Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 41

false dichotomy in title
"Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation" is total POV. This is not the debate. The debate is:


 * entirely environmental variation
 * entirely genetic variation
 * both genetic and environmental variation
 * insufficient data

It's not an either/or. I recommend "race and intelligence (heredity vs. environment)" or something along those lines. Jokestress 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This framing is incorrect and deeply POV. There is no support for, no controversy about, and no proponent of "entirely genetic variation" -- it's the very definition of a straw man.  There is also little debate about whether the variation is heritable.  The central question is whether the same factors that cause variation within races cause variation between races; the major debate is over the possible additional influence of genes on top of cultural influences.  The title accurately reflects the debate: is variation all due to culture/environment, or is it partly genetic?  I could support using "environment" in the title, but please don't mischaracterize the debate.  --DAD T 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just going off the options presented in the poll on this page. Apparently some people think it's all heredity or all environment. Jokestress 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Give me a break, J. 1% of respondents don't constitute a debate; those results quite effectively indicate that there is no significant debate over that position.  (I wonder, could you name a single researcher who supports 100% heredity?  According to WP:NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."  Go ahead.)  As the entire page shows, if you would kindly read it, the debate is about whether culture/environment explains all of the variation, or whether there is some genetic influence.  The polling data show that a clear plurality of surveyed researchers support a dual influence, but that "insufficient data" and "all environment" constitute important minority positions. --DAD T 15:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Name a single researcher who supports 100% environment. Jokestress 15:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, so many to choose from. Okay, Nisbett.  From his recent PPPL article, cited from the Race and intelligence Review Papers section: "On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil."  Still waiting...   --DAD T 15:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: "Name a single researcher who supports 100% environment.": SJ Gould, Lewontin, Ulrich Neisser,... See also Not in Our Genes. Dd2 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a significant POV that the research is scientifically misconceived and politically suspect. The title assumes the correlation itself is true, when a lot of people are arguing that crap x crap = crap^2. It's like having an article called "jews and pedophilia (culture only or partially genetic explanation)". Jokestress 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV discusses the need to make certain assumptions for certain articles. An article about the specific topic of this debate within the scientific community can rely on race and intelligence or race and intelligence controversy to cover those objections. --Rikurzhen 16:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV also says "Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views." That's what I feel is missing. The developers of this cluster of articles clearly have a POV, and it is reflected in the writing. To be honest, this is not a topic I know a ton about, but I know that important information is omitted and given short shrift throughout these articles. I am frankly unconcerned about who is right or wrong in the debate. My goal is to report the historical and current debate as accurately as possible. There isn't even a simple majority consensus among experts on these issues, and the POV changes significantly between disciplines. That needs to be addressed more clearly. Jokestress 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The only bias the past authors of these articles have had (and we demonstrably have different views on this issue) is that the mainstream opinions of science should be given a full featuring and should be recognized as such in the articles. I strongly support the idea of "teach the controversy" in the context of WP, but it is best to do that in a way that doesn't confuse the science with the controversy. I've already started the race and intelligence controversy article to make sure that everything that could possibly be said about the controversy is said. --Rikurzhen 16:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The science is the controversy. Two sets of controversial interpretations used to make another controversial interpretation. See y'all tomorrow. Jokestress 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * See DAD's comments below. --Rikurzhen 17:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't even a simple majority consensus among experts on these issues. Um? We've been thru this. --Rikurzhen 16:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report from the American Psychological Association -- later published as Neisser et al (1996)
 * "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" -- later published as Gottfredson (1997) -- a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".
 * Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". American Psychologist, 42, 137&#8211;144. (some details in this section) while old, this survey probably gives the most honest view of expert opinion, because responses were anonymous -- i.e., no one but the authors know who said what --Rikurzhen 17:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jokestress, you opened the article with your view of the debate. Because your view is manifestly incorrect, I'm trying to bring you up to speed.  The rhetorical stuff about jews and pedophilia doesn't help.  Here's my understanding of the debate:
 * Some commentators, mostly outside the field, feel that the research is ill-defined, political, in poor taste, or racist. (Addressed on the main page.)
 * Within the field, the existence of racial disparity in IQ is beyond significant dispute. The reasons, however, are not.  Broadly, the debate concerns environmental and genetic influences.  (Addressed in this sub-article.)
 * Many researchers feel that the disparity is 0% genetic, 100% environment
 * Many researchers feel that the disparity is partly genetic and partly environmental.
 * Some researchers feel there's insufficient data.
 * The literature covering these positions is vast, contentious, and, at present, inconclusive.
 * That's what the article covers. --DAD T 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. And the situation is very similar to global warming. Outside the field, for example amongst political figures and pundits, it's popular to say that we don't know enough about global warming and that it is very uncertain. Inside the field, most of what's considered unknown or controversial by public figures is believed to be well established and the controversy turns to matters of causes, models, magntudes, etc. Thus, it is misleading to say that global warming science is the controversy. Rather, the public-expert disagreement is what's notable about global warming, as it is with R&I. Related to this article and its content, consider an example. Satellite temperature measurements doesn't need to rehash the solar-forcing versus green house effect argument; which can be covered by global warming and global warming controversy. Nor does this article need to cover material that is discussed in higher-level and related articles. Lastly, I would not be able to write for the global warming article if I did not read the IPCC concensus statements. We all need to be famaliar with the APA and WSJ concensus reports. --Rikurzhen 17:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You write: "Cultural explanations for the IQ deficit among Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites and East Asian minorities are complemented – and sometimes challenged – by the observation that East Asian minorities score well on IQ tests and on average enjoy greater economic success than other minorities. Along these lines, East Asians are sometimes referred to as "model minorities". Likewise, Jewish populations have suffered past discrimination and persecution, but do not exhibit an IQ deficit. However, Jews and East Asians are today less discriminated than Blacks."

