Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 55

You decide
I believe, that up to a point, poverty and intelligence are related. (the body needs at least essential requirements of nutrients to grow, but that correlation shouldn't be linear or else the more you eat the smarter you get)

But here's a point I'd like to raise

If the average intelligence a particular country is low due to poverty and such, it doesn't mean that it is due to race/genetics, BUT it does mean that one could (on average) identify the most probable person to have a lower IQ based on race.

Here's an example.

I have two apples from two fields, the apples are of the same species. The first apple is from field A and is known to have an infestation problems with worms, the other apple is from field B and is housed in a green house away from parasites. Now, on average, the apples from Field A is not suitable for human consumption because of the worms and the apples from field B is suitable for human consumption.

Now, I hand you the two apples. One from field A one from Field B. They both look the same outside (the worm burrows inside the apple) and you know which one is from field A and which apple is from field B. Tell me which one you would choose to eat?

The obvious answer is the one from field B.

Even though the two apples are from the same species, and they are both equally susecetpable to parasites (worms in this case) the one on field A has a higher chance of being diseased due to enviromental factors, not genetics. But even so, if we were to choose one, we'd all chose the one from field B.

But this basic logic is loss on some people when applying this to people (those who see racism at every turn).

For example

If I was an employer, and had someone from Ethiopia with a stanford degree with honors, I'd hire him over some caucasian with a degree from university of calgary with a GPA of 2. BUT if I had to choose WITHOUT knowing their respective degrees and without actually meeting them (judging from how read they are, etc...) I would choose the caucasian over the Ethiopian based on the statistics provided below (IQ average Ethiopia - 63 http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm)

Is this racism or is it just purely logic and business?

Of course you'd ask, oh when do we hire without looking at backgrounds and such... well apply this to meeting some general person on the streets. Initial impressions. This is where I believe some of the racism in this world occurs. Would it be racist to assume that some person I meet, who is ethopian, has a lower IQ then people from north america?

You decide.

To me, it's no, becuase it's based on statistics, and just like the statistics that allows rockets to be fired into space, or determining the average income of genders, it's just numbers. They don't lie. And If I had to decide, it's basic logic. I'm not saying it's because of genetics, I know that poverty contributes to the low IQ. But when I have to make the decision, it doesn't really matter WHAT is the cause of the lower average IQ, I just need to know what the IQ is.

I Have decided MrASingh cannot grasp a single concept
I will address MrASingh's points below

Comparing humans to apples, and the problems that they face to worms is probably either a reflection of your mutilated mind, or, more probably of your complete inability to understand verbal arguments that stretch beyond a few sentences (let alone the paragraphs that make up this article).

>> It's called an analogy... it's you simplify things, which I had hoped would help you understand things better. Clearly I misunderstood the stupidity of people. There are no arguments in this article. Arguments are relegated to the discussion pages. You are severely confused sir.

You have not stated your definition of poverty. We should not just be talking about nutritional poverty here, there are many different types. There is social poverty (which some would stated is related to cultural poverty). Then you have not defined what nutrition is! Just having enough food to prevent starvation is not enough – one needs enough food to perform activities and the like. Certainly, much in the way of those IQ scores at the lower end of the IQ range are probably down to bad nutrition.

>> If you had enough food to prevent starvation then you will have enough food for brain development. How do I know this? Because ~20% of glucose is diverted to your brain, and a constant supply is provided even at the expense of muscles, fat and carbohydrate storage. I already stated that the proteins needed to actually build the brain is a base requirement. If enough food is provided so that there is a homeostasis between anabolism and catabolism then yes, enough energy is provided for the brain. Of course then you'll question the definition of starvation and such... well then why don't you argue why the word green conveys the color we see? Your argument is flawed. There's information on this in the article or at least on wiki that food and intelligence are not strongly correlated I searched it up before I made to comment.

>> Cultural poverty? please define that since you just made this up.

This is where the purpose of the article is questionable. You are essentially stating that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against people who have already been discriminated against (for example, those who, by chance – change discrimination, ie: bad luck – and those who have been discriminated within politics). This is clearly a strange moral code and system of beliefs. You are wrong. Nor is there any point is using race as a statistic to deduce likely intelligence. Statistics need to be reliable and deterministic. That is, I can't view a person as a fuzzy cloud of statistical material and state that “they are probably stupid” or that they are “probably smart”, any more than it would make sense to look at a person and state that they are “probably blonde” or “probably black”. The point here is that that the information concerning that individual's merit should be tested or it should be deduced in a methodological and scientific fashion.

>> Everyone has bad luck. So what? bad luck is NO ONE'S fault, so why should I compensate for something that's not my fault? You ABUSE the word discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I discriminate the difference between concentrated sulfuric acid and citric acid. I discriminate on whether I go to one store over the other because it's cheaper. This is not what I'm talking about. It's pure logic. Be serious. This is life. You think I'm a racist? well then you're just an idiot. Studies have found that people with black sounding names are less likely to be called back for an interview even with same resumes. THOSE employers are racist. I actually decide to hire the person who will benefit me the most, independent of race. Your view on statistics is also vitally FLAWED. They are often VERY accurate, it is common misconception that statistics is very vague and such. You are wrong. In order for something to be considered statistically significant, basic tests, which anyone with basic high school to entry university knowledge, would know. Tests like chi-squared, all sorts of regression analysis provide irrefutable answers. As I've said, statistics govern when to recalibrate a machine, whether lung cancer are on the rise, which medical procedure are better. Basically, right now, you are DISCRIMINATING on which statistics you choose to accept. And you discriminate which statistics you choose to believe based on what you want to believe. (ie, you decide to take the plane based on the statistics that it's more safe then driving your own cars, but you decide to NOT accept the statistics that certain races are on average have lower IQ then others)

It depends on whether or not I were going to grow my own apple's from the seeds that are given – it might be more economically viable to go for group A's apple's (the wormy one's) as they have the same genetic information as group B, probably cost less as they look less than wholesome. Also, they come free with nice fertilising worms ! (The last point is a facetious comment). >> The premise was WHICH ONE YOU WERE GOING TO EAT, not whether you're going to grow apples. Further it was stated that both apples LOOK THE SAME. Your BLATANT INABILITY to read and comprehend the key analogy that I wrote explains the blunt ignorance you have thus far demonstrated.

