Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22

Crime and intelligence
In the table "Percentages of Blacks and Whites (Statistically Matched for IQ) in Educational and Social Outcomes" there should be information for crime rate, for a few IQ levels. Will disparity between Blacks and Whites disappear, or at least narrow considerably? Is Condi going to join a street gang? I think not, but it is always better to have figures for an argument.

brain size world wide
Lynn's RDiI contains brain/intercranial sizes for most (all?) of the groups examined. --Rikurzhen 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Intracranial size is not the same as brain size and intrancranial size has greatly changed in for example the US in a short time. What modern studies regarding brain size in developing nations do you cite? Ultramarine 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lynn says the most comprehensive collection is Smith, C. L., and Beals, K. L. (1990). Cultural correlates with cranial capacity. American Anthropologist, 92, 193–200. --Rikurzhen 03:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the author of "Cultural correlates with cranial capacity", and I found this along with a very interesting graph:

''The world mapped according to the distribution of cranial capacity. Average head size increases with colder climates. Yellow and orange show where average cranial capacities for indigeneous populations prior to extensive contact are less than 1300 cubic centimeters. Colors grade to light blue, where population averages are over 1450 cc.'' ''Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) give a thermodynamic explanation for this pattern. Heads get rounder and larger as human populations adapt to cold climates. '' (URL:http://oregonstate.edu/~smithc/vita/vita.html)

I think this makes a case for cranial capacity to be correlated with climate, not race. Notice how one of the isovolumic lines neatly bissects Europe?--Ramdrake 17:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Lynn and Rushton's main thesis on why IQ differs is adaptation to climate. Skin color and climate correlate highly, as do skin color and average winter temperatures, as both of them with IQ . --Rikurzhen 18:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, it doesn't "correlate" (in the sense of "match", no statistical analysis) for the polar and circumpolar regions. High IQs correlate more closely with countries that have a temperate climate, not a polar one (what about SouthEast Asia). I say the graph demonstrates it correlates with a temperature gradient. I don't think the fact that skin color also correlates with temperatures between hot and temperate zones adds anything, as the correlation falls when you go to polar regions, whereas the climate factor matches the whole curve. Two explanations, one works better --- Occam's Razor at work. --Ramdrake 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm. Skin color, while related to latitude, is not as strongly connected to latitude as features such as cranial capacity are - I recall reading a study finding that it is global differences in ultraviolet radiation, not latitude, which best explain racial differences in skin color. Nevertheless, the modern geographical distribution of racial groups need not reflect the ancestral geographical distribution - and it is the ancestral distribution which is where the different racial groups are believed to have acquired their unique traits through evolutionary processes. See for instance page 229 of Rushton's R.E.B., where he claims that East Asians evolved during the last Ice Age in what is now Siberia, while other populations spent that time in warmer environments. Harkenbane 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Among whites in the United States, the correlation between an individual's IQ and brain size is ~.4. Here's a table from Lynn's book.

Table 16.2. Race differences in winter temperatures (degrees centigrade) and brain size Race                  Winter Temp Wurm Temp Brain Size  IQ Arctic Peoples         -15         -20       1,443       91 East Asians           -7          -12       1,416       105 Europeans             0           -5        1,369       99 Native Americans      7           5         1,366       86 S. Asian & N. Africans 12         7         1,293       84 Bushmen               15          15        1,270       54 Africans              17          17        1,280       67 Australians           17          17        1,225       62 Southeast Asians      24          24        1,332       87 Pacific Islanders     24          24        1,317       85

"Wurm Temp" is "the coldest winter monthly temperatures during the main Wurm glaciation, which lasted between approximately 28,000 and 10,000 years ago and during which winter temperatures fell by about 5 degrees centigrade in the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere"

The correlation between brain size and IQ in this data set is .83 --Rikurzhen 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how the author managed to calculate a mean winter temperature of 7 Celsius for Native Americans, but minus 7 for East Asians. Also, why would mean winter temperature for South Asians be 12, whereas it would be 24 for Southeast Asians? That part of the data doesn't sound right to me. --Ramdrake 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but here's the table from the Templer and Arikawa (2006) paper --Rikurzhen 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Table 2. Calculated (cal) and estimated (est) IQ, skin color, real GDP per capita, and mean Celsius temperatures for all countries Country                         IQ               Skin Color      GDP     Population  Temperature cal      est                                          Winter          Summer Mean higMean lowMean higMean low Afghanistan                                  83              3      1200       26,813       8      -5      36      18 Albania                                      90           1.67      2804         3510      13       4      30      18 Algeria                                      84           4.33      4792       31,736      17       7      38      25 Angola                                       69              7      1821       10,366      23      13      27      19 Armenia                                      93           1.67      2072         3336      -2      -9      34      17 Austria                            102                       1    23,166         8151       0      -6      25      14 Azerbaijan                                   87              2      2175         7771       3      -3      32      17 Bahrain                                      83              4    13,111          645      20      14      37      29 Bangladesh                                   81           4.33      1361      131,270      26      13      31      26 Belarus                                      96           1.33      6319       10,350      -5     -11      24      14 Belgium                            100                       1    23,223       10,259       4      -1      21      12 Benin                                        69              7       867         6591      27      23      26      23 Bhutan                                       78              3      1536         2049      10       5      22      20 Botswana                                     72              7      6103         1586      24       5      31      18 Brunei                                       92              4    16,765          344      30      24      31      25 Bulgaria                            93                    1.67      4809         7707       4      -3      29      17 Burkina Faso                                 67           7.67       870       12,272      33      16      33      23 Burma                                        86              3      1199       41,995      28      14      30      24 Burundi                                      70              7       570         6224      29      17      28      19 Cambodia                                     89              5      1257       12,492      31      21      32      24 Cameroon                                     70              7      1474       15,803      30      21      27      20 Central African Republic                     68           7.33      1118         3577      32      20      29      21 Chad                                         72              7       856         8707      32      13      38      23 China                              100                       2      3105    1,273,111       7      -3      29      21 Congo (Brazzaville)                 73                    6.67       995         2894      28      17      31      21 Congo (Zaire)                       65                       7       822                   27      14      30      19 Cote d'Ivoire                                71           6.33      1598       16,393      31      23      28      23 Croatia                             90                       2      6749         4334      12       6      29      21 Cyprus                                       92              2    17,482          763      16       7      35      22 Czech Republic                      97                    1.33    12,362       10,264       1      -5      24      14 Denmark                             98                       1    24,218         5353       3      -2      22      14 Djibouti                                     68              6      1266          461      29      23      41      31 Egypt                               83                       4      3041       69,537      20      10      35      23 Equatorial Guinea                   59                       6      1817          486      31      19      29      21 Eritrea                                      68           6.33       833         4298      26      14      29      18 Estonia                                      97              1      7682         1423      -4     -10      20      12 Ethiopia                            63                    6.67       574       65,892      24       9      22      12 Finland                             97                       1    20,847         5176      -5     -13      20      11 France                              98                       1    21,175       59,551       8       2      25      15 Gabon                                        66              7      6353         1221      28      20      31      23 Gambia                                       65              8      1453         1411      31      15      30      23 Georgia                                      93              2      3353         4989       7      -1      31      19 Germany                                     102              1    22,169       83,030       2      -3      23      13 Ghana                                        71              7      1735       19,894      33      22      28      23 Greece                                       92              2    13,943       10,624      11       5      32      21 Guinea                              66                    7.67      1782         7614      31      22      28      22 Guinea–Bissau                                66           7.33       616         1316      29      17      31      24 Hong Kong                          107                       2    20,763         7211      18      13      31      26 Hungary                             99                       1    10,232       10,106       1      -5      28      16 Iceland                                      98              1    25,111          278       2      -2      14       9 India                               81                    6.33      2077    1,029,991      19      10      29      22 Indonesia                           89                    4.67      2651      228,438      30      23      30      23 Iran                                84                       3      5121       66,129      13       3      38      25 Iraq                                87                    3.33      3197       23,332      17       6      42      26 Ireland                             93                       1    21,482         3841       8       2      19      12 Italy                              102                    1.67    20,585       57,680      11       4      29      20 Japan                              105                       2    23,257      126,772       5      -3      27      18 Jordan                                       87              3      3347         5153      12       4      32      18 Kazakhstan                                   93              2      4378       16,731      -7     -15      27      16 Kenya                               72                    6.67       980       30,766      25      16      28      18 Korea, North                                104              2      3000       21,968      -1     -11      28      20 Korea, South                       106                       2    13,478       47,904       3      -6      28      22 Kuwait                                       83              4    25,314         2042      16       9      39      30 Kyrgyzstan                                   87              2      2317         4753      -1     -10      30      17 Laos                                         89           4.33      1734         5636      28      14      31      24 Latvia                                       97              1      5728         2385      -4     -10      22      11 Lebanon                             86                    3.67      4326         3628      14       6      31      19 Lesotho                                      72              7      1626         2177      16       1      30      16 Liberia                                      65              7      1200         3226      30      23      27      22 Libya                                        84           4.33      6697         5241      17       9      29      22 Lithuania                                    97           1.33      6436         3611      -5     -11      23      12 Luxembourg                                  101              1    33,500          443       3      -1      23      13 Macedonia                                    93           1.67      4254         2046       5      -3      31      15 Malawi                                       71              7       523       10,548      23       7      27      17 Malaysia                            92                    4.67      8137       22,229      29      21      30      21 Mali                                         69              6       681       11,009      32      15      36      24 Mauritania                                   74              5      1563         2747      29      14      32      23 Moldova                                      95              2      1947         4432      -1      -8      27      16 Mongolia                                     98              2      1541         2655     -19     -32      22      11 Morocco                             85                    2.67      3305       30,645      18       6      33      18 Mozambique                                   72              7       782       19,371      26      14      32      22 Namibia                                      72           6.67      5176         1798      21       7      26      16 Nepal                               78                    4.33      1157       25,284      18       2      29      20 Netherlands                        102                       1    22,176        15981       5       0      22      13 Niger                                        67              7       739       10,355      34      14      34      23 Nigeria                             67                       7       795      126,636      31      19      29      22 Norway                              98                       1    26,342         4503      -2      -7      17      10 Oman                                         83              5      9960         2622      25      19      36      31 Pakistan                                     81           3.67      1715      144,617      20       7      38      27 Philippines                         86                       4      3555       82,842      30      23      31      24 Poland                              99                       1      7619       38,634       0      -5      24      14 Portugal                            95                       2    14,701       10,066      13       6      27      16 Qatar                               78                       4    20,987          769      22      13      38      29 Romania                             94                       2      5648       22,364       2      -6      28      16 Russia                              96                       2      6460      145,470     -13     -20      23      13 Rwanda                                       70              7       660         7313      26      12      25      14 Saudi Arabia                                 83              4    10,158       22,757      25      13      39      26 Senegal                                      65           7.67      1307       10,285      26      18      31      24 Sierre Leone                        64                       7       458         5427      29      24      28      23 Slovakia                            96                    1.33      9699         5415       1      -5      26      15 Slovenia                            95                       1    14,293         1930       2      -4      27      14 Somalia                                      68              7      1000         7489      30      22      35      27 South Africa                                 72           6.67      8488       43,586      19       5      27      16 Spain                               97                       2    16,212       40,038      12       6      28      17 Sri Lanka                                    81              6      2979       19,409      25      18      27      21 Sudan                               72                    6.67      1394       36,080      32      18      37      24 Swaziland                                    72              7      3816         1104      19       6      25      15 Sweden                             101                       1    20,659         8875      -2      -7      22      13 Switzerland                        101                       1    25,512         7283       1      -5      21      14 Syria                                        87           3.33      2892       16,729      11       2      39      22 Taiwan                             104                       3    13,000                   21      15      32      25 Tajikistan                                   87           2.67      1041         6579      -1     -10      30      17 Tanzania                            72                       7       480       36,232      28      16      29      21 Thailand                            91                    3.67      5456       61,798      30      17      32      24 Togo                                         69              7      1372         5153      31      22      27      23 Tonga                               87                       5      3000          104      30      24      29      23 Tunisia                                      84              3      5404         9705      15       5      34      21 Turkey                              90                       2      6422       66,494       6      -2      28      16 Turkmenistan                                 87           2.33      2550         4603       3      -2      34      23 Uganda                              73                    7.67      1074       23,986      26      15      24      14 Ukraine                                      96           1.67      3194       48,760      -1      -8      27      16 United Arab Emirates                         83              4    17,719         2407      23      12      38      28 United Kingdom                     100                       1    20,336       59,648       6       2      19      12 Uzbekistan                                   87              2      2053       25,155       3      -6      33      18 Vietnam                                      96              4      1689       79,939      25      18      33      25 Yemen                                        83              6       719       18,078      28      23      36      29 Yugoslavia                                   93              2      4000                    6       0      31      16 Zambia                              77                    7.67       719         9770      24       8      26      17 Zimbabwe                            66                       7      2669       11,365      21       7      27      16


