Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 6

Low IQ
Why does this table stop at such a low IQ score, I mean someone with an IQ of 140 is hardy a rocket scientist? Unsigned comment by User:172.146.248.166




 * Because 140 is the 99th percentile, and this graph goes from 1st to 99th percentile. Actually, 140 really is in the "rocket scientist" IQ range, or at least an ordinary rocket scientist. --Rikurzhen 04:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we aren't doing a good enough job of explaining this. There are a lot of useless "IQ tests" on the internet that routinely give 140+ results for routine tasks (in order to sell stuff or make user happy), so there is a widespread opinion (at least among denizens of the internet) that 125+ is nothing special. I may be touching on a larger issue which is built into the way we do Wikipedia (and cannot be helped, I believe): We could easily explain many of the things on this page better (for example, by having a prominent Common misconceptions section.) However, I cannot see how to keep it NPOV, e.g., we cannot neutrally make claims about what concepts are commonly misunderstood, and need to be explained. I believe that the secret sauce of Wikipedia (NPOV) prevents us from explaining some difficult concepts really well. (Because what we call "explaining really well" often means that one focuses on one interpretation.) For example, if I were to explain some of the major concepts on this page to somebody else, I would present them with the "armchair science" argument:
 * (1) IQ is highly heritable, (2) Human populations have been separated and subject to different environmental pressures. From (1) and (2): We can a priori expect human populations to have different mean IQs. (Just as they have different mean height, or lactose tolerance, or thousands of other things). By the way, this armchair science prediction is consistent with observed data.
 * I like this argument because it convinces me that there might be something about this matter that is worth looking into. It's simple and appealing. But we cannot make such expositions on Wikipedia, because the above argument is highly speculative. There is very little consensus about the reasons for the IQ gap, so it's a weak thing to write about, from an NPOV. On the other hand, the existence of the IQ gap is supported by huge amounts of data, which makes it a good thing to write about on Wikipedia. (But not very convincing, because people in general don't trust statistics. They trust reasoning.) So I think we will have to settle for a relatively dry and unappealing article. (Instead of a convincing one.) I think that is a good thing. Arbor 06:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup! --Rikurzhen 07:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Rowe made a similar argument if you'd like a citation. --Rikurzhen 07:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you've taken the GRE, or know people who have, this is a good approximation for converting GRE to IQ scores. --Rikurzhen 07:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove this image?
Sam Spade 04:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is about race and intelligence. I see nothing about intelligence in the picture. Ultramarine 05:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Its a picture of different races as defined by the FBI. It serves the purpose of clarifying for the reader what different races are being discussed, and what they look like. The picture of a brain has nothing to do w race, should it be removed? Sam Spade 05:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, remove it if you want. What differenct races look like has nothing to with what this article is about. Ultramarine 05:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Sam Spade 05:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the connection between how FBI uses races in pictures and racial differences in IQ?

The photo represents the races discussed. As with any image on any article, it is representing the subject, in this case race. The picture of the brain represents intellegence. There is no reason not to provide the reader with useful images. Sam Spade 05:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about the connection between race and intelligence. There is no connection in either of the pictures, so both can be rewmoved. Why have you described how FBI uses races in pictures? It is totally irrelevant to the article. Ultramarine 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very relevant, because the article describes races in the same manner. The concept of "race" is open to a wide range of interpretations. If you read one of the better encyclopedias, you will find it to explain that the very concept of race is objected to as unscientific by many experts of biology and anthropology. Many feel that the only accurate way to define race is blood type and language group. Clearly that sort of definition is not the most commonly used, nor is it the one used in this article. Providing this image clarifies for the reader what classification of races we are using. Sam Spade 05:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you had read the article, you should have seen that the contested definition of race is described in the first paragraphs and it is explained that this is discussed in other articles. As should this picture. Give some better explanation or I will remove it or both of the pictures. Ultramarine 05:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like, the reason for keeping them is obvious, and they will be kept. Your suggestion that I havn't read an article that I've been editing since before you created your user account is a bit amusing, i must say. Sam Spade 05:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So you cannot give a reason for keeping the picture? Or explain why how FBI uses pictures should be mentioned. Ultramarine 05:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I have, scroll up. Or better yet, how about you think about it for awhile? Sam Spade 05:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The image seems unnecessary as (1) its hard to imagine anyone not being famaliar with common racial classifications in the US (but if they are, I've added links) and (2) the physical appearance of various races is (to the best of my knowledge) unrelated to their performance on IQ tests. (Relatively unreliable attempts at black/white admixture analysis by skin color seems to support this claim.) --Rikurzhen 07:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also found both images irrelevant, and am glad they have been removed. --DAD 15:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The function of the mug shots was simply to reinforce the idea that appearance equates to race equates to otherwise difficult to determine characteristics. It does not contribute to having an objective attitude toward the subject under discussion. P0M 00:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