People do not see racism at every turn, they see RACISTS at every turn. You can't see a concept (though you can read it). In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions.

>> Yes, I agree, you are one of the people who see RACISTS at every turn. I also agree that you cannot absolutely deduce someone's IQ by looking at them. BUT without asking for their opinions (which is not always possible) I CAN deduce their PROBABLE IQ which is better then being completely clueless like you.

You would need to check references for this. I am someone who favours standardisation of exams and tests – you are not comparing like with like. Therefore your comparison is not well-founded.

>> If you are unable to decide which person to hire, with a person from Standford graduating with honors and someone from U of C with a GPA of 2.0 then you are either absolutely insane or incredibly stupid.

I have commented on this above. Let me give you my example : A Jew arrives straight off the boat and has to climb the top of a tower in order to pass American entrance tests and examinations. Would you tell him where to get off based upon the fact that “you hear that Jews are not smart”? According to your previous logic, this is exactly what you would do.

>> First of all, my comments was based on STATISTICS not just "something I heard". Secondly, where exactly is the Jew getting off to? Thirdly, I would most probably tell him how to get off (the boat I assume) since he/she may have language barriers or doesn't know how to get off the boat without getting hurt. Hell, If I've just been on a trans continental boat to a new country with different language and culture then mine, I would certainly want someone to tell me how to off a boat safely. This is a completely flawed analogy (since I've shown it completely backfires on you) and has nothing to do with race.

The moral of the story is tests and standardisation when distributing finite resources.

>> What story? Logic requires intelligence, businesses make profit. I doubt you are capable of either.

>> Logic also requires you to actually read and comprehend knowledge. Something you have DEMONSTRATED you are not capable of. You have inevitably doubted wrong. May I also point out the fact that you are Sikh that you are susceptible to BIAS. I am also a minority race but I've seen pass the excuses of "bad luck" and "cultural poverty"... whatever that is.

You cannot deduce someone's intelligence by meeting them. It really does have to be tested. There are many salesmen who speak well, but think c**p.

>> And this is from the person who wrote "In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions."? Make up your mind. If you're going to meet someone you're going to talk to them... and by talking to you I've already deduced you are someone who has the intelligence near that of a rock.

Hope you liked my open ended decisions.

>> I clearly found them distasteful yet stupidly humorous

To an extent, this part is correct. BUT I very much doubt that social scientists apply statistics in the very self-same way that other scientists and engineers do.

>> Maybe they should

There are three types of lie : LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS.

>> nice rebuttal... nothing intellectual to say?

Well, of course. No-one's calling you a racist. Just a bigot.

>> Well I'm calling you an idiot and a bigot. Darkcurrent 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have Decided on Your Mad, Unencyclopedic R**t
Comparing humans to apples, and the problems that they face to worms is probably either a reflection of your mutilated mind, or, more probably of your complete inability to understand verbal arguments that stretch beyond a few sentences (let alone the paragraphs that make up this article).

Anyhow, I'll address your points as below :

I believe, that up to a point, poverty and intelligence are related. (the body needs at least essential requirements of nutrients to grow, but that correlation shouldn't be linear or else the more you eat the smarter you get)

> You have not stated your definition of poverty. We should not just be talking about nutritional poverty here, there are many different types. There is social poverty (which some would stated is related to cultural poverty). Then you have not defined what nutrition is! Just having enough food to prevent starvation is not enough – one needs enough food to perform activities and the like. Certainly, much in the way of those IQ scores at the lower end of the IQ range are probably down to bad nutrition.

> You probably raise several points.

If the average intelligence a particular country is low due to poverty and such, it doesn't mean that it is due to race/genetics, BUT it does mean that one could (on average) identify the most probable person to have a lower IQ based on race.

> This is where the purpose of the article is questionable. You are essentially stating that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against people who have already been discriminated against (for example, those who, by chance – change discrimination, ie: bad luck – and those who have been discriminated within politics). This is clearly a strange moral code and system of beliefs. You are wrong. Nor is there any point is using race as a statistic to deduce likely intelligence. Statistics need to be reliable and deterministic. That is, I can't view a person as a fuzzy cloud of statistical material and state that “they are probably stupid” or that they are “probably smart”, any more than it would make sense to look at a person and state that they are “probably blonde” or “probably black”. The point here is that that the information concerning that individual's merit should be tested or it should be deduced in a methodological and scientific fashion.

Here's an example.

I have two apples from two fields, the apples are of the same species. The first apple is from field A and is known to have an infestation problems with worms, the other apple is from field B and is housed in a green house away from parasites. Now, on average, the apples from Field A is not suitable for human consumption because of the worms and the apples from field B is suitable for human consumption.

Now, I hand you the two apples. One from field A one from Field B. They both look the same outside (the worm burrows inside the apple) and you know which one is from field A and which apple is from field B. Tell me which one you would choose to eat?

The obvious answer is the one from field B.

Even though the two apples are from the same species, and they are both equally susecetpable to parasites (worms in this case) the one on field A has a higher chance of being diseased due to enviromental factors, not genetics. But even so, if we were to choose one, we'd all chose the one from field B.

> It depends on whether or not I were going to grow my own apple's from the seeds that are given – it might be more economically viable to go for group A's apple's (the wormy one's) as they have the same genetic information as group B, probably cost less as they look less than wholesome. Also, they come free with nice fertilising worms ! (The last point is a facetious comment).

But this basic logic is loss on some people when applying this to people (those who see racism at every turn).