 * With all due respect, that doesn't answer my previous question. Also, adding a skin color index based on the estimates of three graduate students who never set foot in any of these countries and judge mostly by what they think the "predominant skin color" of the country should be doesn't sound to me like science with a sound basis, and neither does the amount of extrapolation of the IQ results compared to actual measurements. Precisely, making such extrapolations based on geographic averages nearly guarantees you'll get a correlation. Besides, I tend to wonder why this is the umpteenth article I see on the subject, based on the same set of data. Is it because the data is so hard to obtain, or is it because if someone tried to redo the same data gathering, the results might be significantly different? --Ramdrake 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, that doesn't answer my previous question. -- I was offering you the data needed to see if his numbers make any sense. ... Lynn says "Column 3 gives present-day coldest winter

monthly temperatures taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas and are averages of the regions inhabited by the races."
 * Yes, the temperatures in this second table look more realistic than those in the first, however my comment was aimed at the "average winter temperatures" in the first table. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, adding a skin color index based on the estimates of three graduate students who never set foot in any of these countries and judge mostly by what they think the "predominant skin color" of the country should be doesn't sound to me like science with a sound basis, and neither does the amount of extrapolation of the IQ results compared to actual measurements. -- you and sternberg have both misunderstood what was done. the graduate students were given a map of skin color w/o country borders drawn on it. they were asked to use this map to give the average skin color for each country (by comparing it to a colorless map with country boundaries), not to make a guess on their own.
 * Sorry, pointing at areas on a map, even without borders and determining a predominant skin color for that area, without making appropriate studies is still guesswork.
 * Precisely, making such extrapolations based on geographic averages nearly guarantees you'll get a correlation. Using average values from >100 countries guarrantees you'll get a correlation? Huh?
 * First, there were 84 data points, which got expanded by averaging to 109 data points, if I remember correctly. Second, a significant number of these data point were never meant to be representative of a national IQ average. Many were calibration groups for various tests, often done in a single school, in a single city of a country. If I were to show up randomly at a Canadian Liberal Party convention and started taking voter's opinion polls, would you be surprised if I came up with the answer that nearly 100% of the Canadian population intends to vote for the Liberal Party? I wouldn't. Same applies here: if the results were held in a single location in the country (such as a school), the representativity of the results would be close to nil. Ask any professional surveyor and they'll tell you. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it because the data is so hard to obtain, or is it because if someone tried to redo the same data gathering, the results might be significantly different? You mean IQ data? It was compiled from hundreds of studies. I imagine it would (1) take a long time to collect a whole new data set of comparable size and (2) the reliability values (re-test correlation) from instances where there is more than one study for the same country is very strong.
 * Again, what about the representativity of those data points? You can't choose a random group and expect it to be representative of a whole country. Even if you choose another group at random and get similar results, that still doesn't mean your results are representative. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all mostly a tangent from the question about how much evidence is out there for "world-wide" differences in brain size. --Rikurzhen 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't geographic differences in cranial capacity (not so sure about brain size); there are, but these, AFAIK, are closely correlated to temperature (more so than skin color), and also AFAIK, the observed differences in IQ worldwide could be explained by a number of reasons (mostly cultural and socio-economic) other than the color of one's skin. Sure, one can find correlations between several of these factors, but there's a long way between demonstrating a correlation and proving causation. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'The color of one's skin' is a red herring. To say that cranial capacity and intelligence are linked with the average temperature in which a racial group evolved is to agree with those who claim that cranial capacity and intelligence are linked with race. Selective forces created by climate are the explanation proposed by researchers like Jensen for the observed differences in average intelligence between different racial groups, with socio-economic mechanisms related to nutrition being offered as secondary effects. (Indeed, evolutionary changes mediated by climatological features are considered by virtually everyone to explain all racial differences except those related to intelligence. The question at hand is whether climate differentially altered mean intelligence levels as it altered mean levels of other traits between population groups.) Harkenbane 18:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. I can understand that cranial capacity is a by-product of head shape. A rounder head would be an advantage for preserving body heat (surface volume ratio is low) in cold climates, whereas a narrower, elongated head would be best for dissipating heat (surface volume ratio is high) in warm climates. It's simple biophysics, and it's not even really race-related, but you can see differences between some ethnic groups. However, where I draw the line is to say that larger heads mean bigger brains, and that bigger brains mean higher intelligence. I don't see that there is evidential proof of that line of reasoning yet. --Ramdrake 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The point which started this thread was Ultramarine's dillution of the description of Jensen and Rushton's argument that there is evidence for world-wide differences in brain size as well as IQ. Can we agree that there is evidence for world-wide differences in brain size, regardless of their evolutionary cause and signifiance for IQ? If so, then I'll restore their argument. --Rikurzhen 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. There are world-wide differences in cranial capacity, which may or may not translate to differences in brain size, and the impact of this on IQ, if any, is unknown. I would agree to a statement like I just said. I wouldn't implicate brain size in this, and I would be very careful to point out that the impact of this on IQ is at this point unascertained. --Ramdrake 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * External measurements of head size are known to correlate with IQ, and if I am remembering correctly, they also correlate with brain size. Brain size itself is famously correlated with IQ (r~.4) and even more strongly with g itself (r~.6). If you're looking for an escape hatch, you won't find it in the correlations themselves. What saves the bioegalitarian position from this line of reasoning are three studies by Wickett (in 1994) and Schoenemann (in 1997 & 2000) finding that the correlations between head/brain size and g are almost totally extrinsic. Surprising research, and Jensen dismisses it, but when a result is replicated enough times it's difficult to make it go away.


 * On the other hand, even taking these studies at face value, that still does little to reduce the strength of the racial-realist position - it just means that if climatological effects (the need for hunting success, winter preparation, paternal provisioning, impulse control, and so forth) drove g up more in some populations than others, as Lynn, Rushton, and others believe, then skulls and brains are not the places to look for the mechanisms whereby g was enhanced more in some populations than others.


 * The real strength of the racial-realist position is in the fact that the heritability of an IQ test item predicts the size of the black/white gap for that item. I've seen it claimed that there is no direct evidence regarding the heritability of racial gaps in intelligence, but this is a direct test of the racial realist position; you can read about it in Rushton, Philippe J. (1999b). “Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression–unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn.” Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999) 381-389. I've seen people insist "well, all they have to do is design a study to see whether they can demolish Rushton's earlier finding," but there's already so much evidence supporting a partially genetic interpretation that I don't think there's much chance at this point of new information doing any more than clarifying for everyone whether the IQ gaps are 50% or 80% genetic. Harkenbane 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference problems
I have not watched this article recently. However, I know it is a long article that underwent conversion of footnotes/references to Cite.php format relatively recently.

I have been working on a semi-bot to aid in fixing problems that come up with m:Cite.php usage; in the future, also to assist more in correcting such issues and/or to convert true citations (as opposed to annotational footnotes) into Harvard style referencing. FWIW, I tend to think a hybrid approach involving separate named citational references and annotational footnotes is a good (maybe the best) approach for scientific articles: a toy example that illustrates this lives at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes.

In any case, you can see the diagnosis by Citation Tool. To use the tool to analyze other articles, take a look at User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation tool. The tool will get better, but it already identifies some problems that need addressing in this article; I welcome feedback during development of the semi-bot (or thereafter... I guess development of such things never really stops). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

DTNBP1
This paper...


 * 

...finds an assocation between the minor allele of SNP rs1018381 and lower g.

The minor allele frequencies for this SNP in the HapMap populations are:

0.308 YRI: Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria 0.091 JPT: Japanese in Tokyo, Japan 0.056 CHB: Han Chinese in Beijing, China 0.075 CEU: CEPH (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe)

This is probably too new and too unreplicated to warrant inclusion, but it's something to look out for in the future. --Rikurzhen 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Race Differences in Intelligence
The analysis from that page should be used instead of the analysis here. Unsigned comment by User:Digitalseal

The Huge Problem with this article: IQ
Essentially, this article is about Race and IQ scores. Not about Race and Intelligence

Given that it is accepted that IQ has a very tenuous connection to intelligence, and that it only tests a very small subsection of whatever 'intelligence' is, the weight of both discussion and the article itself to IQ is hugely problematic. It should be stated upfront and clearly that IQ testing itself is fraught with gaps and bias. The article does this to a certain extent but then devotes acres of space to discussions of explaining IQ differences.

(If you care to dispute this go ahead! But there are 3 graphs and 2 tables in this article: all 5 of them are about IQ - enough said :-)

I propose Rename this article Race and IQ, and focus on that.

An article named Race and Intelligence needs to much shorter with a link to Race and IQ, but itself focussing on the definitions of Race and Intelligence, and the problem of measurement and resultant biases - not about explaining the different scores in IQ tests. Having an article called Race and Intelligence, and devoting so much of it to Race and IQ perpetuates the idea that IQ and Intelligence are somehow closely related and/or IQ=Intelligence. Focussing on statistics such as Nobel Prize winners too is fraught with difficulty. Why not focus on Music Hall of Fame inductees? This is a major issue because this perpetuates the concept of Mathematical/Scientific endeavors needing more 'intelligence' than *for example* musical ones. Suppose I edited this article to point out that the vast majority of respected and successful rap artists were black, (a skill requiring verbal, musical and rhythmical ability) but deleted the Nobel prize section people would view the edit as biased and ridiculous. *Measure* of intelligence is essentially biased. This article should be about that bias, not about IQ.

Macgruder 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See the archives, like here. Basically, the POV of your contribution is not one that is very wide-spread among scholarly expositions of this matieral, and these exceptions are covered at length in the article already. Arbor 12:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough, I didn't see that discussion. However, there is a subtle and no doubt unintentional bias towards scientific and 'measurable' pursuits being equated with high achievement, and hence intelligence:

Section "For high-achieving minorities". By focussing on income, and science, "a high-complexity occupation in which practitioners tend to have IQs well above average", the article perpetuates the idea that somehow this is a measure of high achievement. That is POV that science is 'a high-complexity occupation' as opposed to being a music being a high achievement, for example. How many successful musicians are Asian, or Jewish compared with blacks and whites? In other words although the article covers these exceptions it seems to not take heed of them. Why 5 diagrams all about IQ? Why no major focus on musical achievement?

Also the way the article reads is that it's about IQ (and research) centrally and 'moving out' to intelligence (as opposed by being about intelligence and 'movivg in' to issues of measurement etc). This is clear from the first 3 paragraphs which state clearly that the focus is on the research which itself is controversial and mainly based around IQ: "Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research...". It's POV in my POV opinion :-) to decide that a Race and intelligence article should be about "Race and intelligence research". What about the cultural implications, race and intelligence in literature, in politics etc.

You have that nice linking box to these issues with the symbol being an IQ chart(why an IQ chart?), but whose POV decision was it that reseach should be the centre from which all these other articles spring. The article has defined Race and Intelligence to be 'research of Race and Intelligence' and I think this leads to major structural problems, and means that all the other articles such as "Race and intelligence (Public controversy)" are actually something like "Public controversy about the research of Race and Intelligence" given that this article defines Race and intelligence as the research not the topic. Macgruder


 * Simply put, AFAIK, there's no precedence from the literature on this subject to support Macgruder's concerns/suggestions. "Research" predominates in this article because it predominates in the literature. Of course this is expected for a topic about which empirical investigation is possible and has a long history. (As one might expect, the article on heat talks more about the science of heat than the cultural, social and political implications of heat. No doubt someone somewhere has written on these topics, but certainly the overwhelming discussion on heat, as with race and intelligence, is focused on the science.) You'll find, for example, that the corresponding article in Britannica or Encarta has the same title and covers the same material, although in much less detail. --Rikurzhen 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but heat is simply a poor analogy. Heat is measurable and scientifically defined - the whole point is that intelligence is not measurable and not scientifically defined. There is no subjective element to heat whatsoever: ice is colder than fire. Try comparing Ray Charles with Einstein in the same way. This is totally different from intelligence. (cf. Consciousness) IQ on the other hand is measurable...


 * It may have a long history, but I'm not convinced by that argument. (No doubt cavorting with druids does too :-) My feeling is that it's the very history of this research that is hampering the correct perception of what intelligence means, and Britannica due to its long history has not taken the necessary steps to rectify that problem. Wikipedia by its unique nature should not have to fall into the same trap.


 * Especially this is true because the first three paragraphs take great pains to explain this research is dominated by IQ testing in the United States, and that IQ testing itself is fraught with difficulty and essentially doesn't represent intelligence anyway. So the article about Race and Intelligence focusses on the study of something that is not clearly defined by a method that is essentially flawed. I think that it is a fairly modern view that IQ as a test of Intelligence is flawed, and encyclopedias should reflect that.


 * Wikipedia has a responsibility here, and the IQ race 'correlation' in certain studies is used for political ends. I think it needs to be made much more clear that the present scientific study to date has little to say on the issue of intelligence but much to say on IQ (and by calling this article Race and intelligence, you are being too lenient on science). This is not to say that Wikipedia has any role to change people's minds or anything, but the failings of science to deal with the issue of intelligence should not be compensated by Wikipedia to shift the definitions of both race and intelligence(esp.) to favour science. This is simply POV on a large scale.


 * Of the top of my head: 'Race and intelligence is a controversial topic focussing on the correlation between ethnic group differences and cognitive abilities'. Start with the difficulties of definitions. Follow this by a history of studies, public perceptions and literature (as in writing). In the course of this talk about IQ and link this to an article focussing on that.


 * I'm very aware that a great many people have put heroic work into this article, and I respect that totally. Macgruder 09:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinions of experts (e.g., here and here) does not match your assement of the intelligence / IQ relationship: Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. ... Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language. The point being that the psychometric understanding of intelligence is well defined (and thus able to be well measured) and relatively well understood, but of course not nearly as well understood as heat.
 * Moreover, there are differences in variables that are related to intelligence but not identical to IQ, such as academic performance, brain size, reaction time, etc. --Rikurzhen 10:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, you seem to have proved my point. You have based your definition on a scientific definition which itself is controversial. See here and here. This is my whole point. This article has chosen to use a narrow definition of intelligence, and to be broadly about the scientific study of this narrow view of intelligence.


 * I am arguing that using a view of intelligence that excludes the primary abilities of Mozart, Ben Harper, Shakespeare etc. is meaningless in the context of how the vast majority of people understand the word intelligence (i.e. the dictionary definition). In other words, it is POV to use a definition of intelligence that is contrived to exclude the things that scientists can't test such as creativity. That is why I'm arguing that the Race and Intelligence section needs to cover a broader scope of what most people understand the word intelligence to mean, and then link into the scientific approach. Macgruder 07:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote much of the material in the sections you linked. What you're missing is a sense of perspective about the extent to which this definition of intelligence is accepted. From a 1987 survey, the proportion of accept to not-accept was about 9 to 1; Currently, you will find this definition used as the default definition in review papers written in prestigious journals: In this review,we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE (Gf)11, it is related to analytical intelligence12. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial, and is best understood at multiple levels of analysis (FIG. 1).PDF There is a psychometric literature on creativity, but it is not well developed and AFAIK there is no evidence of race differences in creativity. It's not a violation of NPOV in the wikipedia sense to describe only the things that have been published about a topic, and AFAIK there is no discussion in the literature to fill in the material you are suggesting. --Rikurzhen 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "What you're missing is a sense of perspective about the extent to which this definition of intelligence is accepted." Once again you are making my point; what you are saying here is: "What you're missing is a sense of perspective about the extent to which this definition of intelligence is accepted in scientific circles". I understand that this definition is accepted in scientific circles, but I would also say that scientists have most likely also couched this definition within a framework of what they can test. In other words, scientists have been somewhat influenced by what is testable to narrow the definition of intelligence to less than the standard meaning. And this is my point: science's definition, even if it is accepted by every scientist only applies within the realm of science and is different to how it is applied in language. In other words: What you are missing is a sense of perspective about the extent to which this definition of intelligence is not accepted in society as a whole :-)


 * For example, if David Wechsler said: "Subject A is intelligent" and "My friend, Bob, is very intelligent", "Shakespeare was intelligent" he himself would no doubt agree that he didn't mean that Shakespeare's intelligence was the scientific definition as applied to Subject A. So although as you point out 90% of scientists agree to a particular definition within the frame of study, they are hugely outnumbered by the number of people in the world who view intelligence in a different way. This is not I think a result of the ignorance of the general population but an active decision by scientists to choose a narrower, measurable definition. When the general population includes (let's say) creativity within intelligence, you cannot say that they are wrong. Intelligence means whatever the general population choose it to mean. I don't mind this article focussing on the scientific approach but I want it made much clearer that the intelligence here is not the intelligence that is understand by the population in general and doesn't match the dictionary definition.


 * Science's approach can lead to unusual comments (by a racist) for example:


 * "Yeah, blacks are less intelligent(*). We know this because of the results of intelligence(**) tests". Ridiculously the two uses of intelligence have 2 different meanings!