featured article
from here: An article does not have to have a picture to be featured; however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful. --Rikurzhen 05:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for the MRI image. This article falls under the question of the biology of intelligence; an image of a cross-section of the brain seems germane.--Nectarflowed (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. And will oppose if it ever gets nominated. Show something useful instead, like IQ distribution curves for different racial groups. Ultramarine 06:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) i fiddled with that a while ago, but they're not very easy to read; for example --Rikurzhen 07:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * (2) oppose if it ever gets nominated the picture or the article? b/c the article looks more or less done to me. --Rikurzhen 07:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * (2) oppose if it ever gets nominated the picture or the article? b/c the article looks more or less done to me. --Rikurzhen 07:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Such a graph is much better. But should show the whole distribution, not a closeup which exaggerates differences. I oppose the picture, not the article. Ultramarine 08:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's -2 to +2 SD, which covers 95% of the total population. How big would you make it? IQ is not normally distributed beyond that range, so the approximation would be less accurate if we extent the graph. --Rikurzhen 08:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't look at it properly. It is not very easy to read. But much better than the picture. Keep it. Ultramarine 08:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that does sort of look like the left half of a normal probabilty curve. that will confuse a lot of people, but lots of overlapping normals is even harder to understand. --Rikurzhen 08:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

sort of a compromise, for this one i set the min value to .005 and the max value to .995, and extended the range slightly; not sure if its really an improvement on readability --Rikurzhen 08:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about changing rotating the graph, that should avoid similarity to a normal probability curve. Ultramarine 08:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

done --Rikurzhen 09:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you make all the graphs and boxes have the same width. Ultramarine 09:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest making the colors all darker: blue (not cyan), red, green, purple. The yellow disappears on my screen, and the hues are notably different.  I like the picture.  --DAD 15:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, cumulative has only one "m". Fix in the caption and on the graph. --DAD 15:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also also (!), the legend appears to be in no particular order, so put it in order of the curves from top to bottom. --DAD 15:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

done --Rikurzhen 16:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

which is better: --Rikurzhen 17:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

1) the current image has more precise SD values for blacks and whites, but less precise for asians and hispancis



2) the bell curve values with fixed SD (I can re-render at high res)




 * Much better. I prefer the first.  The SD's really aren't the same; better to have false precision than an actual falsehood. --DAD 06:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent article! Just one request: could someone put an explanation of the source of the data on the image pages? Junes 17:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * done --Rikurzhen 17:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

New table
Interesting. Requires an explanation how societes with an average IQ below 75, like in some African countries or in the US earlier, can exist, since apparently most of the population are too stupid for farming or hunting. Ultramarine 02:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Two things to keep in mind. (1) the manual labor of hunting and farming are easy enough even for the IQ <75 group; and (2) even a population with a low average IQ has many people with the skills needed to run a farm, etc. The lesson I took away from The Bell Curve was the increasing IQ stratification was placing an increasing burdern on low IQ individuals over the century. --Rikurzhen 04:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that farming or hunting is not complex? Hunter-gatherers usually have detailed knowledge of thousands of plants and animals. Also, the "paper" states that supervision is required but that is not possible on family farms. Ultramarine 04:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While a higher IQ probably makes a better hunter in some cases, it's clear that hunting is not cognitively demanding. All carnivores do it, many with extraordinary proficiency, and most with no indication of intelligence at all.  Gathering, ditto.  Memorization of vast arrays of plants, or anything else, is not a g-loaded task.  A group with an average IQ of 75 would (it seems to me) not be able to sustain developed civilization at the US or UK level (imagine the judiciary) but sustaining a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, or even a slightly dysfunctional version of developed civilization, seems totally plausible.  You'll have many people with an IQ above the U.S. average in such a group.  The half of the population with an IQ below 75 would live in squalor if there were any mechanism to separate them out, but the developed world is unique in having a school system which stratifies society by IQ; most countries do not.  --DAD 16:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never seen any quantification on this, but many high IQ Africans leave for Europe and the US. This may be constantly draining the top talent. --Rikurzhen 17:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The g-loading of a task is correlated with the task complexity. Repeditive tasks like farming duties should have low g-loading. IQ correlation with performance of simple jobs is very low (like 0.2 - 0.3). Also, at first blush a population IQ of 70 seemed strange to me, but after consideration I don't find it that unbelieveable. We know pretty clearly what a population with an IQ of 100 and 85 look like, so its straightforward to imagine what effect another 15 point difference would make. --Rikurzhen 05:30, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are actually proposing that a large percentage of the population in developing countries and formerly in the US are moderately mentaly retarded? "most can be taught to recognize important words and phrases such as "stop" and "don't walk". Most moderately retarded persons learn to be independent in familiar surroundings, and to provide personal care for themselves. As adults, they can work in sheltered situations with extensive supervision. Supervised group homes can also be an enjoyable setting for teens and adults with moderate mental retardation" Ultramarine 07:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be careful with descriptions of MMR based on samples of whites, where IQ<70 is very rare and thus a greater proportion of such people have non-famalial causes of low IQ. But if you're curious about what I think is credible... I am very sceptical that the Flynn effect is related to substantial changes in g, although perhaps at the lower half of the distribution. But as for Africa, I've never seen any IQ data that reports scores even as high as 85. The descriptions of the behaviors of low IQ Africans in Jensen (1998) suggest that low IQ is normal/famalial and not associated with non-g behavioral disfunction. Out side of GDP, I'm not sure if those IQ scores have been externally validated. But if I was guessing, I'd put an upper limit on the sub-Saharan African IQ at 80, but 75 seems like a careful guess. --Rikurzhen 17:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The data in the table is about the US only. So it doesn't seem appropriate or necessary to comment extensively on other countries. --Rikurzhen 21:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is not about the US only. Ultramarine 21:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True. But what I'm saying is that those comments don't have anything to do with the table. They should go some other place in the article. --Rikurzhen 22:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The table has various IQ limits and effects which ties to the comments. Ultramarine 23:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get why it wouldn't be better to stick comments about Africa in the "IQ gaps in other nations" section. Or create an "IQ gaps between nations" section just to discuss this area -- with main artcle links to the wealth of nations article. Then also give see also links to the policy section of this article and the practical importance section of IQ. It just seems odd to tack that bit about Africa on to the end of the table, since it isn't a criticism of the data in the table itself, but rather of the IQ scores reported for Africans -- which at the other end of the article. The reason for my concern is that most people won't read this article from top to bottom. Note the question about Jews below. They probably just read the intro and then give up. So we need to be hyper organized and inviting if we want people to read further. --Rikurzhen 23:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in USA
I know it may be a sensitive question, but i would like to get an answer, as objective as possible, for the question: "what is the average iq of the American Jews and standard deviation?" Amirpedia 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No clue about SD. The Bell Curve number (see the article) is based on a sample of like 100 people, but they cite some references to say that number isn't unreasonable. I've never seen those papers. However, IQ and the Wealth of Nations has a really low number for Israel. --Rikurzhen 06:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Stofer 1990 pp. 314-323 Intelligence and giftedness: the contributions of heredity and early environment
 * Lynn 1992 "intelligence ethnicity and culture" in cultural diversity and the schools