> People do not see racism at every turn, they see RACISTS at every turn. You can't see a concept (though you can read it). In a way not dissimilar to how you can not look at someone and deduce their IQ, though you can ask them about their opinions.

For example

If I was an employer > I sincerely hope not.

, and had someone from Ethiopia with a stanford degree with honors, I'd hire him over some caucasian with a degree from university of calgary with a GPA of 2. > You would need to check references for this. I am someone who favours standardisation of exams and tests – you are not comparing like with like. Therefore your comparison is not well-founded.

BUT if I had to choose WITHOUT knowing their respective degrees and without actually meeting them (judging from how read they are, etc...) I would choose the caucasian over the Ethiopian based on the statistics provided below (IQ average Ethiopia - 63 http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) > I have commented on this above. Let me give you my example : A Jew arrives straight off the boat and has to climb the top of a tower in order to pass American entrance tests and examinations (the life experiences of 20th century Jews are not likely to be too much different to that of 21st century Ethiopians). Would you tell him where to get off based upon the fact that “you hear that Jews are not smart”? According to your previous logic, this is exactly what you would do.

> The moral of the story is tests and standardisation when distributing finite resources.

Is this racism or is it just purely logic and business? > Logic requires intelligence, businesses make profit. I doubt you are capable of either.

Of course you'd ask, oh when do we hire without looking at backgrounds and such... well apply this to meeting some general person on the streets. Initial impressions. This is where I believe some of the racism in this world occurs. Would it be racist to assume that some person I meet, who is ethopian, has a lower IQ then people from north america? > You cannot deduce someone's intelligence by meeting them. It really does have to be tested. There are many salesmen who speak well, but think c**p.

You decide. > Hope you liked my open ended decisions.

To me, it's no, becuase it's based on statistics, and just like the statistics that allows rockets to be fired into space, or determining the average income of genders, it's just numbers. > To an extent, this part is correct. BUT I very much doubt that social scientists apply statistics in the very self-same way that other scientists and engineers do.

They don't lie.

> There are three types of lie : LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS.

And If I had to decide, it's basic logic. I'm not saying it's because of genetics, I know that poverty contributes to the low IQ. But when I have to make the decision, it doesn't really matter WHAT is the cause of the lower average IQ, I just need to know what the IQ is.

> Well, of course. No-one's calling you a racist. Just a bigot.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrASingh (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Statistics
I believe, it may be good idea to add in the article some statistic data on this subject by countries:

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Average IQ of Countries

The average IQ in the United States is usually set at 100. Groups within the US score different average IQ's, such as 115 for college grads or 85 for African-Americans. Similarly, average IQ varies from country to country, shown in the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (sets Britain at 100):

Hong Kong 107 Korea, South 106 Japan 105 Taiwan 104 Singapore 104 Austria 102 Germany 102 Italy 102 Netherlands 102 Sweden 101 Switzerland 101 Belgium 100 China 100 New Zealand 100 U. Kingdom 100 Hungary 99 Poland 99 Australia 98 Denmark 98 France 98 Norway 98 United States 98 Canada 97 Czech Republic 97 Finland 97 Spain 97 Argentina 96 Russia 96 Slovakia 96 Uruguay 96 Portugal 95 Slovenia 95 Israel 94 Romania 94 Bulgaria 93 Ireland 93 Greece 92 Malaysia 92 Thailand 91 Croatia 90 Peru 90 Turkey 90 Colombia 89 Indonesia 89 Suriname 89 Brazil 87 Iraq 87 Mexico 87 Samoa (Western) 87 Tonga 87 Lebanon 86 Philippines 86 Cuba 85 Morocco 85 Fiji 84 Iran 84 Marshall Islands 84 Puerto Rico 84 Egypt 83 India 81 Ecuador 80 Guatemala 79 Barbados 78 Nepal 78 Qatar 78 Zambia 77 Congo (Brazz) 73 Uganda 73 Jamaica 72 Kenya 72 South Africa 72 Sudan 72 Tanzania 72 Ghana 71 Nigeria 67 Guinea 66 Zimbabwe 66 Congo (Zaire) 65 Sierra Leone 64 Ethiopia 63 Equatorial Guinea 59--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

^^Hmm, judging from those stats I actually see a correlation with IQ and poverty more so than race. It's important to point out that Ethiopians, biologically through DNA are nearly 40% middle eastern. If IQ equates with race and seeing how African countries are at the bottom, you would expect Ethiopians to score a bit higher than 2nd to last. Also, why is there such a disparity between "Black" nations if they're of the same race? A difference by as much as 18 points from Zambia to Equatorial Guinea. China and Hong Kong differ by 7 points, yet they're the exact same people. Ireland is 10 points below Singapore.. Not to mention that all of these low scoring nationalities, Philippines, Latin Americans, Middle Eastern all score higher when bred in developed countries like the U.S. where African Americans score the lowest at 87.. Which is still almost 20 points higher on average than their African counter parts (Under the race/IQ model you can point to the fact that blacks have some admixture, but one would have to account for everyone else who scores higher, everyone is not "mixed").. I'm convinced that if race isn't a social construct then IQ doesn't equate with race.. Taharqa 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be all that sun that causes the low scores in Ethiopia :P futurebird 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

that's IQ and the Wealth of Nations material. Lynn's other book, Race Differences in Intelligence is more apt to this topic. the individual IQ scores for each country are not as reliable as the other measurements discussed in this article. quality of life in Ethiopia is especially bad. no one doubts that this kind of deprivation drives down IQ scores. also, the "Ethiopian" samples used by Lynn are actually Ethiopian immigrants to Israel. --W.R.N. 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, Lynn deals there ("Race Differences in Intelligence") rather with ethnic groups then with races. Races are biological thing, but I didn't seen any data on genetic tests made by Lynn in his research. Race have nothing to do with self-identification. But the data on countries still seem to be objective ones.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