Macgruder 05:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that the question of whether g corresponds to "intelligence" has been researched, and the conclusions are that it is as close as anything which has been discovered and measured, such that a difference in g undoubtably implies a difference in "intelligence". That leaves open the possibility that the folk psychological concept of "intelligence" includes other concepts besides g. You seem to be suggesting creativity is one, but I'm dubious about that given that there are in fact two words for the concepts, that one can imagine a person being more creative or more intelligent independently, and that the association of the two in people's probably minds stems more from their correlation within populations than their being identical. --Rikurzhen 13:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm going to concede your point regarding 'intelligence'. Further, discussion will be directed to the race aspect of this article below Macgruder 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Now while the science of "intelligence" is such, there is IMHO a real need for people to realize that there's more to human worth than intelligence, and creativity may be an excellent example of that. (Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, has written on this.) If some sound research can be found on the issue of creativity, especially group differences thereof, that would make an excellent addition. --Rikurzhen 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute - Going to remove the tag
The facts here are not in serious dispute, only the editor's feelings about them. This article is not racist, not by any definition of the word. What we have is a protracted argument about this or that study, which is good and right but which should not spill over onto the front page of the article, which is meticulously documented with pros and cons, and which gives ample room for many interpretations of its findings. It does not say "X is smarter than Y because of Z", it says that "studies show that X has a higher IQ under Z circumstances than Y" and then goes on to fill in the variables in several different ways.

The people who do not like this article don't like it because they feel sure it is saying that, in the end, blacks and hispanics are somehow not as smart as whites and asians. If it asserted this, they would be right to question it. But the article says that nowhere. What it does say is that in some testing situations, these were the results, and here are a lot of ways in which this data should be read. This is what is done every day in academic journals, and this debate should end. Morgaledth 06:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This study is in an extremely controversial field with highly questionable results. Racism: belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior (Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.). The article seems to fit in that definition. +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was not a helpful comment, Hexagon1. The question is not whether this article is racist. It is whether or not it breaks Wikipedia's NPOV mission statement. I say no. This is a model article. Arbor 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That may not be helpful to your POV, Arbor, but it is a realistic comment. If this article supports the view that some races are inherently more intelligent than others (the "partly genetic explanation"), then this is racism as per the definition supplied above. Whether one calls it "racial realism" or racism, in the end it boils down to the same thing. And that's irrelevant of whether or not there has been research done to try to demonstrate the point. However, this is a free society, and you're entitled to your views, and to freedom of speech, and I believe you have been very respectful of other's freedom of speech. It still doesn't change the fact that the point the article tries to demonstrate is a racist one. The article tends to give too much bandwidth to a handful of researchers (Lynn and cohorts) with a specific agenda, while dismissing other research as irrelevant when it goes contrary to the views of those scientists. For that, it deserves the disputed tag. --Ramdrake (talk) [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|30px]] 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Racism: belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior (Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)." You may be able to say that this article fits the "races has different abilities" part, but this isnt the same as claiming that races differ in "superiority". The definition includes a logical AND, ie. you have to both believe in differences and superiority. --Elamere
 * Are we talking about the same tags? The controversial tag on the top of this talk page is fine. The factual accuracy on the article page is not. If there are factual inaccuracies, or there are viewpoint that are under- or misrepresented then that should be easy to fix. The observation that this article is indeed biased towards science and research does support its factual accuracy. If there were a too scientific or SPOV tag, then by all means slap in on. I will bear that with pride. But the factual accuracy tag is a travesty. The opposite is true. Whether this article is racist or not is (1) not a very helpful debate and (2) orthogonal to assessing its factual correctness. If race and intelligence science is racist (as many would argue) then the race and intelligence article cannot help but be coherent with that stance. (Personally, I side with Pinker on this issue and don't see this as racism. But discussing the semantics of racism is not a constructive way of improving this article either, so I will shut up about it!) Arbor 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not so much concerned about the factual accuracy of this article. I think there are far too many research results provided here to dispute that. You could remove that part of the tag, as far as I'm concerned. However, I support the "neutrality" part of the tag, as I think this article is far too apologetic of the conclusions of a small group of researchers, and glosses over some serious objections to a specific viewpoint. So, no, I don't support "factual accuracy" in the article tag, but I support the "neutrality" part of it. --Ramdrake 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|30px]]
 * (1) it's a mistake to think that whether the IQ gap is due to genetics or not makes a difference to anyone but a scientist. for all practical reasons it doesn't matter because the gap is stable and resistant to amelioration, which is all that really matters. (2) Race_and_intelligence could at most be charitably described as evenly split, but supporters of the "not genetic" view admit that their view is a minority, accurately defending themselves by saying that "science isn't done by majority rule". If anything this article is too apologetic to the minority view that there is no genetic effect, but equal time for the two hypotheses seems fine considering the controversial (some say "pornographic") nature of the whole thing. --Rikurzhen 18:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is well done, especially considering the subject. However, the article does send out the feel that africans and so-called hispanics are less intelligent than caucasians and asians, with a few counter-claims here and there. This is hardly NPOV. --A Sunshade Lust 10:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. This dubious quote for example: 'and the gap shows up before age 3 on most standardized tests after matching for variables such as maternal education'. If as the 'main writers' are suggesting intelligence = "Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." it seems absurd to make comparisons of 2 year olds. Matching for variables?? Poverty for example? I can hardly believe that this could be characterized as a factual statement that belongs in the introduction. How big was the gap? How statistically significant? Were there no dissenting opinions? Why does this belong in the introduction compared with the German/American GI children study which implied the opposite? It may be factually correct that there is such a study, but it is not neutral to give it such prominence in the introduction and present that study's conclusions as fact.
 * Macgruder 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunshade, Macgruder, please stick around and work with us for a while. We need good and reasonable editors. Also, please read up on the survey papers—especially do read the counterpoints to the Rushton–Jensen paper in PPPL to see where the opposition stands today. As the the viewpoints that receive attention on this very article: The German GI study is a good example. If this were a study that is taken serious in scholarly publications then it should indeed be presented much more prominently. I am all for including it here—but it has enormous problems, and is therefore not taken as counterevidence in scholarly circles. It is, however, widely published in the media which is why I would love to present it in the public debate section. So far, we have refrained from doing it, because we need to present it together with its reception. And that is negative. Whenever we debate the German GI example, we conclude that it actually helps the hereditary position, because the science is soooo wonky than even a layperson can see right through it. For example, American GI's have already passed an IQ test. Hence Black American GIs have an IQ that is similar to their white colleagues. In other words, the population is already filtered and not representative of the US population. Add to that sexual selection (there is no reason to assume German women would select dumber Blacks than they select Whites), and you could estimate the average German–Black GI father to anything about 95 or higher. Mix it with an average German woman (IQ 100) and the hereditary position would predict and IQ of 97.5. Which is close to what the study found. So the study confirms the hereditary position instead of contradicting it. (There are many more problems with the study.) And that is how it is generally received within academic circles, but not in the media. I'll be happy to write about it, but I can't see how such a section helps the anti-hereditarian position. More generally, even if we wanted to, we could not let this WP article be influenced by the weight that you or I put on the German GI study. This is not a playground for us to present material in a way that we find reasonable. What we can do is present the consensus view, as much as that is verifiable, in a honest and well-explained fashion. Evolution needs to at least mention that there are people (especially outside academic circles) that think it's all hogwash, and Race and intelligence needs to mention that there are people (especially outside academic circles) that think it's all hogwash. We do that, here more than there. But unless you want us to fabricate evidence I simply cannot understand how we should write this article much differently from what we are doing. Unles you really claim that it is a significant viewpoint among intelligence researchers (cognitive scientists, psychologists, neurobiologists, etc.) that all populations are of equal average measured intelligence. That is an extreme fringe viewpoint. Arbor 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To give an example which expands on Arbor's point. Here is a data table, reprinted in Jensen (1998), which gives the mean IQ of the children from the WWII/German study.

Group              Boys                Girls               Difference White (WW)         101                 93                  8 Interactial (BW)   97                  96                  1 Difference         4                   -3                  7

If taken seriously, this data would suggest that white girls score 8 points lower than white boys. The sex-sampling in the study is clearly unrepresentative of the population, suggesting that the entire sample is unrepresentative, which could explain why the results of this study are so different than, for example, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Jensen adds this to the already existing list of criticisms of this study. --Rikurzhen 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that the GI study was without problems. But I think within the framework of the question of Race and Intelligence, all the studies have huge problems. Weighting of poverty, cultural bias, focus on US studies, correct genetic profiling (is Colin Powell white or black given that his skin color is lighter than George Bush - pristina.usmission.gov/ images6/in5b.jpg ??) for example, but whereas the 2 year-old children study is shown as unproblematic and presented in the intro, the GI study isn't. Below Rikurzhen points out the study is clearly unrepresentative because of the Boys vs. Girls issue. Well, this begs the equally obvious question: why is it that the 2 groups that do the worst or hispanic and black? What do the pro-genetics scientists say is the element that connects these two disparate groups. My point is that the whole field is so fraught with problems that none of the studies have much meaning. Another obvious problem: black subject gets 93 in a test, white subject gets 92 in a test. That's a one point difference on an intelligence scale. But where is the scale for race? Recent developments in DNA and genetics have shown that it is ludicrous to define individuals as white or black or hispanic. What do the scientists do when they choose to profile someone as black? Look at their skin color? Do a DNA test? Measure the angle of their eyes? Correctly, you have torn apart the GI study. But the whole study needs to be torn apart in the same way because of this issue. If you don't have a good scientific definition of race in these studies then they are meaningless. If the race element is not subject to the same scale as the scores element it too is meaningless. Most of these studies were done before the recent developments in DNA profiling.


 * Now I realize the article goes to great pains to point out these issues but the problem as I see it, is that experts are always 'Intelligence' Researchers. Where are the other half of the equation, the Genetics experts? I would hazard a guess that if you asked geneticists what their opinion of the debate is that they would almost say universally that the whole research is simply flawed, but the article allows the 'experts' to get away it right at the beginning with: "the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry." This is why I think that the article about Race and Intelligence should not be reduced to the science study within the framework of these assumptions but should be a more broad look(see discussion above). In other words, this article should be renamed Race and intelligence (science). Genetic profiling has come along way in the last five years and it's clearly to the dismay of "Intelligence" experts who are now discovering that their work because it is based on this assumption is essentially meaningless. Wikipedia 1998 this article would be fine the way it is, but with genetic science coming so far forward in the last few years, I think the Race and intelligence article needs to be completely reassessed. Imagine if you will an encyclopedia on about 1913 that said 'the science was based on the assumption that time was constant and unchanging', a smart editor would know that it was time to reassess the direction of that article. An this is important, because in fact it still retains it's scientific basis because the geneticists have shown the science to be essentially flawed, and any science that needs huge assumptions is not really meaningful if these assumptions are without clear merit.


 * Arbor, you clearly know a lot more than I do about the subject in terms of the studies etc., but I think that right now, right here in Wikipedia this article has a chance to be the first to do something important. Don't let the assumptions be the basis of the article. Remove these assumptions totally, and reassess how you would rewrite the article from there. You may not realize it but this article is perhaps the most important in the whole of Wikipedia as it gets to the basis of humanity and differences. Don't let it be reduced to the just the present state of the science with all its assumptions.
 * Macgruder 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Macgruder, we cannot on WP do anything that is significantly different from what other sources do. That would violate WP:NOR and WP:V. In other words, race and intelligence research as a whole may or may not benefit from a complete revision in light of new evidence—but that has no bearing on WP. We need to follow the WP rules, and this article does it to perfection. That's why the totallydisputed tag is such a travesty. Race and intelligence is the model WP article. It may not be the best article that can be written on Race and intelligence in any medium, but within the rules set out by the WP project, it is the best we can do. Even if we all agreed that we need to question the assumptions of R&I research and slant this article accordingly, we couldn't do that. WP is a tertiary source, it does not contribute original viewpoints, and it does not present known evidence in an original fashion (WP:NOR). By the way, I think Rikurzhen is a population geneticist. If anything, intelligence researchers (such as psychologist) are underrepresented among the editors of this page.Arbor 07:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro assumptions; Britannica/Encarta

 * "That would violate WP:NOR and WP:V." My suggestions do not violate either of these. I am not suggesting that you change pursue new research, I'm challenging the idea that this article is about the title. The title of this article is 'Race and intelligence'. As it stands the article has little to do with the stated title other than talking about the science of it which is a very small subset of it.


 * And in fact you do do something different from Britannica. There is no article called Race and intelligence in Britannica. There is not even a subsection within the race article called Race and intelligence. The only thing in Britannica is an subsection of Race called "Race" and intelligence. So in other words Britannica agrees with my viewpoint: Race and intelligence is the incorrect name for this article. So by your own rules of not doing anything 'significantly different from what other sources do', you are already doing so by removing those quotes. My suggestion was to rename the article Race and intelligence (science), and within the framework of that article point out that race is really 'race'. I don't know if that is the best solution, but by the standards of Britannica this article has the wrong title. Macgruder 08:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Britannic article, weighing in at under a page and presenting only one POV is a bad example as far as WP policy goes for content, but it demonstrates that the words used in the title are the appropriate ones. The Encarta article by the same title is the better example of content, as the covers the gamut of scholarly opinions. There is a public controversy about this topic, but that controversy is driven by research results, rather than the other way around. It would be as inappropriate to write this article without a focus on science as it would the article on evolution or (the example you dismissed above) heat. Ironically, you demonstrated the reason for that in your rebuttal to my heat analogy above. You said that everyone knows what heat means, and that's assumed that the scientific understanding which is presented in the heat article perfectly matches with the public understanding. In fact, you conflated heat with temperature, as do most people. The point being that it's essential to write articles with a focus on the scholarly literature whenever possible, and we benefit from a massive scholarly literature on this topic. The shape of that literature greatly limits the shape of an NPOV article, and as a confirmation of our success, the Encarta article (written by a well known and respected scholarly in this field) and this article are highly similar in scope and content, with the WP article being larger (of course). --Rikurzhen 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * " it demonstrates that the words used in the title are the appropriate ones". Not really, because in Britannica the word race is in quotes: 'race'. I can't read the Encarta as I'm not a member, but you state that 'The Encarta article by the same title is the better example of content, as the covers the gamut of scholarly opinions.' As we well know, in any controversial field there may be a whole range of scholarly opinions, but we have to be clear to label those opinions which are minority opinions as such. Intelligent Design is a good example. It doesn't merit much mention in a discussion of our origins because although certain scholars promote the 'theory' it has little scientific merit. Now according to expert opinion here the same is increasingly true of the merit of any race based science. Now, you may believe that Britannica is flat-out wrong here, but I don't believe so. Once again your evolution like your heat analogy doesn't work. Evolution is clearly definable within a scientific context. It's precisely because I believe in the precision and the method of science that I don't believe this article meets the criteria to be wholly about the science. I know (without even checking) that the heat and evolution articles do not require a sentence like this: "This research is grounded in [the] controversial assumption [that] the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry." If what Britannica says is true then this is more than controversial: it is an increasingly minority view. If the majority of scientists say this assumption cannot be made then the majority of scientists are concluding that the whole study is unscientific - after all 'science' based on an assumption that itself is not true isn't science. For me the tone of this article should match that of Intelligent design (OK, not so harsh!), but I think you understand my point.