Hernstein & Murray report the average IQ of American Jews at 113. IQ and the Wealth of Nations lists an average IQ for Israel of 94. The explanation for this difference is that nearly all American Jews are of Central/Eastern European ancestry (Askenazic Jews), who have extremely high average IQ's. Ashkenazic Jews make up only about 40% of Israel's population; another 40% is comprised of Jews of Middle Eastern ancestry, who tend to have IQ's similiar to Arabs. The remaining 20% of Israel is comprised of Arabs. According to IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Arab states tend to have average IQ's in the 80's, so Israel's average IQ of 94 results from the higher IQ Askenazic Jews balanced out by the lower-IQ Arabs and Middle-Eastern Jews.


 * The article discusses "a pattern of decreasing brain size proceeding from East Asians, Europeans, and Africans." Anybody know if US Jews, with their higher average IQ, possess a different endocranial volume than Europeans?--Nectarflowed T 08:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this really information?
I have several problems with this article. I believe that this article is a racist piece of literature posing as an informative encyclopedia article. It is adorned with references to various scholars to legitimize the propaganda and a few weak counter-arguments to help create the illusion of a well-balanced article. One of the most obvious problems with this article is the use of the term "race." Quite frankly, it seems that either the author does not know the difference between race and ethnicity or has never pondered it. His/her ignorance is exhibited when he/she lists "hispanic" as a racial category and then goes on to discuss Asians, whites and blacks. Would the author be surprised to know that this particular category contains whites, Asians, blacks, Native Americans and mixtures thereof? Perhaps he/she could rename the article "Ethnicity and Intelligence." As a member of a group possessing such a high intelligence quota, he/she should be much more detail-oriented, precise and accurate. Additionally, he/she should be careful about referencing books (e.g. The Bell Curve) that are authored by people who do not possess expertise in the field about which they write.


 * A great deal of the problem with these articles is that the vocabulary used prejudges the issue under discussion. In the talk page I generally use square brackets whenever I use the word "race" because I think it is a word without an operational definition, a word with about as many definitions as there are people using it, etc. The word "intelligence" is at least as bad. Probably what articles should focus on is the social phenomenon that makes people dead set on maintaing their opinions about what they call "race" and what they call "intelligence."


 * The only thing that seems to me to give any hope of improving these articles are citations to good studies -- studies where you know clearly how you are categorizing individuals by [race], how you are measuring [intelligence], and how you are avoiding the influence of contingencies like the fact that in your experience almost everybody hates you and gives you a hard time on account of your skin color. P0M 04:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I find the argument untenable that race is not understood well enough by the average reader or that the linked race article is not a sufficent source for background on that topic. The word "Hispanics" should likewise be clear to the average reader. While more precise breakdowns of categories like Hispanic and Asian American would be nice, they are not widely used because of the US census definition of race. We are all well aware of the race/ethnicity dichotomy, but clearly race is the issue here and going to lengths to point out that Hispanics can be of many races does little to add to the article. --Rikurzhen 07:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page needs archiving badly
...But I don't know how to do that. --DAD 02:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Cut and paste to archive 5, see the very top for the new archive. P0M 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

done --Rikurzhen 07:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Meaning?
The article has one short paragraph that, as Data might say, "does not compute." -- at least for me:
 * Similarly, Carretta (1995), Owen (1992), and Rushton et al. (2000, 2002, 2003) found nearly identical statistical structure on psychometric variables in each group. The factor structure of cognitive ability is nearly identical for Blacks and for Whites; there were no race-specific factors

To pull the main parts of the first sentence out, it seems to say:

C, O, and R found structure. Does that mean "a structure?" Or is the sentence intended to assert that "structure" or "ordered assembly of parts of some kind" exists out there somewhere?