^Whatever it may be, it's a great indication that IQ is completely environmental. Someone would have to be racist to think other wise after slowly studying that chart. African Americans average higher than or equal to those from Brazil on down. To stress that living conditions in Ethiopia is a good explanation for low IQs, it would be hypocritical if one did not stress that African American living conditions on average are worse than that of white American society. Also since African Americans have a lower percentage of "Caucasoid" ancestry than Ethiopians on average, yet still scores over 20 points higher on average, I believe is an extremely strong case for environmental (only) causes. The burden of proof is up to the racist people who even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, decide to hold on to the racial superiority doctrines. The argument is done as far as I'm concerned, what ever is written on these wikipedia articles is irrelevant when trying to give opposing view points from one or two people as oppose to just posting the truth. I can say that people who score high on IQ tests were programmed by aliens, but where's the evidence?Taharqa 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever it indicates, it seem to be useful information here, right? IQ differences hardly seems completely depending of income or something like this (United Arab Emirates: GDP/ capita 2002: 22000, average IQ: 83; -- Palestine (West Bank): GDP/ capita 2002: 800, average IQ: 87) (http://sq.4mg.com/corrupt.htm) --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Ive rewritten the intro back into some shape. Ive put it on a subpage and transcluded it to the article so the lede can be protected separate from the article. -Ste|vertigo 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's factually inaccurate and non-neutral in its presentation of disputed claims. I could enumerate... --W.R.N. 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be tweaked a bit-- perhaps it should mention how Jensen feels his work has been supressed so that it won't seem as if "everyone" is all on one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by some name here (talk • contribs)

Because these tests and the concept of race itself are widely deemed to be subjective, current mainstream science, sociology, medicine, and ethics have largely stopped supporting research which carries certain assumptions, namely.

This is a great sentence. futurebird 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! WD RIK, maybe you could suggest an alternative, and we could find some compromise. I dont think specific cases should be mentioned in the lede - its important to keep the general perspective. -Ste|vertigo 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It says - “Because these tests and the concept of race itself are widely deemed to be subjective, current mainstream science, sociology, medicine, and ethics have largely stopped supporting research which carries certain assumptions, namely:
 * that race is more than a social construct and correlates to deeper genetic differences
 * that genetics has some correlation with intelligence
 * that intelligence can be measured
 * that testing differences can be attributed to genetic factors rather than to environmental factors.
 * Nevertheless some research continues which attempts to find links between these subjective areas, and likewise certain related research has been claimed by third parties to demonstrate or prove some link between genes and intellect.”


 * But:
 * The tests are not widely considered to be subjective
 * It is well established that there is a link between genetics and intelligence (See Gray Thompson 2004) and rather than science ceasing to support such research it is becoming increasingly mainstream
 * Ditto re the fact that intelligence can be measured
 * Ditto re the fact that intelligence differences are attributable to genes rather than enviroment.

Romper 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Romper is correct, if we're talking about reliable sources (the scientific community that researchers genetics and intelligence, respectively). I'm not a hereditarian, but he's correct to say that certain premises of the hereditarian view are accepted throughout the scientific community, that are listed here.--Urthogie 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we need to reword the bit about "that genetics has some correlation with intelligence" to something like "that the genetics of intelligence has some correlation with race" futurebird 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That'd be a lot better yeah.--Urthogie 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to make the point right from the start that some kinds of research have fallen out of favor, and I think we can easily source that. However, we don't want to give the impression that nobody reputable uses IQ tests or race in any kind of research. That's just not true. It all about how they use it. It's more the tendency to use both and then go running and leaping to the conclusion (in the face of other evidence) that there must be genetic differences causing the test score gaps that has fallen out of favor.

I think Jensen has even suggested that we ought to assume there is a genetic difference untill proven otherwise!

People like Steele and others accept psychometrics. In some fields race works as a good crude proxy for some aspects of genetics. But intelligence isn't a crude trait, like say... eye color. Everyone knows how sensitive it is to environmental infulences.

futurebird 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FB, IQ tests (i.e. the psychometric approach to intelligence) is by far the mainstream scientific approach in individual difference psychology of intelligence. Suggesting that the mainstream scientific community rejects the use of IQ or race in research is simply false -- the use of both constructs is pervasive and ongoing. That there is great debate about the proper use and meaning of race is true, but that's a far different conclusion, and one that isn't central to this article. Per Romper, the claim that IQ is subjective or in disfavor is wholly false; alternatives to IQ and criticisms of its use in research are by far the minority position. Finally, the lead is a summary of the article -- it is NOT an introductory or background section. It should provide background to the extent that background is needed to establish the relevance of the article to the reader, but otherwise it is an abstract/summary. --W.R.N. 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's why I said However, we don't want to give the impression that nobody reputable uses IQ tests or race in any kind of research. That's just not true.


 * It's more the tendency to use both and then go running and leaping to the conclusion (in the face of other evidence) that there must'' be genetic differences causing the test score gaps that has fallen out of favor.

''futurebird 13:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the above discussion the below points are now relatively well established as scientifically ‘in favor’ regarding intelligence/genes/race:


 * Intelligence tests are relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability
 * Intelligence is in part determined by the neuroanatomical structure of the brain, which is in turn partly determined by specific (as yet unidentified) genes.
 * The degree of heritability of (adult) intelligence depends upon environment but in a developed country like the United States the (individual) heritability is very high.
 * The heritability of intelligence does not necessarily indicate that this is the basis of race differences in intelligence.
 * There is no particular reason why genes related to intelligence should be equally spread throughout the different self defined racial groups in America.
 * There is no particular reason why genes related to intelligence should not be equally spread throughout the different self defined racial groups in America.
 * It is an open empirical question as to whether or not the current differences in cognitive ability between racial groups in the United States have a genetic component.
 * In theory it could be possible to resolve this question in the future. It seems unlikely that it will be resolved as science seems reluctant to investigate the matter. This reluctance comes not from scientific difficultly but rather from ethical concerns and societal pressure (some might say taboos).
 * It is right that scientific investigation takes ethical considerations into account.