I don't understand the idea: considering that minorities should have similar IQ just because they are minorities or are discriminated is nonsense. Rather, it is clear that each population has cultural values which build its intelligence, explaining much more easily than genetics why black people with an important part of white ancestry do not perform better in IQ, since this is population is culturally black.

adult-adult conversations
anon writes: "A recent study has shown that many American Blacks and Hispanics are raised in homes where their parents speak relatively few sentences, and the sentences usually show only simple grammar. This effect can be compounded in single-parent households, where children are statistically less likely to be exposed to adult-adult conversations."

Can this be verified? While it may seem obvious, it may not be true, so we need a citation. Is there even any evidence that differential exposure to adult langauge account for differential acquisition of language by children. I doubt there are any behavior genetic controlled experiments. --Rikurzhen 17:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

JK's removal of large amounts of material
JK removed the intro paragraph and the table of comparisons. This is not appropriate. The reasons given were (1) not supported by citations and (2) straw man. Neither claim is supported. The material in (1) is a direct paraphrasing. The table of comparisons (2) is adapted and expanded from Rushton and Jensen's latest review. The claim that there are two major alternative views is widely supported and it constitutes the consensus view by far. The claim that it is a straw man is extrememly limited -- I know of only one author to make such a claim, and even then this was the only time to may knowledge that they had objected to this otherwise very old manner of characterizing the debate. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Material in #1 was not direct paraphrasing. p311 as cited does not make the claims stated regarding the "consensus of intelligence researchers".  Please provide a direct quote if you believe otherwise.  #2 is obviously a straw-man, making an assertion that is not representative of the anti-racialist point of view, even if Rushton and Jensen want to present it as a straw-man. --JereKrischel 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1: quotations:
 * A century of research strongly supports all five
 * (e.g., see the journal Intelligence; Brody, 1992; Deary, 2000; Gottfredson, 1997; Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989; Lubinski, 2004).
 * This is hardly the picture of intelligence research that the media and many social scientists paint (e.g., Fish, 2002). Both often suggest that the entire area of measurement of mental abilities, psychometrics, is fundamentally flawed and morally suspect. As Snyderman and Rothman (1988) demonstrated almost two decades ago, however, media portrayals of accepted wisdom on intelligence tend to be the opposite of what experts have actually concluded (e.g., Carroll, 1997). Thus, despite public lore to the contrary, there is already a deep and vast nomological network of evidence that can be called g theory.