The word "structure," whatever it means, is modified by the prepositional phrase "on psychometric variables". Is that like "on the floor"? or "on his behalf"? Or what?

I would guess, based on my knowledge of social context, that the writer is trying to assert that when one looks at a set of psychometric variables that can be measured for each group, there is some kind of "structure" to those variables. Let me guess. Maybe that means that when one compares IQ scores and scores of some set of measures of frustration then one finds, across groups, that higher IQ scores predict lower measures of frustration. Is that what the author is really trying to say? Or something else? This sentence does not convey any clear meaning to me.

The second sentence can be interpreted several ways. Maybe "factor structure" is intended to be a meaningful assemblage of words. Maybe it is intended to convey the idea of a structure of factors. Or, maybe "structure of cognitive ability" is the right group of words to look at, and maybe it stands in apposition to "factor" (in which case there should be commas fore and aft). Is either of these two things asserted to be nearly identical for the two [races]? Or is neither of my guesses correct?


 * the sentence means, AFAIK, that the statistically determined factor structure of psychometric variables is indistinguishable for blacks and whites. right? the significance of this finding is that no effect of race is seen in this analysis, where "culture-only" theories may predict one but "partly genetic" theories predict none. --Rikurzhen 08:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Strange lack awareness -- whose?
If some assertions in the article accurately represent authorities in this field they merit critical comment.


 * The three-way difference in average IQ can be measured in very young children, before significant cultural forces can take effect. For example, a 1 standard deviation gap is observed in Black and White 3-year olds matched for gender, birth order, and maternal education (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995). Lynn (1996) found that by age 6 the average IQ of East Asian children is 107, 103 for White children and 89 for Black children

In the last couple of decades it has become abundantly clear that most of the language learning that humans do occurs during the first 3 years of life. After that, one is more-or-less on a plateau. Infants are hungry sponges, and what gets absorbed at that point seems to form the foundation for all future learning. It's possible to make further gains, but the older one gets the more early deficiencies tend to get in one's way. Contrary to what the paragraph asserts, the earlier in life one is the more important are cultural effects. P0M 02:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

there must be some word that is acceptable to describe the aspects of one's environment that are of a social nature; i thought culture was clear enough of a distinction between the social environment of a 3 year old and that of a 16 year old. what term can be substituted to point out this distinction? --Rikurzhen 08:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jargon
The following passage refers to "r" and "k" without any indication of what they mean. Even if they had been mentioned earlier in the article they would need a word or two each to remind people of what they are.
 * In his 1995 work Race, Evolution, and Behavior, J. Philippe Rushton argued that racial differences in IQ, as well as a number of other racial differences, could be explained by different degrees of evolution to either r or k selected breeding patterns.

P0M 02:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Intrusion of irrelevant content into the chart
The second paragraph in a chart that is supposed to pertain to IQ ranges in the US says:
 * Whether the IQ scores from the few tests done in developing nations....

I think that paragraph just doesn't belong where it has been placed, but if it does belong there then the chart would seem to include data on non-US populations in describing the US population. P0M 02:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Contrasts in cultural backgrounds
Some of the content in this article question why Chinese and/or other Asian immigrants to the US should test so high if minority status and/or low economic status disadvantages people. This kind of assertion is another point where I have to question whether it is the authors of this article or the authors of the scientific studies being reported who have not informed themselves fully. I don't believe that we can have a good article unless these issues are sorted out properly. Low economic status is indeed a hindrance to gaining a university education or even, sometimes, to making it all the way through high school. But some immigrants come to the US with a culturally acquired value that tells them that education and hard work are the keys to a good life. Chinese people, for instance, may arrive completely destitute and knowing no English, but that does not mean that they are lacking in intelligence, in formal education, or in street smarts. Very frequently people with these values will willingly sacrifice their comfort and risk their health for the sake of the success of their children. P0M 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add the article. Ultramarine 16:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between what's written in the article and the points you've made. --Rikurzhen 08:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another ambiguity
The article has another sentence that leaves me puzzled:
 * Even if the IQ gap does indicate differences in intelligence, ...

Is the author of this sentence offering the possibility that IQ gaps do not indicate differences in intelligence? Or is s/he just trying to say, "Even if there actually are differences in intelligence..."?

