybe something about not being able to make inferences about the effects of these alleles on IQ until they are actually tested -- if a statement is needed at all. --Rikurzhen 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm... WP:NOR will be a problem with all these papers, including Tang et al. (2005). There is simply no way we can present such recent findings in any way without WP itself making an authoritative pronouncement of their relevance. Could we have a Recent findings section that details results since 2004 or so, making it clear that these results are too young for there begin any reasonable way to judge their reception? This would keep the rest of the article "unpolluted" by debates between WP editors over The Truth. I find The Truth as interesting as the next guy, but a WP talk page is a really, really bad medium for arbitrating it. Arbor 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That might generally be a good idea, but there's probably a few exceptions which catch all of these papers. (1) I think if the findings of a new paper corroborate the findings of past papers, then there's little reason to doubt it. Rosenberg 2005 and the Lahn papers are incremental developments if you look at the publication history. (2) I think if a finding has been repeated by a second paper, then there's little reason to doubt it. The two genome wide selection studies independently arrived at the same conclusions. (3) If a finding has been reported in a literature summary, then there's little reason to doubt it. Tang et al has been in a couple review papers already. Most of the findings were discussed in the NY Times at or near their publication. --Rikurzhen 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Ramdrake wrote on the talk that's Original Research if I ever saw any

No, it's just as much OR as making the claim that there is no correlation without even doing the math.


 * Unfortunately, no, not at all. The only thing I did was an observation, the distribution of MCPH doesn't match the observed IQ differences. Anybody can make an observation, especially if it's obvious, otherwise WP would be just a mass of quotes. I admit I shouldn't have used the word "correlates", as this implies a statistical analysis - which I didn't do - but which is still OR. --Ramdrake 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake wrote on the talk ''I don't see how the South American Indian people's IQ correlates too well with the fact that MCPH is most prevalent in their genes. I still don't consider this settled, and I'd much rather we left the reader make his own mind.''

But wants to write in the article However, so far, the geographical distribution of those genes that were studied (when said geographical distribution was also studied) does not follow claimed racial boundaries, at least not in an order directly supporting a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ.

I wrote in previous threads about this topic that it was unwise to try to make an estimate on how well these allele frequencies matched IQ by eye. Ultramarine insisted that it was not original research to draw such an "obvious" conclusion. I didn't seem obvious at all to me so I actually did the math, and the relationships turns out to be just the opposite of what he thought. Now Ramdrake's response to my pointing out that there is a correlation is to simply be incredulous. Do the math yourself then.


 * Again, not at all. I wasn't incredulous, just stated it was OR, thus inadmissible to WP. However, there are a number of reasons why you'd get a good correlation, especially if most of the data points are in the non-African vs African, as the most strikingly different part of the distribution lies with Native Americans, in South America to be exact. This part of the distribution, I suspect, would be underrepresented, thus allowing that it be outweighed by the rest of the curve, which presents a partial match. --Ramdrake 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But more importantly... I'd much rather we left the reader make his own mind is (1) something I agree with, but (2) inconsistent with drawing your own conclusions without even looking closely at the data (i.e. that there is no correlation) and feeding them to the reader. It's fine to say what we don't know about these alleles (which is what I tried to substitute), but now that the non-correlation of these allele with IQ is non-obvious, we should cut out that kind of speculation (per WP:NOR). --Rikurzhen 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the sake of consensus, I'd be happy with a statement that says that a "close correlation between one or more of these genetic factors and the worldwide IQ distribution remains to be demonstrated". We can then change that once you publish your mathematical analysis. :) --Ramdrake 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, as you've noted, South America is an outlier in this data set. The statement that global IQ and MCPH levels are statistically correlated (mostly driven by the african / non-african difference) is, of course, still true. Epistasis means other genes could be responsible for the South American outlier, and cognition is, of course, influenced by many genes, possibly around 150.ctrl f 150 --Nectar 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, why not include a blurb about the possible role of epistasis? Also, I'd very much like the bit about the Y chromosome/mtDNA issue to be put back in, as it has no bearing on the present discussion, and there is no good reason to have it removed, especially when I'm told that "If you're still interested in the Y/mtDNA issue, respond to the argument at..." This looks as though the article is manipulated to fit a particular agenda. I thought one of the basic tenets of WP was to steer away from POV-pushing. Now, I've said my bit, and I'm open to suggestions; however, I don't thoink wholesale reverting back and forth will do much. How about we discuss this until we reach consensus, then pen in whatever consensus statement we reach? I'll put back the mtDNA and y-chromosome stuff for now, as I haven't seen it raised in controversy in the last few days, just reverted a lot. For the rest, I'll wait for a consensus, if you guys will do the same. --Ramdrake 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea to discuss it. In fact, that's why the part of my sentence that you didn't quote directs you to the argument that you haven't addressed.  Here it is again: Talk:Race_and_intelligence.  See the comment at the top of that section in which I write "The 2 sources user 172 provided constitute an inaccurate summary of the literature, and are not important compared to the four sources discussed here."--Nectar 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, your expectation that a single allele for a highly polygenic trait should perfectly match the distribution of that trait misunderstands genetics and shouldn't be mentioned. If MCPH were to increase IQ by 3 points, 20 other alleles that increase IQ might occur in lower frequency in South Americans, producing an overall lower IQ than other populations. Note that the number of genes influencing cognition may be around 150. These issues are commonly discussed by critics of behavior genetics when it suits their argument, and can't be ignored any longer in this discussion. The article's statement "However, their effect, if any, on IQ is unknown" is all that's needed.

Original arguments/research are allowed on talk pages, just not in articles. As long as any correlations are only discussed on the talk page, the original research argument isn't applicable. --Nectar 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The correlation is r^2 > .6 if you take the populations individually or if you average within major regions such that you get n=8 regions; the p value for n=8 is p<.02. However, there appears to be some misunderstanding about why I mention the correlation. It was not to prove that there is an association -- this data cannot do that and it would be original research -- but rather to demonstrate that claims that these alleles obviously do not follow the IQ pattern are mistaken -- unless what is meant is that there isn't a r ~= 1 correlation between allele frequency and IQ, which is quite an unreasonable test. I hope we can now settle on a simple statement about the phenotype associated with these alleles not being known. Everything said by Nectar about multiple, interating loci is true, which is why simple correlations (or instances of outliers) are mostly uninformative. --Rikurzhen 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)