2: the "antiracialist" POV, as I understand you to have previously described it, is not to be found in any of the consensus statements. Gottfredson in the quote above backs the 2-competing hypotheses scheme. So does Reynolds (2000), a person whom I do not know to have ever previously written or committed to a position on R&I. So does all other presentations I've seen (with the exception of those who enumerate many environmentalist positions and one genetics position, but never an "antiracialist" position). --Rikurzhen 23:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from these details, I don't see deletion is the appropriate response to either of your criticisms. If you believe (1) to not be the "consensus", then you surely recongize it as being the something like that. If you believe there are 3 major views, then you should argue for the inclusion a third column, rather than deleting tons of informative material. --Rikurzhen 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "A century of research" does not paraphrase into "The consensus among intelligence researchers is". A better quote would be, "According to Pioneer Fund scholar Linda Gottfredson, a "century of research" has shown IQ differences among same-race individuals represent (a) real, (b) functionally important, and (c) substantially genetic differences in general intelligence (the g factor), and mean IQ differences between the races likewise reflect (d) real and (e) functionally important differences on the same g factor.." Insofar as columns, you'd have just as much problem with "genetic-only" and "partially-culture" columns (as used by Gil-White, for example).  It is simply POV pushing to present in such detail, a good argument against a bad one. --JereKrischel 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would be according to the signatories of (I don't remember the name of the manifesto), but if memory serves correctly, there were about only 53 or so researcher who signed this. So, there is a consensus of 50 or so researchers. The APA is about 10,000 strong, and that is not counting biologists, anthropologists and all other stripes of scientists taking an interest in the question. So yes, Linda Gottfredson and about 50 researchers (one-third of which are PF fundees) claim this is a consensus, but this consensus represents at best, what - 0.2% of American psychologists. Maybe if you want a statement which represents a real consensus, distilling one from the APA statement on the Bell Curve (the 1995 Neisser paper) would give it much more credibility.--Ramdrake 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * see below. The APA report comes the same conclusions. However, the APA report wasn't written by 10k authors. It's the view of the ~10 authors who wrote the report, trying to present a consensus. The received many criticisms for their treatment of the cause of the BW gap, but that's actually outside of the scope of the Gottfredson sentences, which say the cause is specifically not resolved. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
 * (1) Gottfredson is saying that the consensus of the available research points to these conclusions. The APA and WSJ statements agree as does the S&R survey. (2) No one thinks it's genetic only. The claim that the partly genetic view is really an all genetic view is fringe. Partly culture = partly genetic by definition. The reason it is phrased in terms of genetics is due to the history of this debate. It would take a substantial citation to demonstrate that the view of two major theories (<20% genetic versus 20-80% genetic) is wrong. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the intro patagraph to read more cautiously. Gottfredson,while saying that research strongly supports (and that's a claim, not a fact) that all five evidentiary prerequisites for the existence of the genetic hypothesis have been met, never actually comes out and say that a consensus exists. She says the body of evidence exists; she doesn't say others agree with her. Thus, to avoid an unwarranted generalization, I have reworded the intro to present the prerequisites as a well-supported claim rather than a fact, which is exactly what it is.--Ramdrake 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the 5 points and check the APA report. You'll see they are all there. Points 1-3 are listed as the consensus in the main article, etc. Points 4 is rather trivial as the IQ gap clearly makes a difference in educational outcomes. Point 5 was unchallenged circa 1995 when the APA report was written. Since then it has been suggested that it is still possible that the BW gap is on a factor that is merely highly correlated with g rather than g itself, but no suggestion that this is more likely the case. --Rikurzhen 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The wording of the Neisser (APA) report is dfferent, much more cautious. If you want to refe to the content of the Neisser report and paraphase from there rather than from Gottfredson's, go ahead. But presenting Gottfredson's claims, no matter how well supported, as facts backed by a general consensus is an unwarranted generalization, upon closer inspection.--Ramdrake 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistant and overtly bias/racist studies
IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent. In fact, Blacks of African descent in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations. In the U.S. Black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any immigrant group in the country (See Logan & Dean, 2003; Bhattacharyya, Ilson, Blair, 2000).