SAT Scores - Image
This image shows that whites constantly score higher than asians on SAT tests, perhaps we need a graph overhaul? - Molloy


 * Current graph is better. SAT scores are a less direct measurment off intelligence than IQ scores. Ultramarine 03:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether Asians or Whites have higher average SAT scores is mostly irrelevant. The point of the SAT graph is that even when SAT scores are regressed on income or education (of parents), the gaps (in children) persist. --Rikurzhen 06:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know much aboutr SAT. I am not living in the U.S. However, many Asians and Hispanics are new or 2nd generation immigrants. English is not their first language. They have to acquire this language. Many of these people learned to be bilingual. A college entrance test that includes advanced English skills can be difficult to many of them. In contrast, many Blacks and Whites are native English speakers. -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 17:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Problems with English fluency are unlikely to (substantially) affect the results of this data set because SAT takers are self-selected for those interested in college admission, where English fluency is expected. Also, the 1995 SAT has both Verbal and Math sections, and the results are approx. equal for both tests. --Rikurzhen 19:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Morton
"In his 1839 Crania Americana, anthropologist Samuel George Morton reported that the mean cranial capacity of the skulls of Whites was 87 in³, while that of Blacks was 78 in³. Based on the measurement of 144 skulls of Native Americans, he reported an a figure of 82in³."

Should we remark that the experiment is only a historical note? The experiment has been harshly revisited for its unscientific sampling (Morton took whatever few skulls he could collect over years). Some call it "fabricated".

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The date (and the preceeding paragraph) should give it away, but make it more explicit if you like. --Rikurzhen 16:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This article is 84 kilobytes long
And is a bit longwinded. Satellite articles anyone? Tedneeman 00:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The references are what really push the size up. I can't imagine a reasonable split. --Rikurzhen 00:57, May 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about make the refs a separate sub-page like Race and intelligence/References ?


 * I don't think the size is a problem. Article size limits are reportedly a concern about older browser technology that is no longer of much concern. --Rikurzhen 19:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"
"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" The Economist NYT pre-print PDF --Rikurzhen 05:16, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting study. Note that the title in the Economist is wrong, the study does not argue that persecution has caused higher intelligence, Romani do not have high IQ scores.
 * On a related subject. This study shows an interesting decline in share of Nobel prizes awarded to Europe and similar increase in the share of Nobel prizes awarded to the U.S. that takes place at the time of the Nazi persecutions during the 30s and the Holocaust during the 40s . Should we include it? Ultramarine 18:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. "NHoAI" also states that non-Ashkenazi Jews considered as a group have a roughly average level of intelligence; the IQ difference (which can be up to 20 points) only applies to Ashkenazi Jews, considered as a group, and contains a good set of references. It also lists a number of genetic diseases which are correlated with high IQ which are common in Ashkenazim. However, expect this particular paper to result in the a shitstorm of claims and counter-claims in this article; it will make a lot of White racists feel very uncomfortable. -- Karada 18:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, did you see the paper that suggests that clinical depressives have a mean IQ about 6 points above average? -- Karada 18:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet another interesting observation. "In market economies, per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106." . The Ashkenazi Jews higher IQ is most pronounced in verbal IQ... Ultramarine 18:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's another newspaper report. If people think this doesn't fit in this article, could it go in Ashkenazi or American Jews? --Rikurzhen 23:38, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

If someone feels like starting a Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence article, here's a public domain criticism that could be included. --Rikurzhen 18:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Natural History of Black and Chinese Intelligence"?
If this theory is true, shall the U.S. end the affirmative action and persecute the Blacks? I mean the U.S. government can ban Blacks from becoming singers and basketball players and limit their choice of jobs to be lawyers and medical doctors only. If you're Black and you can't finish high school before 18, you're dead. If you're Black and you fail to become the next Johnnie Cochran before 25, you're dead. If you're Black and people don't vote you to be the next President of the United States, you're dead.

I guess the Black population will almost extinct in 10 years. But the remaining Blacks will be Übermensch.

Will the affirmative action cause the Blacks to be less and less intelligent in the long run, if this story is of any reference value? On the other hand, will Whites and Asians in the U.S., being discriminated by the policy, become more and more intelligent in the future?

Jews were being persecuted in the past. However, they were forced to take brainy jobs. In contrast, Blacks were just slaves in the U.S. That's the difference. I don't think being forced to work in a cotton field is the job that takes the biggest brain to perform. So are today's burger-flipper jobs.

China has a long history of civilization (a.k.a. examinations, since the Tang Dynasty 1,400 years ago). Before Tang Dynasty, people were also study hard. In a typical Chinese society, the tiered society is constantly changing at a slow but steady pace:


 * If you can read, you go to a little town to become a businessman.
 * If you can write, you may want to take the official exam.
 * If you're good at taking the exam, you become a low-ranked officer.
 * If you're really good at taking the exam, you become a fat cat.
 * People of similar social status tend to marry each other.
 * Many farmers, if affordable, would send at least a kid to school.
 * People living in big cities might not live very long because of diseases. Unless you're successful, you could be dead.