 * I think that is nearly as far as we can go with this discussion. Perhaps, I can ask you a favour:


 * I believe that the NPOV viewpoint is as follows: the assumptions of Race and intelligence are held by an increasingly small minority of scientists. (i.e. they are not just controversial, they are a minority viewpoint) I'm referring to "This research is grounded in controversial assumptions ... etc". (This is as stated in Britannica.)


 * I would like to change that line myself to "This research is grounded in assumptions accepted only by a minority of scientists...", but if you have good reasons or good sources to suggest that Britannica is wrong here, I'd be happy to revise my opinion (I'm somewhat coming over to your thinking regarding 'intelligence' in our discussion above, so I am open to persuasion!)


 * In summary I'm objecting to the science here not because I don't believe in the scientific method (I'm very pro-science), but because I don't believe Race and intelligence is science. In the same way, the Intelligent design article clearly states upfront : "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory " I think a similar thing needs to be said here. By similar, I don't mean that Race and intelligence is anything near as bad as intelligent design, but we do need to find out how controversial the assumptions are and if they are in fact 'an increasing minority opinion'. This I think will perhaps take some research. Macgruder 16:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the public controversy subsection, you can get hard numbers on what "the overwhelming majority of the scientific community" thinks about race. If you read the two collective statements at the bottom of the main article you get a good overview of what the "overwhelming majority of the scientific community" thinks about intelligence (Gottfredson's article has never been disputed by a single scientist!), and you can get a consensus statement of the entire American Psychological Association that says that, yes, indeed, there is a measurable (albeit small) gap between measured intelligence among races. In short the scientific community is right behind this article. There are exceptions, like cultural anthropologists, who are divided on the issue (for example, they seem to be evenly split about whether or not race is a social construct.) Public opinion, on the other hand, and the media certainly are not behind the main findings or R&I research. But doesn't this article make a stellar job out of explaining this all already? Arbor 16:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hard numbers? That questionnaire is 1985 which is so out of date regarding race to be meaningless in light of recent genetics advances. Don't we have anything more recent? That collective statement about intelligence has little to say about race - it is mainly about the measurability of intelligence which is not under discussion in this section. So no I can't get 'hard numbers on what "the overwhelming majority of the scientific community" thinks about race' - only one survey made 20 years ago, and more recent statements by the American Anthropological Association which support my assertion. What I do have to go on is Britannica which states 'Although their numbers are dwindling, some scientists continue to believe that it is possible to divide Homo sapiens into discrete populations called races.' ... 'An increasing number of scholars [...] now believe that the concept of race has outlived its usefulness.'


 * Or Scientific American: Does Race Exist? If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. In other words, the overwhelming impression I get from reading authors such as Dawkins, Britannica and Scientific American is that the 1985 view is being steadily eroded. Of course, this is not a scientific survey, but I'm doubt the assumption "the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry" would find many supporters today in the scientific community despite the results of the 1985 survey. (The Gottfredson article is meaningless here because she is writing that within the framework of that assumption being true anyway).


 * So in Summary: "the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry" is very possibly now in 2006 an increasingly minority opinion, and therefore makes needs to be clearly labelled as such. Or we need more research (and more recent research). Macgruder 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The race article is a bit messy right now, but still mostly a good reference on what contemporary genetics tells us about race. Moreover, the debates going on in genetics are mostly orthogonal to the issue of race as it pertains to this article (i.e. social science). That people divide themselves into groups (that they call races) and that these groups have different alleles frequencies across the genome is sufficient for this topic and 100% non-controversial. --Rikurzhen 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, Britannica's article on race was written by a social anthropology and African-American studies professor named Audrey Smedley (according to their email response). Smedley isn't an adequate source for the opinions of biologists. (Sternberg - who admits he's in the minority on this issue - was the author of their intelligence article)
 * This is superfluous, but that last survey we have (1985) was in contrast to the claims since the 1970s, finding only 15% of biologists disagreed with that there are biological races.  (The argument that race doesn't exist has been basically intact as we know it today since the 70s, and critics will argue that genetic advances have only weakened the argument since then, particularly recently, with the work of Tang, Risch, Rosenberg etc.)--Nectar 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a good, but non-technical, discussion of race by Ernst Mayr here. It addresses the fundamentals. --Rikurzhen 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ernst Mayr here would seem to support my position regarding concordance. Both of you are not reading carefully what I'm saying. I'm not saying there are not races (although I have linked to people who do say this), I am saying and read this carefully. There is no scientific basis to support the conclusion:
 * the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories.
 * "There is race"does not imply 'the social categories are concordant with genetic categories'. In other words, the 1985 survey does nothing to support this assumption. It was simply a case of asking 'Is there race?'. So


 * Statement: the social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories.
 * Against: 10,000 member American Anthropological Association, at least. Undetermined number of biologists.
 * For: 1 (I cannot find one statement in any of the links or articles, you yourself gave me, that goes beyond 'race exists' except Tang. This concordance is a minority position. Mayr himself certainly doesn't go so far. Even your own wikipedia Race link states the following clearly: 'The problem arises of distinguishing black Africans as a racial group; it doesn't work because it is a paraphyletic classification. In other words, under a phylogenetic classification, considering black Africans as a single racial group would require one to include every living person on Earth within that single African "race", because the genetic variation of the rest of the world represents essentially a single subtree within that of Africa'. Even the researchers who go so for as to conclude we can group people somehow by race never make that step of 'social categories' concordant with 'genetic categories'.
 * Regarding Tang. I know you are going to bring up Tang's research to support the above. OK, it's 1 paper (is it published in a major journal?), and there seem to be some dispute as to both the statistical methods and the significance of so-called clusters which themselves have a massive range within them, so that 2 people falling within different clusters can be more genetically similar than 2 people within the same cluster ( as an analogy: France can be geographically clustered with Thailand, but is certainly more similar to UK which is in a difference geographical cluster ). On top of which it refers very narrowly to US categories.
 * So the assumption on which Race and intelligence is founded is only partially supported by 1 paper with its U.S. focus. It's not NPOV to say it's merely controversial, and it seems to be too much of a coincidence that the 'such as' example as in 'such as biographic ancestry' just happens to match Tang's paper. Here:


 * "The first assumption is dismissed by the 10,000 member American Anthropological Association. Amongst biologists, although there is a broad agreement that race exists, only one paper by Tang & al partially supports the assertion regarding ancestry" (The sentence needs to be tidied up though!). Macgruder 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you misunderstand the notion of their being a concordance between genome and race. The concordance impiles that individuals within the same race have genomes that are more similar to one another than individuals in different races, such that given a genotype you can with a relatively good degree of accuracy predict which race that person is a member of. (You can substitute "family" or "tribe" for "race" in that formulation to get an idea as to why that would be trivially true.) The existence and utility of DNA-based ancestry estimation is the everyday test and proof of this conjecture, but more specifically it has been examined and verified at a large scale in Tang et al (2005) and Rosenberg et al (2005). --Rikurzhen 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia on Race: "Finally, they point out that oftentimes the genetic differences between members of the same race are greater than the average genetic difference between races." which totally contradicts your above assertion. In the above DNA-based ancestry estimation people get back results such 'you are hispanic'? In other words, the results never give 70% black, 30% european?? Because in no shape or form does 70% black, 30% european match the 'social categories' of the above assumption. Especially as the article itself says: 'These tests are designed to tell what percentage Native American, European, East Asian, and African a person is. These tests are controversial—their validity has not been independently confirmed—and the results are often disputed.'


 * " (You can substitute "family" or "tribe" for "race" in that formulation to get an idea as to why that would be trivially true.) " However, unfortunately you cannot substitute 'social categories of race' for it to be trivially true. You are ignoring the key word social and that here is everything.


 * It's clear to me that you have a POV here, and that 2 somewhat disputed papers are 'proof' in the face of 10,000 Anthropologists, and an unknown number of biologists as to the statement the social' categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories. It is NPOV to say that the 10,000 strong AAA regard the field as 'invalid' science (whatever your personal feeling of that group), it's NPOV to say only 2 papers partially support the conjecture regarding social categories (and even that second paper didn't seem to be about social categories), so the 2 is rather generous I think. So I think the flag needs to stay. Macgruder 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to explain how you've misunderstood the science, and then because you've crossed the line into making personal comments, I'm going to let you figure the rest out on your own. First, the tag has nothing to do with the descriptions of race in lead sections, but rather minutia of description in sections below that as laboriously discussed above. Second, on the science you've missed the difference between a gene and a genome. The text you quoted says oftentimes the GENEtic differences between members of the same race are greater than the average GENEtic difference between races. In this context, "genetic" describes a single gene. This claim is true actually true on average about 30% of the time for populations at a continental level (i.e. races). This is the genetic equivalent of Mayr's discussion about overlapping distributions of traits in all races. But for comparison, it is also true in a non-trivial number of cases for a human being more similar GENEtically to a chimp than to another human. What is vastly less probable is a person's entire genome being more similar to that of a person from a different race than to a person of the same race. The human genome contains hundreds of thousands of co-inherited units. If the misclassification rate for a single unit is 30%, what's the misclassification for 100k units? Obviously it becomes very small. Now: the description of race given in this article has been discussed and refined for some time. It may be made better, but not by going at it with half facts. Try reading the small section on race as well as the refernces linked from it. Of course, read the race article and race and multilocus allele clusters. --Rikurzhen 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed due to content

Hereditability
"Moreover, although it may appear paradoxical, a goal of social egalitarianism is to raise the genetic contribution to intelligence to as high as possible, by minimizing environmental inequalities and any negatively IQ-impacting cultural differences (The Blank Slate, 106-107). If such conditions were achieved, any remaining group IQ differences would then be 100% hereditary: the only remaining factor that could potentially contribute to race-based outcome differences."

There would still be variance due to micro-enviromental factors. I believe Jensen wrote negatively about this kind of statement in "The g-Factor", but I don't remember exactly what. I'll see if I can find it when I get the time. Elamere
 * I didn't find it, but the point is that (according to Jensen) between-family differences, which origins from factors like parents socio-economic status, disappears in adulthood and leaves only differences from genetics and within-family differences. So, in this sense, we have already reached the utopia of social egalitarianism (well, except that malnutrition and similar micro-enviromental factors still is more common in poor families). Elamere

"any remaining group (but not individual) IQ differences would then be 100% hereditary" Yes, I think that remedies it. Thanks. Elamere

...I now realize that was exactly what it said in the first place. Silly me. However, shouldn't the correlation be less than 1.00 due to the randomness of the distribution of micro-envionmental factors? Or will the randomness average out for large populations? Elamere 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True "randomness" would average out in populations of millions. There're lots of reasons why true randomness might not describe micro-environments, but one would think that it should even out pretty well. A gene-microenvironment correlation would skew results, but you might subsume that under a broad sense definition of heredity. --Rikurzhen 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Error due to summary-editing?
In Race_and_intelligence, the second phrase, "A 2004 study found widespread research misinterpretation regarding the study's specific focus". The two instances of the word "study" refers to different studies if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps something along those lines is in order:
 * A 1995 study found that introducing stereotype threat to a test-taking environment increased the existing gap between Blacks or Whites in relation to Whites or Asians respectively, and has thus been offered as a potential contributor to the gap. However, according to a 2004 study, 88% of accounts in the popular media, 91% in scientific journals, and 67% in psychology textbooks misinterpreted the findings as that eliminating the introduced stereotype threat eliminated the Black-White gap, when in fact the students had already been matched according to prior scores.[23] The authors suggest the appeal of the misinterpreted findings may have been a factor, and that such research results in general may in this way be systemically more readily accepted.

This may leave an ambiguity in the use of the word "authors" though. An altogether different question from me as a new wiki-user, why the linking of years (eg. 2004)? Elamere 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good fix. The reference, currently in a footnote, can be moved back inline to fix the ambiguity on "authors". On year linking: it's a matter of dispute. Given the power of any sizeable minority in WP, it's one of those things where people do it preemptively to avoid debate even if they don't think it's worthwhile otherwise. --Rikurzhen 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another question: As I've gotten answers to my questions, can I delete this section? I don't think there is any point in archiving it, is there? Elamere 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By convention, we archive everything. You are right in observing that for certain sections (like this one) that serves no purpose. Still, I suggest you leave it as it is. Arbor 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and neutrality
Note that there is no agreement unless explicitly stated. Ultramarine 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(done)
"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)
 * POV: Removed
 * 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)
 * This section is badly worded and needs cleaning up. --Coroebus 06:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to both paragraphs or just certain parts?--Nectar 19:50, 20 May 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)
 * The SAT is not an IQ test, but it does correlate with IQ tests (but so do lots of things). Your link doesn't provide any evidence that I can see that the SAT is an IQ test either. --Coroebus 17:45, 14 May 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)