There is also research that shows people with higher IQ scores to be lacking in skills pertaining to Practical Intelligence (See Sternberg 2001, and 2004). That is, IQ and Practical intelligence skills correlate negatively. Further, Sternberg demonstrates that tests of Practical intelligence are better at predicting job performance and real world success.

Leon J. Kamin (Bell Curve Wars, 1995 p.92): Extensive practice at reading and calculating does affect, very directly, one's IQ score.

The main correlation with brain size is height/size; because of this average black/white brain is certainly larger than the average Asian brain (not proportionally, but in Absolute terms). Witelson’s, Kigar’s and Thomas’ (1999) examination of Albert Einstein’s brain illustrates that something more complicated than a brain’s size relates to it’s owner’s intelligence. They compared Einstein’s brain with an average specimen from a sample 35 intact, control brains. Einstein’s brain has about the same dimensions and the same weight as the comparison brain. However, in areas specific to Einstein’s unique skills, his brain was quite different. This leads one to conclude that it is overall brain structure and not brain size that determines one’s intellectual strength.

If you are truly interested in learning about the nature and nurture of brain development, may I suggest researching the work of Joan Stiles (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscientist, UCSD). Stop relying on pseudoscience.

Herkovitz’s 1930 data suggest that there is no consistent black/white difference with respect to stature or crania. North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in Brain weight (See Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g). Cranial size and number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compare favorably to most Caucasoids groups including the English and French.


 * There is a certain point at which a child's intelligence may isolate them as they age, but it's usually due to having access to few intellectual peers and poor parenting/education. Kechvsf 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * also east asian brains ARE bigger; in ratio and in absolute mass. especially in the pre-frontal lobe, and the ratio is even greater when you subtract parts of the brain required for regulation of bodily functions. it's even greater when controlled for age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kechvsf (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It's not incontrovertible fact. It actually depends on whose studies you choose to believe.--Ramdrake 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Asian IQ
In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991, 2002), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to under perform academically and on conventional psychometric tests (See Flynn, 1991).

Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates.


 * they've used english speakers as well.

Race and Genetics
- A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children showed that there was no genetic basis for IQ differences between black & whites. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (James R. Flynn, 1980. Richard E. Nisbett, 1994. Also see, The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

- Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children. Co-investigators include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

- IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, 1995; Dickenson & Flynn, 2002). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire black population together as a single body. The

- Osbonre and Suddick (1971, as reported in Loehlin, 1975) attempted to use 16 blood-groups genes known to have come from European ancestors. Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation over the 16 genes and IQ scores was not highly positive as would have been predicted if European genes in Blacks increased IQ scores. In Fact, the correlations were -.38 and +.01. Because the results were not significant, the authors concluded that European genes lower IQ scores.

Why not height and intelligence?
Why is race and intelligence such a topic of intense focus for certain researchers? Why not height and intelligence? or Race and height? I can see that this topic is significant from a historical perspective, I can also see why it fascinates the lay public. But, race is a slippery subject for science to grasp. It's not easily quantifiable. It's not rigid. So why is there so much research in to it? What, moreover, is the scientific significance of the concept of race? I understand the concept of inheritance, but race? The definitions don't even remain static for a few decades. I'm not questioning the utility of the research, I'm asking why they have chosen to study this topic. futurebird 10:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll humor you. (1) There aren't large and social important associations between height and intelligence. It's been studied, but found to be due to assortative mating. (2) Human height isn't as socially relevant to most westerners as human intelligence. (3) Each of the major researchers seem to have a unique research history that brought them to the study of race differences. Many go from studying IQ in general to race differences in particular, and most still remain active in areas outside of race differences. --W. D. Hamilton 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)