 * Thanks.


 * Oh, yes and the intro reads better now.Romper 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you could find an appropriate citation to bolster your next-to-last point. A "seems that" based on another "seems that" doesn't promise a rock solid conclusion. Or maybe I'm just against it since it seems an anti-scientific and defeatist position. Of course I'd rather that somebody did the sociological research to rank the causes of black kids not thriving in school first. P0M 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "I doubt that you could find an appropriate citation to bolster your next-to-last point." Here
 * Romper 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting reaction coming from an individual who appears to be working toward that very goal. Thanks for the citation. P0M 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great source for the utility of research section. futurebird 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW - I believe Romper is correct. The list could probably be expanded, but I see no misstatements. --W.R.N. 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

mediation
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence - not much action there --W.R.N. 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we need to do anything? futurebird 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me this means the experiment has workd! I'll have a heart-attack! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SLR I'm confused. futurebird 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dewd maybe you know city and people move alot.like what if on 20 test we did,omg,we did alot of test in 2 cities.or 4 5 major city?and a certain group of them was less smart. by luck. we even say derrr.we might have killed more of you smart than dumm.and you accuse us of being racist.like we admit it and you yell at us.and we can't explain to you that we didnt kill everybody smart.and that smart genes don't disappear,think of all the sperm if one is smart.those test also said asians were better. i dont know the video on youtube.but there are more people in china who have high grades than we have people in our country.

New Archive warning
On Wed. I will archive current sections 1-11, which takes us up to my first archiving announcement. In the next to days please make sure that any material in those sections that should go into an article is moved into an article, and any material relevant to an ongoing discussion is conserved in the talk page. Thanks Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

a correction to something said by WD
"Risch has written specifically about this topic. According to his argument, if you used indicators other than race itself when looking for the cause of a phenotype (in research), you'll most likely just fool yourself (generally in the direction of wrongly concluding that a phenotypic difference has a genetic cause)."

I work with computational genetics and I'm surprised to hear a statement like this. When studying genes we look at the effects of demography and selection, not race. Race is a constructed category that is only useful to the extent that it represents demographics. So chances are, you'll actually fool yourself with race. Lastly, just for clarification, how exactly does "race" "cause" a phenotype? --Urthogie 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, read Risch's paper. A racial difference in the frequency of some phenotype of interest ... or quantitative trait is but a first clue in the search for etiologic causal factors. As we have illustrated, without such racial/ethnic labels, these underlying factors cannot be adequately investigated. It's his argument, not mine. --W.R.N. 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article looks interesting, but the sentence quoted immediately above does not support the existence of the argument attributed to him in the material quoted several lines above. His actual argument, it seems to me, is that in the absence of a salient set of genetic data already assembled for a population it is most economical to count on members of [races] frequently sharing genetic characteristics and therefore more likely to manifest similar reactions to environmental factors than a random sample of the human population. So if some trait or medical peculiarity is strongly represented in one [race] and not in others the smart money will conclude that researchers should look for genetic features that distinguish members of that [race] from members of other [races].  P0M 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the salient point of his argument. Several researchers have proposed that because genetic clusters can be detected easily with DNA tests, and because such clusters don't carry the baggage of doing research on "race", these clusters should be used to divide populations. Risch's argument is that (1) such clusters will only recapitulate racial categories (later his team demonstrates this) and (2) using genetic categories will likely blind investigators to social/cultural factors that confound these genetic categories. Thus there is no advantage to using genetic clusters instead of self-identified racial/ethnic identity and some disadvantages. Therefore, they conclude "racial/ethnic labels" are both important and useful in research and public policy, and you can neither dismiss them as irrelevant to biology or replace them with non-socially affected categories because of the confounding of social and genetic factors. --W.R.N. 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the Wikipedia article needs to be read very carefully, then, so that those readers who think there is something intrinsic about black people what makes them on average fall below the level of other [races] do not take comfort and find confirmation in this article. P0M 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is part of what Risch says:

"A multifactorial model of risk requires the interplay of multiple inherited and non-inherited factors in producing a particular risk profile.... In most cases, causal variables are not known.... so epidemiologists resort to...the use of surrogate variables....These variables... are correlated with such a causal variable or variables....Although risk factor associations do not usually imply direct causal links, they do provide a starting point for further investigation.....When direct causal factors are identified, risk estimates on both an individual and population basis can be made much more precise. Before such identification, however, the use of cruder surrogate factors can still provide valuable input for prevention and treatment decisions, even while acknowledging the latent heterogeneity within strata defined by such variables."

He is clearly arguing for the value of surrogate factors, even though they are crude, in the absence of knowledge of direct causal factors. He continues:

"A question then arises.... as to whether humans can or should be categorized genetically according to a surrogate scheme in the absence of known, specific gene effects."

He points out that there is both utility to such an approach but also that simply ignoring the non-genetic differences among [races] will not work because relevant causal factors in any problem may be the environment afforded to the several groups and not on their genetic susceptibility to good or by influence from the non-genetic factors in action. All the factors involved must be taken into consideration. Using [race] as a "finder scope" can be helpful, but afterwards a closer analysis needs to be performed:

"A racial difference in the frequency of some phenotype of interest (disease, or drug response) or quantitative trait is but a first clue in the search for etiologic causal factors."

Correlation of [racial] differences with health outcomes can suggest the presence of a genetic component at work: "Epidemiologists often perform analyses of racial differences stratified on numerous environmental variables, such as socio-economic status, access to health care, education, and so on. The persistence of racial differences after accounting for these covariates raises the index of suspicion that genetic differences may be involved."