Coroebus, I didn't leave a link to the SAT/IQ paper, just the citation. Here's the link. The findings are that the correlation between SAT scores and highly g loaded tests is in the range of .72 to .86 (more than IQ correlates with academic performance, for comparison, and about the same as any two "IQ test" correlate with one another), which indicates that the SAT scores is mainly measuring g. Tests which predominately measure g are called "IQ tests" by convention as a short hand, and there's not really a better definition of "IQ test". Thus, the SAT, like RPM and AFQT which it is highly correlated with, is an "IQ test" in the sense that matters for this issue. A new paper by Jaskson and Rushton (in press) finds a g factor in the SAT scores from 1991, confirming Frey and Detterman (2004). --Rikurzhen 21:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree, that ref shows a correlation between the SAT and a factor derived from the ASVAB (which isn't an intelligence test), but the purported 'g' derived from that factor analysis only correlated at .56 with one of the included 'real' IQ tests. I'm not impressed by a correlation between a factor derived from a non-IQ "Vocational Aptitude" test and the "Scholastic Aptitude Test", both avowedly aptitude tests, not IQ tests.  Similarly, the APM (an actual IQ test) correlated pretty poorly with the SAT (undocumented restriction of range correction notwithstanding), and neither regression model was particularly consistent with the other, hence the fluid/crystallised intelligence point.  The SAT is not designed as an IQ test, and while it does show pretty reasonable correlations with IQ, the correlations are not good enough to make the very strong claim that the SAT is an IQ test, just as correlations between verbal and mathematical subscales are not good enough to claim that a verbal IQ subscale is a test of mathematical IQ! --Coroebus 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're nitpicking (which is what Frey and Detterman said in rebuttal to their critic). All that matters is that the SAT is a good measure of g. What the SAT was actually designed to measure is opaque and largely irrelevant, but the ASVAB turns out to be an excellent measure of g in the form of the AFQT, and so apparently does the SAT. Thus, it should not be surprising to find that SAT regression on SES, stratified by race/ethnicity presents a picture similar to that of the AFQT and other measures of g. --Rikurzhen 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not nitpicking, I am disagreeing with your incredibly bold claim that the SAT is an IQ test. The AFQT is derived from only 4 subscores of the ASVAB, and is thus non-identical with the first factor from the ASVAB (based on 10 subscales), which was what that paper looked at.  You cannot claim that the SAT is a good measure of 'g' based on that reference because it doesn't show very strong correlations between measures of g and the SAT.  Indeed, the authors go on to say in their reply that "Fundamentally, we have no way of knowing what the relationship between SAT score and Raven's IQ is outside our range of scores...Indeed, applying regression equations to data beyond the range of the original data set is dangerous and never recommended".  All that the study shows is that the SAT correlates to a greater or lesser extent with some IQ tests and with a factor they derive from the ASVAB and call 'g', but that also loaded on 'Auto and Shop Information', 'Mathematics Knowledge', 'Mechanical Comprehension', and 'Electronics Information' (the ASVAB is actually better modelled by three factors, rather than one, including a factor for technical knowledge). --Coroebus 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I agree that the SAT scores present a picture similar to what we would expect for IQ - but that doesn't make the SAT IQ, just as educational achievement might have a similar picture, but is still not the same as IQ. --Coroebus 06:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "incidently" part is the crux of the discussion. If you have a problem with Frey and Detterman's conclusions, then you should publish them. If you think I'm misreading them in a way that's not related to the questino, of whether the SAT can be substituted for the AFQT or some other IQ test in a graph that regresses IQ on SES stratified by race/ethnicity, then I'll grant you that too so long as you don't actually have a problem with the graph. --Rikurzhen 16:24, 16 May 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)
 * 1. Obviously a very small sample from the population in 5 countries is weak evidence. 2. "which can be seen in many traits" Source please! Note that blacks in the US mainly come from a small region in Africa. And again, a very select group become slaves.Ultramarine 06:09, 18 May 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)
 * In some thread that appears to be archived now, I posted by own calculation of the correlation between the frequency of ASPM or Microcephalin and average group IQ. Microcephalin was signficatly correlated, which belies the claim that they have an obviously different distribution. But more importantly, we're now faced with many dozen candidate neuronal genes which are found at differing frequencies between populations because of selection. It would not be possible (for us) to make any general claims about their distribution. --Rikurzhen 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful in this section, although noting that genes involved in brain development seem to be under selection pressure, we don't know that these genes actually have anything to do with IQ - so we shouldn't stress any implications for racial differences too much (in fact, a gene like COMT would probably tell us more as that has functional consequences). --Coroebus 07:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The text currently emphasizes that natural selection has occured and then warns: "However, their effect, if any, on IQ is unknown." If this warning needs to be strengthened in any reasonable way, it should be. --Rikurzhen 07:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any idea what the link 'above' in ref 13 is referring to? The ref it seems to indicate is dawkins on hamilton. --Coroebus 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe that 'above' should be a 'below'. It links to Pinker's discussion of the 'Ashkenzi IQ is due to selection' hypothesis. Should be a link to the blue-eye ~ shyness paper???? --Rikurzhen 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up ref 13, merging it with the lower ref it referred to so the relevant studies could be discussed in one place. Is that the footnote you're referring to, Coroebus, or is it another one?--Nectar 12:09, 18 May 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)
 * Tucker is respectable critic. Obviously his points should be included. Again, imagine another controversial field funded this way. Ultramarine 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what are his points exactly? That the fund has "administrative procedures. . . as unusual as its charter" ? It appears to be an original interpretation of his writing that the researchers are being bribed.  The obvious interpretation would be that the fund circumvents institutions because giving grants to universities - when they accept them - has in the past caused campus protests. The second paragraph just suggests what they care about is whether or not the research will further their cause. --Nectar

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)
 * As evidence of Rushston's sources it is revealing. Especially as he is the head of the Pioneer Fund. Personally, I would not trust anything funded from that fund until duplicated by independent researchers.Ultramarine 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cernovsky doesn't make this point explicitly (I've never read the original piece by Rushton that includes these references) so I'm not sure it's safe to connect the dots that he doesn't connect for us given what Nectar has indicated here. --Rikurzhen 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A more adequate discussion of this accusation can be found in Alfie Kohn's The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life (1990), p. 276, in which he names the article as being Rushton, J. P., & Bogaert, A. F. (1987). Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 529-551. Kohn writes that "the primary substantiation for this 'study'" was "the 1898 diary of a French Army Surgeon and an article that appeared in Penthouse Forum, a pornographic magazine." (Weizmann, Cernovsky's source, apparently considers the whole affair "anthroporn" and "ethnopornography".)

In contrast to this characterization as being based on two non-scientific sources, Rushton and Bogaert's paper reviews on the order of 100 scientific studies. The original analysis they conduct in this paper is on data from Kinsey's Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, published in 1948 and 1953, though Kohn doesn't mention this. The 1898 ethnographic data, generally relating to the reproductive organs, was collected by a french army specialist in diseases of the reproductive and urinary systems (genitourinary diseases). Rushton and Bogaert use it as "provid[ing] early observations" of data seen in more recent studies, such as those on variation in size of testes and ovaries, angle of erection (based on Kinsey data), ovulation rates, and age of menarche, acceleration of penis growth, breast and pubic hair development, first sexual experience, and first pregnancy. Of the many data points discussed, the only claims I see based solely on the 1898 document are the following:
 * "In Africa, dances have been invented which emphasize undulating rhythms and mock copulation."
 * "the placement of female genitals (Orientals front and high; blacks back and low)"
 * "[variation by race in] salient buttocks, breasts, and muscularity"
 * variation in vagina and clitoral size

These four claims of course occur in the context of a host of related claims that refer to more recent studies. I can't find any reference to Penthouse Forum in this article.--Nectar 08:23, 19 May 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)
 * His theory is certainly controversial and proved false.Ultramarine 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A scientific theory being wrong doesn't constitute a claim that one of the most prestigious recent evolutionary theorists is "controversial".--Nectar 11:48, 19 May 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)
 * 1. & 2. I've tracked down references that give more satisfactory details. [added to article]
 * 3. For historical interest, Native Americans and Irish made poor slaves in the Americas,ctrl f haughty ctrl f poor slaves as reportedly did Polynesians,ctrl f slaves and the British made poor slaves in the 1600s Barbary slave trade.ctrl f shiftful--Nectar 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That answers none of the 3 objections. How do you know that British and Irish were not considered poor slaves due to low intelligence? Ultramarine 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, so as to bring this discussion back to earth, presumptively the average IQ of the Ashkenazi increased by 15 points realtive to other Europeans during a period of centuries. It's entirely possible that North-Western Europeans were less intelligent than Greeks and Romans of the classical period. Nutritional and cultural differences alone could have caused such a gap. And OTOH, the opinions of pre-scientific figures from history are necessarily suspect for their correspondence to reality. --Rikurzhen 06:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not evidence that genetic explanation is wrong. But it is interesting that a group that now tests high on IQ then was considered stupid, as indication of IQ or just perception of intelligence can change.Ultramarine 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't get the point. What was the point Nisbett was making? Do you have a link? --Rikurzhen 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The addition I made to the article at the time of my last comment included that the intelligence of the northern Europeans of the time was disparaged by the 3 sources given.--Nectar 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

17
"It is well established that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa, and decreases with distance from Africa. One study estimates that only 6.3% of the total human genetic diversity is explained by race." Ultramarine 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * POV: Arguments selectively hidden in footnotes


 * It's not an argument if everyone agrees on a point. Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting. Unless you're going to append a description of the subtleties of the Fst statistic, then there's no point in describing exactly how much variation exists where -- unless population bottlenecks and demographic history is somehow important to this topic. The actual claims made in plain language are found in the main text as on the basis of that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them and racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. An Fst of .07-.15 is the genetic counterpart to the observation that most phenotypic variance in single complex traits occurs within familes, not between races -- skin color and a few others being the major exceptions. --Rikurzhen 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, those figures are not something that anyone who doesn't already know these facts is capable of interpreting." Then explain in the article. Let the reader decide for themselves. When someone starts arguing that some information must be hidden, then we are in dangerous territory. Obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations.Ultramarine 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a virtually infinite collection of facts that can be claimed to be tangetially related to this topic but which are not actually important (e.g. any sentence from race). In a summary style section, the burden is on you to demonstrate that your addition is a "key" fact. I've already annotated the footnote to explain what the numbers mean -- their common sense interpretation is that on average alleles will be in a 70/30 versus 30/70 distribution between two continental-level populations. --Rikurzhen 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, obviously the information that within-population genetic diversity is greatest within Sub-Saharan Africa has important consequences for sweeping generalizations about IQ in Africa from a few studies in a few locations, or from the US IQ scores.Ultramarine 06:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. When is the average IQ of Africans ever inferred from a "few" studies? For Lynn's latest book, the plurality of studies were of Africans. 2. What makes you think that greater genetic diversity indicates greater phenotypic diversity? Chimps are 2x more genetically diverse than the totality of humans while being obviously less phenotypically diverse. Europeans are in fact more phenotypically diverse for many phenotypes (e.g. hair and eye color). Moreover, the gradient of genetic diversity is not profound. (Of course, there are some isolated populations that are quite homogenous, but most Eurasian populations are not much less diverse than most African populations.) The bulk of genetic diversity has no phenotypic impact. Who has claimed that this is kind of diversity is important for race and IQ? --Rikurzhen 06:49, 18 May 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)
 * Do not remove the disputed tags until the conflict is resolved. The claim that the group of editors trying to remove the arguments against the genetic explanation is "left-of-center" is strange and irrelevant for factual accuracy. Also, do you know each other in real life so you can make this statement? Looking at your edits, you seems to edit mostly race related articles from a particular POV.Ultramarine 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of these matters remains unique, and other editors seem to disagree. Maybe we can find some common ground with a The factual accuracy and neutrality of this page is disputed by User:Ultramarine and link to a separate subpage that presents your viewpoints. Clearly, the current modus operandi has come to an impasse. Without involving external arbitration (which does not seem to match the style of the current editors) I cannot see how your "disputed" tags improve the situation. Other suggestions are welcome, of course. Arbor 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the issues noted above. Ultramarine 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the above comment's not worth responding to, but I will say as a supporter of science you should be glad there are users representing the positions held by scientists in the so-called "realist" camp (e.g. Pinker, Hamilton, Ernst Mayr), even if you disagree with those positions. Nobody wants Wikipedia to only represent one side of science. Beyond that, note that the disputed tag is in the same place it's been since the dispute started (above the table of contents).--Nectar 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a little less glad when said supporters of the so-called "realist" camp act as though they own the article. Several points have been raised questioning aspects of this research (the meaning of "g" as a single-number measurement, its relation to what is called intelligence in layman's terms, the representativity of the "world-wide IQ samples" used in most of the research, the very meaning and appropriateness from the viewpoint of genetics of the racial tags as they've been historically defined). These are all valid and are still hotly debated in the world of science. To say otherwise because of one or a few studies doesn't represent reality. The AAA refutes the very meaning of races as we've historically known them . The APA, in its consensus statement on the Bell Curve said about the Black-White IQ difference: There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. These are the facts. For these reasons, the neutrality of this article, in trying to positively substantiate a genetic cause to a measured difference in IQ numbers between racial groups remains very much in question. --Ramdrake 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But, Ramdrake, all these points are acknowledged in the article. There is certainly more room devoted to non-hereditary positions (relative to their exposure in the scientific literature) than vice versa; the article "errs on the side" of Sternberg and others (while being very clear about labelling their position as a minority POV—as it should). In any case, almost every POV here is expressed as "X says Y, but Z says !Y" instead of "Y is the truth" or just "Y" (which is what Evolution does, and gets away with it.) So the R&I presentation is the very definition of NPOV. It certainly makes no attempt to hide any controversies—on the contrary, we have whole sections and subarticles devoted to presenting just these controversies. Arbor 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbor, I am quite sure this is how you honestly see the article. I get another feel when I read the article; that's my honest opinion. You feel the article is balanced as it presents both sides equally. I feel the argument is unbalanced as I don't think the genetic side deserves as much exposure, as I think there are enough flaws with Lynn's research to make it borderline pseudoscience (this is my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and you have every right to disagree with it), and as it is central to this article, the rest logically follows. If one could devise a warning on this article which says both that it is controversial in subject and that its neutrality can also be controversial depending on one's viewpoint, I would support it. I don't know if you think that would be an improvement. --Ramdrake 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NPOV, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". A concise description of what NPOV means is found at WP:NPoV. It describes this article precisely. There's probably always room for tweaking the language to squeeze every last bit of individual bias out of the writing, but that's not what you've suggested Ramdrake. What you've suggested is presenting one side of the controversy in less than their best light because you think they're wrong and the other side is right. That, of coures, isn't permissible. --Rikurzhen 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience

 * This is where our views diverge. Based on the statement of the AAA, and that of the APA, plus the very serious doubts that have been cast on the worlwide IQ data from several sources, I consider the overall study of "race and intelligence" as a pseudoscience. And Wikipedia says this about the policy for what is considered a pseudoscience:
 * If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.


 * Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.


 * There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.