I think that was the selective pressure. The exam had been thesis writing for the past 1,300 years. I guess that also elevated the average score of verbal tests to the Chinese. I mean vergal tests! -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 19:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is a U.S. issue
So far as I know, race and intelligence is mostly a U.S. issue. Theories are developed to explain or do away the clearly visible gap between Black and White. Most other countries have minorities, but the internal racial conflicts are usually not as bad as that of the U.S (I mean the undertow). In some countries, peoples are equally poor economically; in many others, races co-existed over the past thousands of years however they hated each other. I think we need to make this more explicit. -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 17:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that the U.S. is a very racially diverse society, and to the extent that the most solid research has been performed in the U.S., it is a U.S. issue. But it could also be described as a global issue, for example IQ and the Wealth of Nations. --Rikurzhen 20:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Slavery caused all of this tomfoolery. American landowners (a.k.a. white people) created rent-payers out of their slaves.  Negroes cannot be permitted to excel because they might become rent collectors insted of rent-payers.  American landowners will destroy their nation rather than see that occur.  June 8, 2005 @ 07:48 GMT  SHAHN


 * This really isn't the place to discuss the issue. It's a place to discuss the article. If you can point to a (preferably peer-reviewed) paper that gives credit to your argument (for example, by explaining how slavery explains that Whites score worse than Asians) then by all means mention it. Otherwise there is a good chance that your comments will be removed again. Arbor 12:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not talking about the possible cause of the gap. I was talking about the issue of "race and intelligence / performance / wealth ..." is mostly U.S.-centric because it's not usually so important in other countries. Therefore, we may need to point out this fact. -- Toytoy 18:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article hits on this: The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses on the results of IQ studies conducted during the second half of the 20th century mainly in the United States and some other industrialized nations. --Rikurzhen 18:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

degrees and causes of mental retardation
from here


 * Life for People with Mental Retardation


 * People with mental retardation experience emotions common to all human beings: joy, sadness, anger, boredom, and interest. They can learn, adjust socially, and benefit from appropriate education, training, personal care, and opportunities to work.


 * The range of possible mental retardation, based on both intellectual and social criteria, is commonly divided into four levels: mild, moderate, severe, and profound. The level of mental retardation is the main factor that determines the degree of outside assistance the person with mental retardation needs to live a comfortable, productive life. Persons with mild mental retardation often can merge into competitive labor and daily community life with minimal assistance, while persons with moderate mental retardation may need more training and support in order to live successfully in the community.


 * Individuals who have a severe or profound level of mental retardation frequently have disabilities in addition to mental retardation. They need more assistance than persons with mild or moderate mental retardation; persons with profound mental retardation need a great deal of basic physical care or supervision to live.


 * The majority of persons with mental retardation have a mild or moderate level of retardation. They can live and work independently or semi-independently in the community. Those with severe or profound levels of mental retardation can learn to care for themselves and function successfully in the community with varying levels of supervision.

The claim about low average IQ societies being impossible seems to be based on a confusion of the many degress and causes of mental retardation. It should be backed off to a more moderate claim or the blame for that misunderstanding should be placed on a particular paper. --Rikurzhen 16:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

In a population with IQ mean=70 SD=15 (probably over-estimate), only 9% of the population will have IQ<50, only 15% will have IQ<55. The division between mild and moderate mental retardation is 50-55. The division between moderate and severe is IQ 30-35, which is less than 1% of such a population. REF --Rikurzhen 17:56, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

fish and IQ?
Mercury poisoning and lower IQ are the only connections I could find with Google. --Rikurzhen 17:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. That's interesting. --Rikurzhen 17:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

submitting for peer-review
I'm inclined to submit this article for "peer review" so that it can go up for featured article status. I had thought that by not fussing with such things it would avoid the kind of taboo-response we've seen with the VfD, but the many positive comments in the VfD thread has changed my mind. Any reason not to? --Rikurzhen 20:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would support it when the Vfd is over. I am doubtful that it would pass the stable criteria. Ultramarine 06:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put it up. we'll see if there's any good feedback. --Rikurzhen 07:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

academic achievement?
are studies of differential academic achievement worth including? for example, two recent books: --Rikurzhen 04:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 * Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.


 * Such achivement gaps can be explained by discrimination or other environmental biases very easily, so any results should be presented carefully. Ultramarine 07:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ostensibly the achievement gap is merely another reflection of the IQ gap, and thus all interpretations port over. so if it goes anywhere, it would go in the data section. but i don't have copies of the books, so i only have secondary sources to report on them. --Rikurzhen 07:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is much easier to explain an achievement gap than an IQ test scores gap due to discrimination. Ultramarine 19:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess so. Either way I think we're both saying that evidence of an achievement gap doesn't tell you anything about interpretation. What I'm more concerned about is coverage of important topics, and the school achievement gap is increasingly discussed in the US. ... The peer review request got a good suggestion. --Rikurzhen 22:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

adoption studies
three studies from the 2005 PPPL paper: --Rikurzhen 23:45, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 years of age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition.


 * In the second study, Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 112.


 * A study by Frydman and Lynn (1989) examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium. At about 10 years of age, their mean IQ was 119, the verbal IQ was 111, and the performance IQ was 124. Even correcting the Belgian norms upward to 109 to account for the increase in IQ scores over time (about 3 IQ points a decade; see Section 13), the Korean children still had a statistically significant 10-point advantage in mean IQ over indigenous Belgian children. Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ.