RIK said: "Therefore, they conclude 'racial/ethnic labels' are both important and useful in research and public policy, and you can neither dismiss them as irrelevant to biology nor replace them with non-socially affected categories because of the confounding of social and genetic factors." Doubtless, epidemiologists currently must resort to the use of surrogate variables such as race. The reason is that we do not have the disaggregated data. One would not want to "dismiss them," at least as that was all that you had. But what would be the reason not to "replace them with non-socially affected categories"? If somebody is Lolo and has a certain higher risk associated with that status, does it make things worse if we replace "Lolo" with a read-out of the person's genetic identity, information on economic status, information on relevant cultural factors (things eaten or not eaten, for instance), etc.? Maybe the relevant factor is "never sleeps in a hammock or raised bed." So in the absence of a salient set of genetic data and other kinds of specific data pertinent to etiological causal factors, [race] can be useful. Nobody that I know of would doubt the truth of that statement. I cannot accept your characterization of the article to the effect that "there is no advantage to using genetic clusters instead of self-identified racial/ethnic identity and some disadvantages." I think that you are drawing your own conclusions based on a misunderstanding of what Risch wrote. P0M 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, self-identified race will allow you you gauge the impact of racism (if it acts as a single environmental factor, or trough Flynn's social multipliers) on a person. Race is useful in this way for research in to health. In fact, dispute the fact there there have been calls for the abandonment of race data in health research, there is strong support for continuing to collect race data, because it carries such heavy social significance. This kind of argument for the collection of race data should not be confused with the idea that it might be a good proxy for genetics. futurebird 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything P0M said seems correct, but that's not the particular aspect of Risch's argument that I was highlighting in my comment. Risch was also responding to the suggestion that self-described racial categories can be replaced with genetically-inferred categories (clusters in multi-locus genetic data). This, Risch argues, would simply recapitulate the self-described categories, while obscuring the fact that genetic and social factors are greatly confounded in humans. Risch's comments about the value of racial categories to research and public policy are the conclusions he draws from the many aspects of his arguments. --W.R.N. 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the problem is that I was reading your formulation with fresh eyes, not having read the original. To me, the statement needs reformulation somehow. ""if you used indicators other than race itself when looking for the cause of a phenotype (in research), you'll most likely just fool yourself (generally in the direction of wrongly concluding that a phenotypic difference has a genetic cause).""

Your reader is going to wonder (1) Why is this investigator down on factors other than race? He's asserting that you will get a bad result if you do not judge things in terms of race. And (2) why that tricky little dip into the colloquial in the middle of the sentence? Most likely?


 * I understand where Risch is going. It's actually a neat observation. You originally had a heap of factors stuck together under the blanket term "race." You say, "That's a nasty word, let's deconstruct it. First component out is genetic identity. Let's see whether we can find a genetic identifier that jibes with the illness statistics for this city. Bingo!" Somebody who is not trained to realize that two events regularly coinciding does not prove that one causes the other may decide that the only possible answer is to change the genetic constitution of these people. Instead, it may turn out that all the people of the affected [race] (basically meaning all the people with extra-long noses and sunken-in eyes) are all forced to live on the banks of Love Canal and it's the garbage that glows in the night that is getting them, not their genetics. He seems to believe that some researcher who would fall into that trap would escape the trap of identifying the affected population by [race] and just attributing their bad health to their unfortunate racial identity. They would providentally remind themselves that [race] is a pretty unhelpful helpful fiction and ask themselves what common envionmental factors all the members of this race are facing in our fair city.  It sounds to me like he's saying that these researchers cannot be trusted with precise concepts but they can be trusted with concepts that seem to have their own built-in siren song.


 * How about something like: "Preliminary use of a concept such as race that aggregates several factors that may be causal in some situation can often winnow out a small number of populations that have been impacted and will then automatically provide a list of factors, one or more of which will turn out to be causal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Can we remove the "totally disputed" tag now?
There has been a lot of work on this article since it was unprotected. Are we ready to remove the totally disputed tag now? If not, why not (specifics please)? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard for me to have perspective on this. What do you think SLR? It is a lot better, although now it needs to be cleaned up. futurebird 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your perspective (and that of WRN and JK and others) matters a lot more than mine. Let me put it to you another way: can you come up with reasons for not removing the tag? If you can, by all means state them (if others agree, then start working with the mediator to resolve the conflict). If you can't come up with any good reasons, well, let's see how others respond. By the way, we do have tags for "cleaning up" - I guess it is a question of priorities - is cleaning up the main task right now (according to you and the other active editors), or are there still NPOV issues which have more priority? I really think this is for active editors to decide. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of sections give undue weight or present a biased description of otherwise factual statements. This includes the lead. --W.R.N. 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, FYI - I've been waiting for progress at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence in lieu of discussion here, but it appears to be stalled. --W.R.N. 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think the totally disputed tag can go. I've also been waiting for more activity in the mediation page, but I believe that the contributions recently have helped reduce the level of dispute, even though it is still a controversial topic.  I would expect WRN to disagree, since in general the motion of the article has gone against his POV, but I would defer to his opinion on the tag for now. --JereKrischel 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WRN, if you are waiting for progress at mediation you had better communicate directly with the mediator. S/he may well be expecting you to comment on other people's ideas/suggestions (from what I can tell, you have stated your own position but have not commented on any of the others. My own belief is that mediation requires dialoge among the participants - but if you are not sure or are waiting for the mediator to say or do something now, you had better communicate that). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI - I was waiting for FB, JK, Kevin or any of the other editors who signed up for mediation to respond to my comment that there were several competing visions of the presentation of research, but that none were specific enough to really decide between. --W.R.N. 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Background information
Hello, I propose the following amendments to the background information. Does anyone have any problems with these before I enact them.

1. Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981).

Should be amended to read: Invented in the early 20th century, IQ tests have been strongly criticized, among others by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) but are now considered to be relatively reliable, valid and stable measures of cognitive ability.

2. The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity

Should be amended to read: The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was probably, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity.

Because this is what the book says.

3. The conclusions of a few researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.

Should be amended to read: The conclusions of some researchers: that racial groups in the US vary in average IQ scores, and the hypothesis that a genetic component may be involved, have led to heated academic debates that have spilled over into the public sphere.