 * If I consider that "race and intelligence" is a pseudoscience as a subject, then I am within the bounds of WP:NPOV to consider both sides should not really be presented as if they were on a par, as if I go by the statements, the genetic-cause view is held by a minority, and there are sufficient issues of science with many of the more important points being presented in the "pro" position to liken this position as "pseudoscience". You don't have to agree with me, but my position is logical and within the bounds of WP:NPOV. --Ramdrake 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One cannot begin to substantiate the claim that "race and intelligence" is pseudoscience. From either first principles or appeal to authority this kind of claim is plainly false. (Are you sure you know what pseudoscience is?) Neither the APA report nor the highly-unusual AAA statement supports such a claim. The "mainstream" statement has the greatest number of signatories of any of the various collective statements, and it's conclusions are quite clearly different than yours. Moreover, the Snyderman and Rothman surveys demonstrated that Aruthur Jensen's views are in fact the modal views among ~1000 IQ experts. --Rikurzhen 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That being said, the claim that R&I research is pseudoscience is certainly noteworthy and has been made often enough. (For example, The Skeptics Society itself includes a sizeable number of members that believe that claim (as well as others who don't of course.) A chapter in Why people believe weird things is devoted to it and a section in Skeptic dictionary. I myself used to be in that camp, until I found out that I was being lied to and left in disgust.) I am all for having an easily identifiable section that acknowledges this viewpoint and its counterpoints. I have tried to motivate Sceptics to write such a section for more than a year now. Such a section would fit my Controversy proposal below (Accusations of pseudoscience would be a good heading.). Arbor 09:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would welcome anything that would acknowledge the size and scope of this controversy. Right now, the list of points and counterpoints looks as lively as the description of a curling match (no offense intended). And, by the way, the "mainstream" statement pales in comparison to the collective statement of the AAA, which is 10,000 strong, or the APA statement on the Bell Curve, which states that "There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation." Let's please remember that the APA itself has 150,000 members or so. So, fine 1000 IQ researchers say there is a difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites which is at least partly genetic. But a body representing 150,000 psychologists (who must know something about intelligence too) says the difference exists, but there is no evidence it is genetic, while another body of 10,000 experts, this time in anthropology, say that what society defines as races has little or no meaning anthropologically (which isn't to say races don't exist, just to say that if they exist, races do not correspond to ther historical-social construct most people associate them with). So, I would say, yes, maintaining that race and intelligence reseach is pseudoscience is a logically tenable position. It can be proven right or wrong yet, I'll be the first to admit it. I wouldn't mind doing a bit more research on the accusations of pseudoscience to help come up with a section. I think I have a pretty good idea where to start. --Ramdrake 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone has actually made these claims, I'd love to see them presented. But I don't see them in either the APA statement (as Arbor points out below) or even the AAA statement (which if you read carefully makes very limited claims which seem to be trivially true but unrelated to the contemporary debate). Moreover, please don't mistake the fact that a panel representing the AAA or APA made a statement with the idea that the full membershp of those groups supports the statement. All survey data suggests otherwise (Snyderman and Rothman covering psychologists and Leiberman covering anthropologists), as does -- for example -- the existence of numerous rebuttals printed along the APA report. --Rikurzhen 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please go and re-read the statements. It's clear enough to me, for the APA statement says "there is no such support for a genetic interpretation". And while the AAA statement is more circuitous, it does state that "These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective". Also, while I'm not pretending this is the opinion of the entire membership of both groups, the AAA statements is prefaced with: "We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists." Basically, it states it is the majority statement.
 * Just one point: the claim that "R&I is pseudoscience" is not the same as the claim "The genetic explanation is wrong". Not even remotely. The current article bends over backwards in explaining that "genetic component" is a highly controversial explanation, viewed by many people as a topic for ongoing research where the "jury is still out", and at not point does the article claim that this explanation is correct. It is indeed not supported by the APA statement, neither does this article claim that. The fact that there is a gap, on the other hand, is questioned by very few people. But I had the impression that this is all laid out with utmost care in the current article already. If not, I encourage you to strengthen the presentation. Arbor 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if you couple the observation that "there is a gap", with a broad interpretation of the AAA statement that  human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups, i.e. well-defined races as we have historically known them, it must beg the question, what are we observing? Is it of any value, or is it some artefact of our mental perception? I think the question is legitimate, and the answer that this may well be an artefact of how we conceptualize races is a possible logical outcome, although not necessarily the only one. --Ramdrake 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand you. I would be enclined to present the "R&I is pseudoscience" claim mostly based on things like: there is a viewpoint which holds that race does not exist, or at least is not congruent with the socio-cultural definition it has with people in general. There is also a viewpoint which holds that "intelligence" is larger an wider than the abstract construct specialists call "g". Both viewpoints would view R&I research as a pseudoscience, as for them either race as we understand it is not a sound biological construct (does not exist biologically), or intelligence cannot be distilled to a single number. The logical reasoning here is that if you study "scientifically" something that I say does not exist or cannot be measured, you are doing pseudoscience, from my viewpoint. From your viewpoint, it can be very different. Does that make sense? --Ramdrake 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. A scientific disagreement is different than a science/pseudoscience disagreement. Your reasoning looks like original reserach to me, having never seen such arugments in the literature before. --Rikurzhen 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me find the material from the people who actually called this type of research pseudoscience. And these arguments (or something close to them) have been made time and time again in the literature. Let's start with Stephen Jay Gould, then Francisco Gil-White (psychologist and asst. Professor at U of Penn.), Mark Nathan Cohen (SUNY University Distinguished Professor of Anthropology), Joseph L graves, Jr (Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Arizona State University West). The last three I found with only about 15 minutes of searching the net. All have called R&I research "pseudoscience", fo reasons very close if not identical to what I was explaining above. So, with all due respect, this claim is neither unsubstantiable, nor original research.
 * Ah, Rik, but that is because you set the bar too high! I read lots of non-scientific rhetoric, including arguments of (say) Carroll and Shermer that are at least insinuate something like what Ramdrake is getting at. Of course, they never present the argument with such (commendable) clarity, so we cannot really attribute it to them. But maybe Ramdrake can have an extra look? The book would be Why people believe weird things by Shermer and the Skeptic dictionary is already linked from the bottom of the main article. These would be good starting points for somebody who wants to chronicle the "It's pseudoscience!" faction of the Skeptics Society. On the other side stand people like Frank Miele. Arbor 18:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I stand corrected. (In my defense, I don't read outside of scholarly journals, so I would have missed this.) Based on Ramdrake's links, apparently some people claim that race, psychometrics, or both to be pseudoscientific. Let me just add them to the list next to fairies and faith healing ;) --Rikurzhen 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at it the way it suits you. ;) But in this debate, I am just a layman with little or no access to the scientific journals. Race in and of itself is a legitimate social construct. Psychometrics is also a legitimate endeavor of science. However, the problem may lie when trying to mix both. As one of my professors used to say "How are you supposed to quantify (i.e. measure) quality?" I never found quite the appropriate answer to this question. --Ramdrake 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Quality" is a moral judgment that has no place in science. --Rikurzhen 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Phrenologists used to get in heated debates which were argued using scientific terminology. It's possible that people engaged in what they consider an application of science are in fact basing their arguments on something that is ultimately pseudoscientific. That's the argument put forth by Gould and many others which I have felt was under-represented in this article from the first time I read it. "Race and intelligence" research can be viewed as consensus science or pathological science used to reify social constructs. This article is well-cited for the POV that this is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, but has always felt lacking in the other POV. Like Ramdrake, I don't have the background in this area to counter those who strongly believe in the legitimacy of this field, but this series of articles is presented as if this objection is considered moot by scientists (or at least the subset of "intelligence experts"). I don't believe that's neutral or accurate. Jokestress 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an intersting debate regarding the precise nature of human genetic variation, and a relatively unintersting attempt to show how this variation isn't described by the word "race" as it is variously defined. (This point is well made in .) There's an intersting debate about the relationship of the statistical construct g to biology and the architecture of the human mind, and an uninterested debate about whehter g is really intelligence or just highly correlated with it. The interesting debates are worth writing about and none of them are discussions about pseudoscience. If there's an appreciable and important literature on the pseudoscience question that I'm not aware of, then someone should work on that. From what I can tell, the pseudoscience charge is only ever made for public consumption in the form of books like The Mismeasure of Man. --Rikurzhen 20:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For those who care, I have dropped a number of references wherein Skeptics discuss R&I-related matters (including making or analysing the charge of pseudosciene) at User talk: Ramdrake. Arbor 13:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how prominent the pseudoscience argument ultimately is. Though Gould's MoM is commonly referred to by supporters as being an attack on pseudoscience, Gould only uses the term twice in the book: once in the introduction to the updated version (p. 21), in which he does use it to refer to "the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, it's location within the brain [etc.]" and once in the "Critique of the Bell Curve" chapter, in which he uses it to refer to the 19th century work of a person named Gobineau (p.383). Gould and Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time only mention of Jensen is an actual citation of his the g Factor to support their argument (p. 287).

At any rate, the pseudoscience argument appears to generally be based on or occur in the context of false arguments, such as that psychometrics or the work of Jensen have been unanimously rejected by experts (the Snyderman and Rothman survey showed the opposite to be true) or that if race isn't a coherent biological concept, racial differences in intelligence are impossible (as long as socially defined groups are known to be neurogenetically non-identical, cognitive differences are possible).--Nectar 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes-yes. That is why I myself have never been able to summarise these writings. Originally, that was my ambition: to contribute to this very article by giving an overview of the Skeptic writings. But I have found myself unable to do so, because I have great difficulties in presenting (fairly and honestly) a viewpoint that I have come to disbelieve. Also, I feel lied to by Shermer–Gould–Carroll, whom I trusted in this matter, and that further clouds my judgement. Hence I have encouraged first Jokestress and now Ramdrake (whose viewpoints seem to harmonize with the Gould–Shermer–Carroll faction) to do so and provided them with my references. Arbor 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If this can be done in a way that's encapsulated, then it would be a positive addition. Previous talk-page debate along these lines has focused on the removal or rewriting of current material. For example, the censoring of Lynn's IQ meta-analyses, the denial that there is reportedly widespread "acceptance" of g among those who study intelligence, or the claim that debate regarding the relationship of human population structure to "race" a priori invalidates any investigation of "racial" differences WRT biology. I'm certainly not looking to revisit these discussions, and the fact that supporting claims have been made by at least one person is not in question, only the notion that these are premises upon which we can construct this article (and thus reason to exclude material which contradict them). By encapsulated, I mean in the way that "Accusations of bias" and "Utility of research and racism" are treated, which I consider to be a success. --Rikurzhen 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Check this paper out. PDF -- it reviews some of the discussion in the literature which closely resembles the arguments found in the 'skeptics' literaure (without actually claiming race/iq research is pseudoscience). what's noteworthy is how cogent James Flynn (by quotation) is at rebutting these claims against the basis of the research. --Rikurzhen 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

tag2
Upon review, the 17 points raised in this NPOV dispute appear to have, whether through discussion or altering the article, progressed to the point of not requiring a tag. Editors on both sides have weighed in, expressing that they consider the tag to be unnecessary in relation to the points raised. If any editors have an argument otherwise, please bring it up.--Nectar 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't agree yet. --Ramdrake 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Before this degenerates into a straw poll: This is not a vote. Nectarflowed is soliciting arguments. Arbor 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I need to expound: I still think the article is slanted towards the concept that there is no serious opposition to the genetic viewpoint, whereas the opposition is there, both from the science and from the lay crowds. It gives the impression that the arguments presented herein have no serious rebuttal. Irrespective of who's right, there is still a very heated controversy over this endeavor, and my impression is that this article doesn't let that transpire. Therefore, I would argue that this article is still not "neutral". I'm working on a small section that I hope will help, though. I just would like us to avoid putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Ramdrake 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're correct that the article does not portray the arguments against a genetic cause neutrally, then that's a serious problem. While you're thinking about this, try to distinguish between the topic of whether a meaningful difference exists and the question of what causes the difference. For example, James Flynn and Arthur Jensen agree on all the data and disagree on how to interpret it. For most questions, they would give the same answer except those relating to cause. I happen to think that Flynn's POV is presented well. --Rikurzhen 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to refer you to the last comment made by Jokestress a couple days ago here. It's just that I feel the same. --Ramdrake 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not good enough. As editors, our only mission is to select among and present published viewpoints. Not yours. And not Jokestress'. I myself have several private opinions about much of this, but I have never lobbied for their inclusion (nor even taken them up on the talk page) — simply have no place on this page: no-one else of significance who has voiced them. So my own POV—brilliant and deep and convincing as I think it is—is underrepresented. That does not make this article !NPOV. Arbor 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I need to find a published viewpoint that states this article lacks a certain degree of neutrality in its presentation? I don't think that's what you meant to say. This all started when Nectar said that all editors have expressed the view that the tag is now unnecessary. I expressed my view that it is still necessary. When told that just expressing my view was not enough, I explained the reasons for my stance. When told that I should reconsider my view, I brought forth the point that others on this page have expressed just the same opinion (i.e. not all editors think the tag is now unnecessary). Now, I'm being told that pointing to opinions similar to mine on this page is not good enough, that I need to present a published viewpoint. I will reiterate this: I do not support the removal of this tag at this point, and from reading this talk page, I can conclude that one if not several other editors feel the same. I do not think there is consensus to remove yet. --Ramdrake 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I wasn't clear, perhaps. You need to be more concrete. For example, you need to point to a specific (published) POV that is under- or overrepresented. And you cannot point to Jokestress' POV. You can point to Flynn's, or Sternberg's, or Gould's. You correctly point out that Nectar should not have said "All editors think the tag is unnecessary." He should have said "No editor has been able to produce a reason for keeping the tag that a significant number of other editors agree with." Arbor 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, "all editors" would be a misreading of my comment. .. Most discussions on Wikipedia don't require tagging the article as being unreliable.. and that's something that Lulu (who has played a significant role on the critical side of this article) seems to agree on.--Nectar 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this: using Arbor's material, and some of my own, I am writing a bit about "R&I research as pseudoscience". I've been at it for a bit less than a week now, and I expect to be done in no more than a week. The way I see it, once this part is in place, it should go a good length towards redressing what I find is the problem with neutrality. Just please leave the tag one more week, I'll take the onus of addressing the reason why I feel the tag is presently there. When I come up with the section, I will withdraw my objection to removing the tag. If I can't come up with the section in due time, you can still remove the tag as far as I'm concerned. Considering the tag's been up there for a couple of months now, I don't think one more week will kill anyone. What say you? --Ramdrake 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. Used like that, the NPOV tag is actually doing something constructive. Arbor 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not agreement and certainly still require a tag. For example, the original research graph still remains.Ultramarine 05:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you have something new to say about #2, that thread appears to be finished. --Rikurzhen 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Change Public Controvesy to Controversy and include Anthropologists
Here's an idea. Half-baked, like most of my ruminations, but hear me out... The object is to present the view of many anthropologists (and, especially, the majority of cultural anthropologists) in an accessible an readable fashion. (Instead of, as we do now, to acknowledge their viewpoints only in the form "but Z disagrees and says Bla" whenever we have just said "Y says Foo".)

The idea would be to change the Public Controversy section to some title that would also include scientific counterpoints, not only inane media ramblings. (It can be argued, that by reducing R&I-criticism to Joe Public we are purposefully giving that voice to a less than eloquent speaker, thereby denigrating the standpoint.) Let us instead have a paragraph describing clearly the viewpoints held by many, many anthropologists, concordant with the AAA statement or the EncBib presentation.

A way to do that with minimal editing would be to rename Public Controversy into Controversy with subheadings In the media, Anthropology (or Between scientific disciplines or whatever), Accusations of Bias, etc. To be honest, what I would really like to do was to claim something like there being a controversy among scientists that is concordant with the split between cultural anthropologists etc. on one side and population geneticists and psychologists etc. on the other. But I understand that this is a gross simplification and though I would find this presentation helpful to readers, the charged environment of this article may not benefit from such a claim. (Though we could easily support it with numbers and references.) Arbor 08:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This could be worthwhile if someone else has already made the observations of such a split. Right now we have Snyderman and Rothman's study to justify a public/expert split. The other survey I've seen only covers the existence or not of biological races, ignoring intelligence, but that still saw only 53% of cultural anthropolgists saying there weren't. The AAA statement would prima facie be material to build on, but I've read it carefully a few times and it appears to only argue (1) against racism (duh!) and (2) something like race doesn't determine intelligence, which is not what they really want to be arguing. I've not been able to find a good explication of their text in the literature. --Rikurzhen 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree. The AAA statement is indeed a curious little piece of rhetoric. The only statement about reality it makes (as opposed to statements about policy) is that race does not exist. Curiously, I don't think that is a very accurate portrayal of what anthropologists believe, there certainly isn't any consensus about the matter among them. Still, for my nefarious purposes of presenting a simplified (yet honest and hopefully illuminating) picture of who thinks what, the AAA statement at least can be given as evidence for a (non-controversial) claim like "Many anthropologists believe that race has no explanatory value in any context, including intelligence research. This view is likely dominant among cultural anthropologists". Or something like that. Having an anthropologist on board would help! (Maybe we can drop the editors at other pages a line?)  Arbor 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah
The article wheel may be considered racist too, it states the Africans did not have it untill Europeans gave it to them long after its invention.