What are you referring to? The metanalysis published by APA show nothing like this. Ultramarine 00:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting the Rushton & Jensen (2005) PPPL paper . If there's a discrepancy, we should try to figure out which one is correct. The issue in which Rushton & Jensen (2005) was published included many commentaries on their paper, and I didn't find anything saying they're mistaken about the adoption studies. --Rikurzhen 00:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering controversies and his representation of data in the past, I would not trust anything written by Rushton without having a lawyer and another IQ researcher going through the text line by line. I think prefer APA. Ultramarine 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That may be wise. But as it stands now, we don't have anyone calling him a liar (on this point) despite the very good opportunity to do so. --Rikurzhen 00:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * But we do have a conflict about the content of the studies. So I do not think that they should be included until someone has actually read the referenced studies. (I am certain that Rushton is not liar, I think both representations are correct, or at least that one of them can claim to be de jure correct.)Ultramarine 00:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Rikurzhen 01:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I got copies of the papers. Skimming them, the descriptions by Rushton and Jensen are correct. I took note of the malnutrition, which was the topic we were most uncertain about. In Clark (1982), 14 of the 25 kids had been hospitalized for malnutrition. Also, Clark summarizes Winick (1975) similarly to Rushton. It looks like the authors of the review paper didn't read these papers very carefully. --Rikurzhen 04:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is still only two studies. And do both of these two studies state that the Asians performed better than the Whites, something contradicted in the meta-analysis? Ultramarine 06:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes they all claim the averages are higher than the expectation for whites; although they don't have proper behavior genetic controls to be able to say for sure that the difference is attributable to genetics... Your saying two of the three have some malnurished children. The malnutrition doesn't seem to have a lasting effect -- that was the original conclusions of the studies -- so I think I can rephrase the article to make that clearer. --Rikurzhen 06:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * ...what's not as clear to me is that they have statistics to say that they're higher than a comparably treated (control) group of whites. they report mean and SD and do a t-test versus white mean=100, sd=15 and say that's significantly different than the white mean. so the counter point is that environment is not being controlled here... essentially insufficient controls for behavior genetic analysis. --Rikurzhen 07:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

On reflection most of this adoption data is pretty much crap. Without behavior genetic controls, it's just a guess about what is really going on here with respect to genetic/environment. Unforutunately, adoption is also a more direct experiment, so we're beholden to report it. --Rikurzhen 07:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Genetics and IQ
Doesn't the existence of an "Asian" group actually undermine the whole genetic argument? As used in the US, "Asian" includes not only Chinese, Japanese and Koreans (who have more shared genes with one another than they do with Europeans) but also Indians, who have a stronger shared genetic heritage with Europeans? Or am I missing something? Guettarda 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Asian" group in the US is indeed quite a broad category, consistent with the finding of high IQ variance within that group. (The group "Hispanics" is even less genetically well-founded.) Nobody is claiming that the 4-group dichotomy used in US census tradition is very clever; see Race. However, it happens to be correlated with genetic markers, see Cavalli-Sforza. (Maybe his "human genetic diversity map" might be a good picture for the present article as well? It's certainly better than the mugshots.) The gist is that I would assume Indian mean IQ to be somewhere between European and East Asian. But since US census checkboxes don't have that category, we don't have huge amounts of data on the issue. But there is the South American study, at least. Arbor 13:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In genetic terms Indians cluster closer to Europeans than they do to Asians. In the US the Indian IQ mean is probably higher than the "Asian" average (guessing, since mean income is higher for Indian Americans than for any group other than Japanese Americans, if memory serves me).  Of course, it's a highly non-random sample of people from the subcontinent (though that is true of all immigrant groups).  My question is, if someone asserts a genetic basis for IQ in the US, then it should cluster with genetics - Indian Americans should be more like European Americans.  If they fall within the Asian mean, that would weaken the genetic hypothesis.  The Cavalli-Sforza map is misleading - most Indians are actually one colour band away from Europeans, and two bands away from Chinese, but the fact that a single dominant colour is used for each continent creates the suggestion of breaks where none exist.  It's even worse across the Mediterranean, where the switch is from a greenish blue to an orange.  Guettarda 14:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say. (Well, not quite. The parameters used to draws the Cavalli-Sforza map may represent genes that are only marginally responsible for IQ, so we cannot really infer anything from it about where various populations "should" be on the IQ band.) I also think all these considerations are ably represented in the article, see for example about "unrepresentative" Asian Americans, and about Indian American IQs. Any suggestions for improving it? Arbor 14:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Arbor's point here is very important. If you just look at the distribution of people grouped by various blood fractions (P blood group, etc.) given in Population Structure and Human Variation (edited by G. A. Harrison), you will see that none of the groups correspond geographically with any other group. That means that characteristics spread out from various points of origin -- maybe the same points of origin in some cases -- and fill different geographical areas at different densities due to contingent factors. If you plotted IQ on the same map you would find yet another pattern, and if you plotted skin colors you'd find one more.  If genes that are adaptive spread more rapidly than genes that are maladaptive, then when one particularly smart man spreads his genes all along the Silk Road what does that imply about the IQs of people along his original track several generations down the line?  P0M 16:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Many good points. But I'm not sure that there's any actionable items here. The Asian versus East Asian distinction is somewhat vague in some of the literature, which is unfortunate. We may be better off allowing that ambiguity to persist rather than trying to tease apart which studies do or do not respect the distinction. Also, the unfortunate aspect of the term 'race' is that there's a pre-existing idea about which genetically related groups "count" as races (i.e. the continental groups); whereas this article would be fine with any sensible division of people into genetically related groups. --Rikurzhen 17:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I realise that my question gets into the realm of "original research"...but if we can have this discussion here, does it exist in the literature? Surely it's something that people actually involved in the field have come across?  Is anyone familiary enough with the literature to comment on that?  Guettarda 20:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh... yes. The difference between "Asians" and "East Asians" has certainly been discussed in both "race" research and the "race and intelligence" research. For example, this recent review paper is careful with such distinctions. So perhaps we should replace instances of "Asian" with "East Asian" in the text for consistency? --Rikurzhen 20:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I can only get it through Lexis-Nexis in an ugly format, so it will take me a while to get around to reading it.  As for the change - it all depends on the source.  We can't change something to "East Asian" unless the source document specified the difference.  (BTW - I have a personal grudge with "Asian"...on paper I'm "Asian".  In reality I am a West Indian who gets taken for Mediterranean or Arab.  But someone reading the department employment statistics would probably assume I am Chinese :))  Guettarda 21:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I made the change because there were very few places and they seemed appropriate. In some cases Asian is used in papers, but then the papers make it clear the people described are of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean descent. Also, the market-dominant Chinese minority in Malaysia is an example of East Asian vs South Asian performance. --Rikurzhen 21:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have West Indian friends who are very intersted in the average West Indian IQ, but so far they don't seem very confident about what it is based on the existing data. --Rikurzhen 21:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a better link. --Rikurzhen 21:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