Few is subjective one persons few might be another persons many. Romper 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine. futurebird 02:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that your ammeded 1) overstates the case with regard to validity. While some psychometricians regard single score IQ tests as valid almost all congitive neuropsychologists and psychologists influenced by Evolutionary Psychology believe that cognitive abilities are modular in nature and single score intelligence tests are not valid. Amongst the psychology professions, Clinical, Occupational and Educational Psychology, there is more interest in specific patterns of cognitive abilities than single score intelligence tests.  Finally almost all psychology textbooks present the validity of single score intelligence tests as controversial.JonathanE 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite JonathanE's comments, (1) is fine. IQ tests, not composite IQ scores, are the subject of the sentence. IQ scores are, of course, multidimensional (even Ravens), with the composite score being a dimension reducing simplification. The article currently lacks sufficient discussion of the dimensionality of IQ tests and the magnitude of race differences in those dimensions. This should be addressed. --W.R.N. 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from article
the MI theories aren't important enough to race differences in intelligence to warrant discussion in the background section. it does not reoccur in later sections. --W.R.N. 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple intelligences
Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Howard Gardner and other psychologists have challenged the classicist model of a single index for "intelligence" on which hereditarian assumptions of racial disparity are based. They advocate a theory of multiple intelligences. They write that through research on multiple intelligences they may reveal a more nuanced perspective in to the strengths and weaknesses of students and in to the ways that people view the intelligences of people from other ethnic groups. Cultural differences may lead children to develop different strengths in different areas of intelligence. Leroy G. Baruth and M. Lee Manning write "Knowing that a relationship exists between cultures and education is a prerequisite to effective teaching, but continuing to teach with styles and strategies appropriate only for middle-class Anglo learners fails to meet the needs of culturally diverse children and adolescents." .

Ketty M. Sarouphim writes in Discovering Multiple Intelligences through a Performance-Based Assessment: Consistency with Independent Ratings that the use of standardized tests to assess the intelligence of culturally diverse groups has been much criticized. Some researchers have attributed the problem of underrepresentation of minority students in programs for the gifted to the wide use of such tests in which narrow definitions of giftedness are adopted. Sarouphim writes that the field of intelligence assessment seems to be witnessing a paradigm shift, as evidenced by recent definitions of giftedness, the emergence of nontraditional theories of intelligence , and the rise of alternative assessment methods, namely performance-based assessments.

-
 * May be better in a subarticle, maybe moved there, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not deleted. Your comment is right under it. I moved it here because it's good material, just not for this article. As with the other material I moved from the article to talk, I did so specifically so that it could be addressed without being lost (i.e., forgotten - nothing is ever lost). --W.R.N. 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not given any good reason for deleting this sourced material directly relating to intelligence and race. You personally do not think MI theories are important; not anonymous scholarly authors state otherwise. Maybe it should be moved to a subarticle, like Research, Interpretations, or Explanations. But until then, do not remove, otherwise anything, no matter how important or well-sourced, can be removed from any article simply by moving it to the talk page.Ultramarine 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to the explanations article with a brief mention here? Ultramarine 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Move it wherever it's important, but it's not important here. In case it wasn't clear, my argument is based solely on the actual article content we're currently dealing with. If it turns out that there's a lot to say about MI theories, then it would be important, but having it in background now is clearly not appropriate (per NPOV-weight). I would think that mention of MI would be about "test data" but I have no particularly strongly formed beliefs about that. Perhaps explanations, but that article is currently overburdened. --W.R.N. 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note
Not everyone who signed on for the mediation has added their positions - just a reminder to please weigh in, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

research intro
the text is non-neutral, possibly OR, but also unnecessary as it seems to be redundant with the content of the sections in research. if it is meant to be background, and if that background is necessary, then it should be reworked. the aim of any reworking would should be to shift to 2ndary sources, rather than primary sources as it currently does. this will help balance it as the 2ndary sources will take a broader view than the primary sources used here. --W.R.N. 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from article
Race and intelligence research tries to measure the gaps between different races or ethnicities and to find the causes for these gaps. Average test scores of races or ethnicities varies depending on the method and setting used to test intelligence, the health and economic situation of the test takers, the presence of stereotype threat, and the period in history when the test was performed. Some studies have shown that gaps in test scores are closing, while other researchers write that the gaps have stopped closing in some nations.

Some explanations for the causes of the gaps found relate to cultural factors, health, testing situations, stereotype threat, and other environmental factors.
 * Sourced material. May be better in a subarticle, but should certainly not be removed completely.Ultramarine 14:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In case it's not clear, IMO, this material is (1) not a summary of anything actually in the subarticles and (2) not particularly salvageable from an NPOV perspective. I moved it here so those issues could be addressed. There's no good reason to add it back -- WP is not an indiscriminate collection of "facts". --W.R.N. 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is something not in a subarticle, it should be moved, not deleted. Will do so shortly.Ultramarine 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

race - social contruct section
there shouldn't be a separate section for this. when sternberg et al. write that Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. they are talking about the same topic as the "geneticists" described in the section above. with the sections merged, effort should be made to condense the material into tighter and more general summaries. leave the details for the race article. --W.R.N. 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro again
I'm no intelligence expert, and can't be bothered to try to follow all the lengthy discussion on this page, but surely the intro's claim that the following is "controversial" is false:
 * that intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability

No doubt a few people reject this but surely this is the mainstream view among intelligence researchers, and so (even if not 'universal') is not 'controversial'? (The opposing view might however be characterized as 'controversial' for all I know.) Ben Finn 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Section on Research
Paragraph 2 of this section is mostly a repetition of things that have already been listed in paragraph 1. Whoever wrote this section, please fix it so that unneeded repetitions are eliminated and yet it still represents what you intended to convey. P0M 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Critique of a reference
> As a general criticism or remark within this article - surely mentioning that blacks are known to score higher on IQ tests when separated from their white counterparts during actual testing than when they are amongst their white peers would be something worth mentioning?