 * And the wheel was also originally unknown in Australia, the Pacific Islands and North America. Your point? --Ramdrake 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the anonymous poster was attempting to make a joke. Harkenbane 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ...And succeeding. The ridiculous people who call science or philosophy racist when they produce none socially practiced data have completely misunderstood the definition of 'racism' - which is prejudiced - get it - to pre judge - to come to a conclusion despite lacking evidence. Fact and reason aren't to be censored, or slandered whatever they may be. Just as a seperate note, frankly, I see no reason why certain races having lower IQs is any reason for worry, since intelligence should not be the bases for rights (consider Peter Singer's speciesism arguments) - the ridiculous onslaught of the misunderstanding of the tolerance policy is worrying, and needs remedying.otashiro 14:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think I'd like to have the same rights as a crab or a squirrel, even if I am a bit thick. --Coroebus 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but maintaining a friendly atmosphere on the talk page is an end to achieve that goal. Any comment that does not directly aimed at improving this article in a concrete fashion is better taken to user talk pages or private e-mail. Arbor 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Within societies
Is this section really necessary? It seems very long and quite off topic, couldn't it be better placed somewhere else (like in the IQ article)? --Coroebus 07:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the 3 right-most columns of the large table, everything specifically relates to the significance of IQ differences between groups, rather than IQ differences within groups. --Rikurzhen 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is overly long, with a significant number of accompanying tables. All we're trying to say here is that IQ differences between racial groups could be a cause of differential levels of X (where X is something that correlates with IQ).  This is obviously speculative, and it seems like a hell of a lot of verbiage to say something simple.  --Coroebus 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A massive literature exists to examine this question, and so in the sense that it matters to a Wikipedia article, it's quite important. I personally think there's a progression of discussion thru the issue within the body of that text (rather than a single claim repeated endlessly) but it might be subtle and thus in need of improvement. --Rikurzhen 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree that the size of the literature compels us to have such a detailed section. Few other scientific topics are so detailed, and these often have an even greater literature behind them.  This is already a pretty long article and I don't really see what speculations about what effect 'controlling' for IQ has on divorce rates is really supposed to be telling us here, over and above my '...X' point above, unless we're positing potential effects of a eugenics programme, which we're not. --Coroebus 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments suggest that you're looking at the tables, but not reading the accompany text. Differences in marriage rate, for example, are not eliminated by controlling for IQ, suggesting that differential marriage rates are not due to IQ differences. This research is highly significant as it follows in the pattern of a vast body of social science studies which looked to explain group outcome differenes in terms of SES, with less success than controlling for IQ. More to the point, there's no "Great Wikipedia Paper Shortage" as it is often described. The depth of coverage is anything that's "encyclopedic". If any particular topic is diving too deeply and growing too long, it is best treated by Summary Style. --Rikurzhen 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But as IQ is also correlated with SES you are parcelling out some of the SES effect too are you not? --Coroebus 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, this is a good treatment of the topic for within group variation: Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press (1998) PDF copy. The trick is to look at siblings with discordant IQs. Of course, it's not discussed in this WP article, as it doesn't get to group differences. --Rikurzhen 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I included the below so I could work on it and indicate what changes I thought needed to be made without cluttering up the main text --Coroebus 07:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the things you've deleted or commented on come from The Bell Curve (but you can find similar analyses done before and after that publication). The statistic in the first and second tables are from the same dataset, so yes -- regression was done for both blacks and whites. What you called "speculation" is the result of a statistical analysis of a nationally representative sample. Don't mistake within-group and between-group heritability. If all environmental differences are eliminated between groups, the resulting between group heritability would be 100% (correcting for measurement error) while the within group heritabilty might go unchanged. --Rikurzhen 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be right about the between-group heritability, although i think in this hypothetical case it is problematic to use heritable as a proxy for genetic given the importance gene-environment interactions are likely to have (i.e., something may well be causally environmental, while being heritable). With regards to the first table, it says "Significance data is from Herrnstein & Murray (1994), and is based on Whites only", I assume significance data relates to the lines about poverty and suchlike, in which case we really need either the overall population data, or preferably the data split by race - because what this section is doing is saying, 'look, if you have a low IQ, like lots of black people do, you are more likely to be poor', but by only using the data from white people you can't say that. --Coroebus 08:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You won't find the total population data easily available. However, the regressions for blacks and whites are similar (as demonstrated in table 2), such that the white data is a good proxy for the black data. Of the three outcomes given, high school graduation is essentially identical and for the other two IQ actually over predicts black outcomes (blacks score worse than whites of the same IQ). --Rikurzhen 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Within societies
There is substantial overlap in the distribution of IQ scores among individuals of each race. (p. 357) estimates that in a random sample of equal numbers of US Blacks and Whites, most of variance in IQ would be unrelated to race or social class. The average IQ difference between two randomly paired people from the U.S. population, one Black and one White, is approximately 20 points. However, by the same method of calculation, the average difference between two random people is approximately 17 points, and the average difference between two siblings is 12 points.

In essays accompanying the publication of The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray argue that whether the cause of the IQ gap is partly genetic or entirely environmental does not really matter because that knowledge alone would not help to eliminate the gap and that knowledge should not impact the way that individuals treat one another. They argue that group differences in intelligence ought not to be treated as more important or threatening than individual differences, but suggest that one legacy of Black slavery has been to exacerbate race relations such that Blacks and Whites cannot be comfortable with group differences in IQ or any other traits.

Moreover, although it may appear paradoxical, a goal of social egalitarianism is to raise the genetic contribution to intelligence differences to be as high as possible, by minimizing environmental inequalities and any negatively IQ-impacting cultural differences (The Blank Slate, 106-107).

The appearance of a large practical importance for intelligence makes some scholars claim that the source and meaning of the IQ gap is a pressing social concern. The IQ gap is reflected by gaps in the academic, economic, and social factors correlated with IQ. However, some dispute the general importance of the role of IQ for real-world outcomes, especially for differences in accumulated wealth and general economic inequality in a nation. See "Practical importance of IQ".

The effects of differences in mean IQ between groups could be amplified by two statistical characteristics of IQ. First, there seem to be minimum statistical thresholds of IQ for many socially valued outcomes (for example, high school graduation and college admission). Second, because of the shape of the normal distribution, only about 16% of the population is at least one standard deviation above the mean. Thus, although the IQ distributions for Blacks and Whites are largely overlapping, different IQ thresholds can have a significant impact on the proportion of Blacks and Whites above and below a particular cut-off.


 * Let me get this right, the data for the effect of IQ on social outcomes is based on whites only? We can't include that here if we're explicitly comparing black and white people and claiming that they will have different outcomes based on IQ!  Do you have the overall or the black only data?--Coroebus 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just going to reiterate, we absolutely cannot include this table if we are only going to use the data from white people for 'significance', you cannot make the implicit claim, 'look, black people score lower on IQ and this means they'll not finish highschool' when your evidence for that is based on white people. If we can't get data for black people, or at least the whole population I'm going to have to remove this table. --Coroebus 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can "get" all the data from The Bell Curve as well as the NLSY, but not in a way that can be direclty put into this format without doing calculations that are stepping over the WP:NOR line. the regressions will look almost identical for the whole population as the curves for whites because they are the majority (this is empirically verified by the authors of TBC in appendix 4, where you'll find the regression coefficients for the whole population, but not the computed probabilities); the regressions for blacks for these variables are highly congruent with those for whites; where different, the curves for whites usually paint a slightly better picture than reality for blacks. that racial differences exist in these variables before controlling for IQ is also reported in TBC. for high school graduation the average white/black/latino numbers are 84%/73%/65%; for poverty 7%/26%/18%; for MCV index 51%/20%/31%. --Rikurzhen 07:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, at the very least, we need to say in the box that the 'significance' data for black people are similar. Otherwise it just looks silly. --Coroebus 08:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tried to elminate the silly factor. --Rikurzhen 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Small differences in IQ, while relatively unimportant at the level of an individual, could potentially have large effects at a population level.

Because IQ correlates with a number of social and economic outcomes that have been found to differ between the black and white populations overall, it is possible that some of the disparities in outcomes are due to group differences in IQ. Studies from The Bell Curve and elsewhere find that, when IQ is statistically controlled for, the probability of having a college degree or working in a high-IQ occupation is higher for Blacks than Whites. Controlling for IQ shrinks the income gap from thousands to a few hundred dollars, cuts differential poverty by about three-quarters and unemployment differences by half. However, controlling for IQ has little effect on differential marriage rates. For many other factors, controlling for IQ eliminates the differences between Whites and Hispanics, but the Black-White gap remains (albeit smaller).

Another study found that wealth, race and schooling are important to the inheritance of economic status, but IQ is not a major contributor and the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important. Conversely, controlling for IQ in the above studies also reduces the apparent effect of wealth, race and schooling due to this same correlation.

The white population is not a homogeneous group regarding real-world outcomes. For example, in the U.S. 33.6% of persons with self-reported Scottish ancestry completed college, while only 16.7% of persons with self-reported French-Canadian ancestry have done so.

For additional discussion of the effects of controlling for group differences on a variety of outcomes and groups, see, and.

For high-achieving minorities
This section is a bit speculative. I think it needs substantial revision. The first paragraph reference to succesful minorities needs to be related specifically to IQ and race. Reference to 'Jews' and 'Chinese' I find a bit irksome, but that is stylistic I suppose. The line about Jews, Nobel prizes and the US vs. Europe is very very speculative (particularly the bit about Europeans getting less Nobel prizes during the 1940s being due to the persecution of Jews, rather than, say, a continental war) - in fact, the referenced paper doesn't mention 'jew' or 'jewish', and only mentions the holocaust once. The reports of subscore differences by race, while valid to include (or even relevant to a different section where subscore analyses could be discussed away from questions of high-achieving minorities), seem to need hedging a bit more if they are only based on a few studies. --Coroebus 07:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Average test score gaps among races
"Some other psychological traits, such as behavioral inhibition, have also been found to vary significantly in distribution among ethnicities[43]"


 * How is hair colour supposed to tell us about ethnicity? --Coroebus 11:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added findings comparing Asians and Europeans. (And blondeness is a strongly biogeographic trait.)--Nectar 09:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly is, but that is utterly irrelevant to an article on race and intelligence - blondness is a within-race trait. --Coroebus 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Race' is used in much of this area as a proxy for biogeographic ancestry or related concepts, so as long as distribution corresponds with biogeographic ancestry it should be within the article's scope. Alternatives, such as having a separate article for 'sub-race and intelligence', don't seem reasonable.  Also, comparisons between Northern and Southern Europeans have been an area of interest in this research before.--Nectar 13:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While skin colour can vary by biogeographic ancestry, where is the evidence that within the population studied skin colour actually does vary this way? You cannot use the fact that blondness varies geographically in Europe to prove that within a given European population blondness is a marker of geographic ancestry (e.g. many Scandinavians are blonde, this does not mean that non-blonde Scandinavians are not of Scandinavian ancestry).  Without evidence that blondness within a current day German population is an indicator of biogeographic ancestry (which I doubt you'll find, given the massive admixture) the studies are irrelevant. --Coroebus 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If we were to assume blonde and non-blonde German children have identical ancestry, meaning the association with inhibition is due to pleiotropy or some other effect, this study finds an association between an ethnic trait and a behavioral trait, which should make it of interest to race and behavior.--Nectar 02:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We have no need to assume identical ancestry, we just do not have any evidence of different ethnicity. Therefore it is not a valid reference, it is about neither race, nor intelligence! --Coroebus 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This hair trait occurs at very different frequencies in different "ethnic" populations/clines. It's unnecessary to create a separate article for the sub-category "ethnically-associated trait-groups and intelligence". Race and behavior discussed below at Race and intelligence or Race and behavior?.--Nectar 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So does body hair. However I do not think an article trying to associate body hair with behaviour in the Swedish population would be appropriate for this article.  I presume you think a study of skin colour and behaviour within the Spanish population would also be similarly enlightening?  Can you see what I'm saying?  While hair colour may vary between ethnic groups, the study you quote is within a population with massive admixture, and you have no evidence that it represents ethnic origins within that population.  Therefore the study is not relevant.  I've already granted you that studies of race and behaviour are of passing interest to this article, but this study is not about race, or even ethnic group, it is about a trait that can vary with ethnic group, but that we have no reason to believe does vary with ethnic background in this population! --Coroebus 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

was the eye color study done with siblings? if so, then population structure isn't a concern. if not, then that could be confounding. --Rikurzhen 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll never win, Rikurzhen
It's obvious that you're fighting against a PoV, Rikurzhen, and not a desire to be fair or scientific or neutral. If fairness were the goal, the neutrality tag would have been removed long ago. This article is very balanced and fair. Those supporting the tag won't give up until all material supporting a view opposite of their own is removed. I think it's time to move this to mediation or arbitration.
 * Nah. I think with very few exceptions (of which you are one, I am afraid) the editors on this page are extremely well-behaved and I am confident that Wikipedia's standard mode of operation suffices for this article. Mediation is an extremely tiresome process. Also, please remember WP:FAITH when characterising the motivations of other editors. Your message just made this an unfriendlier forum, which seems counterproductive to your stated aims. Arbor 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced a forum such as Wikipedia is even capable of dealing objectively with heated subjects like this one. An encyclopedia can only be as good as the writers. I try to imagine what a public encyclopedia written in the Victorian era or the Dark Ages would look like, and see no theoretical reason that people in the 2200's looking back on our own efforts wouldn't find us hopelessly hung up on subjects of our own. But with that in mind, I also think that the Wikipedians are doing a remarkably good job on this article, and would like to congratulate the contributors who do maintain good faith on what is obviously a very difficult, contentious, and emotionally charged issue. Harkenbane 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - zen-master violation of block
I reported it here. --Rikurzhen 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I accuse this article and area of research of being a massive paradigm of lies
Most critical sources only scratch the surface of the vastness of this article and research's paradigm of lies, but collectively it's obvious. Objective scientific research would not be presented this way, not even close. Abstract conceptualization has been corrupted by presumption inducing language and a restrictive paradigm of unscientific presentation. Hollow are the Ori 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked per above.--Nectar 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

History 1850s to World War II
I hesitate a little suggesting this but I think that the later parts of this need to be edited because they suggest that the criticisms came almost entirely from outside of psychology.