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

> This is an interesting point. Do these IQ tests contain crossworld puzzles? I would like the reader to note that East Asians (even the Japanese!) are very poor, or even incapable of solving crossworld puzzles! This is partially due to the constraints of their language - but surely we should also look for a genetic explanation if we are to avoid overlooking it. Surely the inability to solve crossword puzzles would be viewed as a mental disability? Yet, perhaps Blacks would achieve higher results on crossword puzzles than they do on pre-existing tests. The point here is, how does one decide which type of puzzle to include in a test, and which puzzle type to weigh highly as being one that points towards gaining a high IQ score (yes, the answer should be that such tests would have high internal and external validity - but this is not at all easy to verify or determine when attempting to measure intelligence).

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

> I am uncertain about this issue. If you deal with a single population (such as African Americans), of whom a significant proportion are sleeping rough, or who consistently do manual labour (thereby not exercising or learning skills applicable to the Backward Digit Span test), then this result could be quite meaningless or, even worse, erroneous. I assume that this test measures the length of the longest number that an individual can recite backwards - however, it would not be enough to arbitrarily select individuals from a population for results from the test (as, within real environmental settings, direct or indirect racial allocation of resources would bias results). The approach to take here would rely upon having to deal with test control groups whom you are certain have slept well, eaten well, etc... This would reduce the effect of test bias.

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

> This is HIGHLY SUSPECT. Different cultures or environmental settings allow the Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ to lead to the SAME statistical distribution of IQ!? OK, suppose that this is true (which is not easy to show mathematically or statistically I believe), then the following qualification needs to be made :

The issue of determining heritability, (or DEFINING it) is non-trivial, quite subjective and, in actuality, could very well be very random. Equations designed to define heritability need to be included in order to see what the mathematical definition of heritability actually MEANS.

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

> Well, you have a low correlation value here. There is non-trivial correlation, but the issue is not BRAIN SIZE per se, but the TYPE of neural matter that an individual possesses, and HOW this is distributed in the brain, and HOW it is trained, AND the nourishment that it receives. How can such complex interactions even be APPROXIMATELY determined by correlation?

Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100. MrASingh

concerning twin studies and heritability
Twin studies are an important part of arguments concerning the heritability of intelligence. There are some sources I want to draw to contributors' attention. Given past conflicts and current mediation, I will leave it to you to decide how and where to incorporate these into this or linked articles. These seem like recent, well-considered studies that merit consideration somewhere, in this set of debates. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas Bouchard Jr., David T. Lykken, Matthew MgGue, Nany Segal, and Augke Tellegen, 1990 "Sources of Human Psychological Differences: the Minnesota Studies of Twins Reared part" Science Vol. 250 pp. 223-228 - analysis of 56 sets of identical twins reared apart; includes analysis of the rearing environments of the twins in the samples assessing 9 different environmental factors; found a mild (very mild) correlation between rearing environments i.e. twins reared apart were nevertheless reared in comparable environments meaning similarities in IQ results were not purely genetic ... revises heritability from .69 to .66
 * Nancy Segal 1999 Entwined lives: Twins and What they tell us about Human Behavior pp. 135-136 addresses differences between results from comparing identical and fraternal twins; suggests heritability of about .74 or .75
 * Kathleen McCartney, Monica Harris, Frank Bernieri 1990 "Growing up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metaanalysis of Twin Studies" Psychological Bulletin Vol 107 pp 226-237 and Eric Turkheimer, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D'Onofrio, and Irving Gottesman (2003) "Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children" Psychological Science Vol 14: 623-628 - detail the extent to which family environment and impoverished enviornments contribute substantially to intelligence.


 * Most of this is in the explanations article directly or by proxy. At this point in the science, the heritability of IQ under common conditions and for common populations is nailed down pretty accurately from multiple angles. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but these are relatively recent studies and the question is are they worth citing? I think they belong in any good review of the literature. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

an unhelpful comment
i think the article is a mess. --W.R.N. 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not make this a helpful comment? Specify what you think the main problems are, and bring it up with the mediator? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just went through the article, looking only at the topic sentences, to get a fast overview. I found little to quarrel with. So why don't you tell the rest of us what makes the article a mess. Is it content? Organization? Tone? Or what? P0M 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

the article is likely beyond remediation and the pace of discussion here and at the mediation page has slowed to a crawl. --W.R.N. 07:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless or at least vapid sentence
The current text says:

"overall the culture-only hypothesis is not 'progressive' but 'degenerating' >"

What could cause a hypothesis to degenerate?

Could the writer have been trying to express the idea that some hypotheses cause people or culture to make progress and other hypotheses cause people or cultures to degenerate? Those hypotheses must be really powerful stuff if that is what is meant.

The reader should not have to guess about this kind of thing — particularly if it has any intrinsic value. P0M 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The term is from the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos. See Lakatos. He showed that in some cases one research programme can be described as progressive while its rivals are degenerative. A progressive research programme is marked by its growth, along with the discovery of stunning novel facts, development of new experimental techniques, more precise predictions, etc. A degenerative research program is marked by lack of growth, or growth of the protective belt that does not lead to novel facts. --W.R.N. 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the average well-informed presumed to know this idea pertinent to relative degrees of success of research programs and then to be able to apply them in some appropriate way to a single hypothesis? P0M 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one: "This [assumption of congenital stupidity] changed after the definition of 'white' was expanded to include the Irish." It's possible that the article cited really says things that way, but I am suspicious of it because it offends my understanding of how things work in society. Someone with access to the original text might want to check it out. Usually when the values attached to a group of people change it is through a kind of dialectical process. So I find it hard to accept that somebody really believes that first the opinion leaders in the world just decided to make the Irish white and only thereafter were attitudes toward these newly bleached people improved.P0M 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)