Graham Richards, a historian of psychology, has written extensively on this (e.g. Richards, G. (1997) ‘Race’ Racism and Psychology London: Routeledge and a chapter in the book edited by Andrew S. Winston (2003) Defining Difference: Race and Racism in the History of Psychology  published by the APA). If people think it is worthwhile I would suggest removing the paragraph that suggests the popularity of pro-difference research declined just because of changing historical context and criticisms and replacing with something like this:

According to historian of psychology Graham Richards there was widespread critical debate within psychology of the conceptual underpinnings of this early race difference research. These include Estabrooks (1928) two papers on the limitations of methodology used in the research; Dearborn and Long’s (1934) overview of the criticisms by several psychologists (Garth, Thompson, Peterson, Pinter, Herskovits, Daniel, Price, Wilkerson, Freeman, Rosenthal, C.E. Smith) in a collection they edited and Klineburg, who wrote three major critiques, one in 1928, and two in 1935

Richards also notes that with over a 1000 publications with psychology during the interwar years there had been a large internal debate. Towards the end of the time period almost all those publishing, including most of those who began with a pro-race differences stance, were firmly arguing against race differences research. Richards regards the scientific controversy to be dead at this point, although he also suggests reasons for its re-emergence in the late nineteen sixties. JonathanE 10:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds great (to my untutored ears). Put it in. Welcome to the page. Arbor 10:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've added that, rather than remove the earlier paragraph because there were, as was stated, also events happening outside of psychology.JonathanE 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Richards' account is indeed interesting, but his conclusions seem to reflect a tilt to one side: "Closure [of the pro-differences argument] is never achieved. . . as with Dracula, its allies or hidden offspring retain sufficient resources for a remake in due course and overtly tabooed racist discourse can be covertly produced as 'science'" (pg. 263). (Richards discusses efforts to keep the lid on the "coffin" on the next two pages.) Nazis is a familiar accusation, but vampires is a new one. It would of course be misleading to not note that Richards' history is an interpretation from one side.--Nectar 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One side of what? Several Historians of Psychology seem to reach a similar conclusion about the pre-WWII history of the issue (see for example, Danziger, and Jones and Elcock)  Richards colourful metaphor is related to the point that after 30 years of within discipline discussion the issue was closed, or scientifically dead.  That it re-emerged some 25+ years later is a puzzle from a historical point of view.  Current researchers in a discipline are less likely to be good historians than people who concentrate on its history.--JonathanE 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If historians of science disagree with the expert community, arguing that the active debate in that community doesn't exist and writing their histories ignoring one side, then their opinion can be taken alongside the opinion of experts on the other side of the debate. (This may be similar to the relationship of this area with philosophy of science, which can be read about in Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability (Neven Sesardic, 2000).


 * Can you help out with page numbers for Richards' arguments that are in the article now? (This article is only as good as its references.)--Nectar 17:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Change name to Race and IQ Scores
I agree with Macgruder 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC). I just changed the name as MacGruder suggested and someone changed it back without leaving a trace for me to see who did it. I will try to reach an administrator for further clarification on how this works.

As an African American admitted to MENSA, I have no grudge against I.Q. tests. I do find it interesting that my own I.Q. does not appear to show up in the Black Bell Curve or Black Curve in the IQ gap chart. The graphs give the impression that the maximum black IQs are respectively 135 and 118. Such obviously misleading graphs should be removed from the article.

It is also interesting that there are I. Q. results for African countries below 75, as indicated in the following link from this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#Global_IQ_averages

The following is stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#IQ_below_70:

"People with a score below 75 will often, but not always, have difficulties with daily living skills."

This implies that in some African nations, half or more of the population might have difficulty functioning in daily life. Of course, no one has ever reported that to be the case. I lived in Africa for 10 years and never observed it. Therefore, something more than I.Q. determines abilities.

To have a real article on Race and Intelligence, we need data on all aspects of intelligence. Elliott Small


 * All past discussions on this topic have concluded with the retention of the "race and intelligence" title because (1) this phrase is more commonly used and more easily understood (hence there is a journal titled Intelligence where the primary topic of discussion is IQ), (2) there is much more under discussion than the results of IQ tests (e.g., brain size, reaction time, school achievement) and (3) differences in IQ that are not measurement artifacts are necessarily indicative of differences of intelligence even if the opposite relatinship does not hold. The fact that the <75 IQ white population is actually a mixture of people with organic and familial retardation does not itself imply that there is more to intelligence than IQ, only that there can be more to retardation than intelligence. It is clear that IQ <75 in Africa is predomiantely familial, which explains why the population is not as dysfunctional as one might prima facie predict. --Rikurzhen 06:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, prima facie, it totally undermines any inter-cultural relevance of the IQ<75 = difficulties with daily living point. --Coroebus 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed name from Race and intelligence to Race and IQ Scores
I did this change again after contributing to this discussion. I also created a stub for Race and intelligence, in the hope that it can grow into an article that includes all of the major aspects of intelligence, as defined by experts in the study of intelligence. I welcome feedback from an administrator. Elliott Small

i don't know how to fix this now
Oweing to the fact that moved the page and then replaced the redirect page with new text, I'm unable to undo these changes. Does someone know how to fix this? --Rikurzhen 06:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that this involves Requested moves, but oweing to the fact that there is debate about this, I'm sure an admin will not help. Unfortunately, this has broken the AYref referencing system. --Rikurzhen 06:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have requested the move anyway. Arbor 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the appropriate action is for an admin to just delete the page Elliott created at Race and intelligence in order to prevent editors from undoing his action. There's certainly not a debate on this subject; Elliott says he agrees with Macgruder's argument for the name change, but if he actually read that argument he would see that Macgruder conceded the point (ctrl F on this page for "to concede").  In the meantime, I've created a redirect at Race and IQ Scores (References), which provides a seamless fix for the referencing.--Nectar 08:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we have had a long and good discussion about the title in the archives. I cannot see any other conclusion from that discussion than Keep at Race and intelligence but any administrator is welcome to go through those arguments again. Arbor 08:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Per the request/complaint at WP:ANI, I've moved it back and move-protected the page. NSL E (T+C) at 08:54 UTC (2006-05-21)

curves
curves in the lead figure extend across the entire X-axis (from 145), and thus are not affect by the the criticism that was placed in the main text.

the curves in Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png range only from the 1st to the 99th percentile (thus covering 98% of the population). this was done for clarity of presentation. this caveat can be added to the text in that section. --Rikurzhen 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this suggestion. As stated below, I will attempt an edit that reflects this suggestion, and I will include a revised version of my original edits. Elliott Small 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be to redraw the curves, omitting the last percentile (i.e., omit the intersection of the curves with the x axis). In some sense that would be more faithful to the Reynolds et al. drawing as well. Arbor 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is available to redraw the curves? Please let me know how or by whom that can be requested. As a extension of your suggestion, it would be useful if each curve line could have its own color instead of the colors under each line. Then each line can be shown to go all the way to the left and right edges of the chart. Even with this change, clarifying remarks should still be included. Elliott Small 16:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I played with these graphics in Excel a lot before rendering them. I don't think these changes will help, but you can convince me they will by drawing a mock up. I can help with a good rendering. --Rikurzhen 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Here is a mock up in a jpg file: I believe that we need a similar revision to the gap chart. Elliott Small 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Elliot, we cannot make a similar revision to the gap chart. [[Image:400px-Sketch-4race-99.png|thumb]]. Our business is not to revise data by constructing results about the extrapolation of IQ scores in the 98-100% percentile. I still believe the four-coloured bell curves are the best presentation, but I am willing to look into ways to explain (graphically) that the chart excludes the far left and right tails. I am sceptical this will work, but we can try. I have tried to play around with having the black curves "fade out" at the bottom but cannot make it work and look nice. Still, it's a start.
 * The current presentation of the Reynolds data is my idea (but Rik's execution), so I am prepared to take heat for it. The original graph in section 3 shows the cumulative IQ gap, and originally graced this article at the top. My problem with this graph is that laymen will not "get" the fact that this shows strong overlap: to somebody who is untrained in reading graphs, it will show something like "there are fewer Blacks that Whites at any IQ range" or whatever (because the curves, graphically, never overlap but dominate each other). One of the important points I want to make early on is that the bell curves overlap considerably, which is why I advocated for the image we now have in the introduction: everybody can see that there is overlap. I think that is an expository success. But there are problems, of course. One is the thing you are pointing out: we don't know what happens at the very bottom, so we should not draw it, or be explicit about only presenting the 98% majority. Arbor 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbor, thanks for the thought that you have put into this. I look forward to what you develop. The gap chart is someone else's data. Therefore, the solution is to create a new graph from other data that is more inclusive. I cannot overemphasize the misimpression that is given with it is not made clear that a individual from any group can score higher than any other group. Elliott Small 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the gap chart is someone else's data. Exactly. That's what Wikipedia is about: presenting someone else's data. We cannot present our own, or even present other people's data in a new way so as to establish an original conclusion—which is what you seem to want to do. Read WP:NOR and WP:V. As to your claim: that doesn't make sense. "An individual" from every group outperforming "any other group" is a contradiction (by symmetry). What we can say is that the "individual" from any group outperforms "99% of any other group" or some other fractile. Arbor 09:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbor, I was agreeing with you. When I said that the solution is to create a new graph from other data, it is obvious that I realize that we cannot change "someone else's data." Regarding the other point, it is quite elementary logic that it is impossible for all groups to have an individual scoring best in the world at the same time. My sentence did not even come close to saying that. Obviously, that would happen at different times. Anyway, I appreciate your desire to let facts rule. That is why I was trying to agree with you, not argue with you. Elliott Small 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Placing the x-axis above the bottom of the figure can be done as in this mockup. --Rikurzhen 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)



I left the source code for the SVG file on its image page, so you can edit the image with a text editor. Firefox will render the SVG. --Rikurzhen 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that looks great. Arbor 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Filling in the curves is too hard, but it would look better with a background. Also, I don't know how to specify x-axis tick marks in R, do you? I'm not sure what aspect ratio is best; this looks a little too wide. The SVG format is nice in that it's vector graphics, but it doesn't always render as I expect it to. I'm using lynn's averages (85,89,100,106), but we can use whatever. --Rikurzhen 07:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think it looks great. Below is a version modified only slightly. I made an adjustment so that all of the line colors are visible going to the end. I am sure that your finished version, Rikurzhen, will have a smoother curve. I have also left the source code on the page. Elliott Small 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)



you moved the Black (orange) curve down a hair? --Rikurzhen 07:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, I wrote the message below before I realized that you already changed the graph. It is fine with me if we stick with your version, unless you prefer mine. In your version, all lines go to the end of the right side, except that the green line is not visible for a short distance, but it seems implied that they all overlap there anyway. Elliott Small 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, so far, that is the only practical way that I know to make all of the colors visible all the way through the higher scores. Another option is to have one combined chart and then four separate smaller charts, but that would take up too much space. I could have accomplished the same thing by moving the orange line up, but that would have been misleading because of the upward distance required to avoid the line being overwritten by the other lines. Another option that I tried was to put the orange line last in the svg file, but that overwrites all of the other lines at the high end of the IQ ranges. Anyway, the data used for this chart does support the lines on the right being in the same vertical order as the horizontal order of the complete curves. Elliott Small 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

the obscure workings of the SVG file format are still a bit of a mystery to me. everytime to try to fix one thing i manage to break another. if we can fancy/fix up the graphic, i like it just fine. --Rikurzhen 01:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the lines can be blended evenly in Photoshop, though AFAIK the only way is a somewhat roundabout way. I can do that if you guys give me the four curves isolated in separate files.--Nectar 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nectar. Below are four separate files. I also made the lines thicker, in case that helps. Please let me know if I should change the thickness back. Regarding, the edits that I made before, I think that I have a better approach. I will discuss that here when I get a chance to do it in a day or two. Elliott Small 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



better? --Rikurzhen 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think in the text for the image we need a more explicit declaration of how these curves were made - it looks to me like these are normal distributions calculated from the mean IQs in study X and the theoretical standard distributions of test Y - is that right? --Coroebus 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rikurzhen, that looks fine to me. Please go ahead and install it. Thanks again. Elliott Small 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This new graph is nice, but following the tails out to the point that they, in this presentation, appear to meet seems to inaccurately imply the chances of a 150 IQ occuring in one these 4 groups are about equal. The graph we have in the article does actually maintain the curves for all groups across the x axis, but it was maybe difficult to read. I've clarified the bottom edge and right corner of the image in Photoshop. The two versions can be compared here: old new. I don't see any problem with this new version.--Nectar 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that image's thinner lines make it more accurate, and its filled in curves make it easier to understand.--Nectar 04:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We still need something better for the gap chart, showing the high end IQs for each group. I think Arbor might be working on that. The gap chart gives the immediate impression that the highest black IQ is about 117, etc. There is a disclaimer in the chart text, but not many people are likely see that. The gap chart range is 55 to 140. As long as we do not change that range, we are safe to extend the line for each group all the way to the top and bottom. We do not need more data to do that because we already know that all groups have people above 140 and below 55. The Reynolds data should verify this. The top end is verified by the membership of Mensa. Elliott Small 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am not working on that. And no, we cannot do that. WP:NOR and WP:V. The "gap chart" correctly states that the the 90% percentile maximal Black IQ is about 117. It explicitly makes no claim about what happens outside that percentile, and there is no way Wikipedia policies (let alone the scientific method or my personal integrity) allows us to make any claims about the tail. Moreover, even if we all agreed that Elliot's idea is sensible (and we certainly do not), it would be reverted (correctly) by any passing WP editor in accordance with standard practice. We simply cannot lie just to avoid a hypothetical misunderstanding. (As before, this hinges on the absence of data. If a relevant study exists, I will immediately reverse my position.) Arbor 08:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbor, as I said above, "The Reynolds data should verify this. The top end is verified by the membership of Mensa." If the Reynolds study does not verify the ranges just say so. If it does not, from where do you get the overall 55 to 140 range in the chart? Does the Reynolds data not include black scores higher than 117 or Asian scores lower than 71? I do not have the Reynolds data. I assume that you have it or someone else in this group has it. Otherwise, how did the chart get done? If one of you can let me know that the Reynolds data is incomplete in this area, I will get this obviously existant data elsewhere. I already tried to get the Reynolds study, but the site wanted a payment. I did not purchase it because some of you in this group of editors obviously already have it. If the Reynolds data really does not have any black IQ scores above 117, that would be shocking, since it means that the black Mensa members that I have met do not exist, and it would cast doubt on Reynolds methods of inquiry. Again, I will get the data when you simply inform me that it is not in the Reynolds study! Elliott Small 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This first graph is what the curves look like transparent, which seems hard to read, and the second graph only makes the curves transparent on the right tail, which I think could be worth doing for the graph Rikurzhen made above.--Nectar 08:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nectar. The second graph looks fine to me. Please install it. Elliott Small 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)