also... The genetic structure of Indian populations are complex. ref --Rikurzhen 21:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The indegenous Malays in Malyasia are not classified as "South Asian". See South Asia. Malaysia is in South-East Asia. --Ankmin 06:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right. Sloppy of me. Good catch. --Rikurzhen 06:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rename "Race and IQ" and adjust accordingly
I think the main problem with this article, and intelligence quotient, is that they assume intelligence as defined by IQ is a fundamental thing. It is not; it is merely a definition. Perhaps this article should be renamed "Race and IQ". Sure, when intelligence is defined by IQ, which is based on Western ideals of intelligence and knowledge, there will be differences between races. But this has nothing to do with raw brainpower, which is generally what people assume is meant by intelligence. It is quite probable that "raw brainpower" is unmeasurable by any pen-and-paper test.

Because of this misconception (IQ = intelligence), the article implies some races have fundamentally less mental ability. What it really shows is that some races are better at IQ tests / better at achieving in Western-style education systems etc... ··gracefool |&#9786; 22:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have problems with this, but no time to reply. ... Everything you describe about intelligence is actually true of IQ, or rather g. This is a good review paper. This is a good book. --Rikurzhen 23:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * There actually is a measure of raw brain power called g. And yes, there are racial differences in g as well.  Dd2 23:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe gracefool's point is valid. Intelligence is a classic instance of the "black box." We don't know what is in the black box. We feed it inputs and receive its outputs. If we feed it a series of problems that have right and wrong answers, then we can measure the rate at which the black box returns correct correct answers and call that intelligence. But we don't know whether there is a single main-frame computer inside the box, or a bunch of special-purposes computers that work in parallel and may be of different levels of excellence. Whether there is a single factor called "g" depends on which picture of the brain is correct. Maybe "g" is just an average of the scores of multiple capabilities. But in that case, who has a higher "g" will very often depend on how we scale our grades of these capabilities.

Rather than implying that there is necessarily a real "intelligence" that we are measuring, it would be much less problematical to be up-front about what we are doing. One related idea: most if not all animals test better on "intelligence" tests when they are actively interested in solving the problem entirely for their own reasons. P0M 02:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the leading "background" section captures this idea pretty clearly and up-front. A renaming from intelligence to IQ would only serve to hide the topic of this article. What (lay) people are interested in is "race and intelligence". This the article where they'll find information about it. Note that Enyclopedia Britanica has an article (subsection) titled "Race and intelligence". So this formulation is clearly commonplace. We wouldn't want to rename the article on "heat" to "Q" just because Q is a more well defined concept than heat. --Rikurzhen 02:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Race and intelligence could redirect to Race and IQ. ··gracefool |&#9786; 04:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. However, in the end the article is about more than "IQ" tests. We also discuss "reaction time" tests, brain size, and if I get around to adding the section, school achievement. So I'm voting no on the change, because I think the benefits of word precision is outweighted by the harm of obfuscating and restricting the topic. --Rikurzhen 04:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. We would need to split this article in to Race and IQ, Race and g, Race and brain size, Race and reaction time, Race and scholastic aptitude, and a few more, including Race and raw brainpower if Gracefool wants to elucidate us about that concept. Even though each of these articles would be interesting, their sum would be very repetitive (because they all need to say more or less the same). For example, each and every of these articles would need to rehash the all environment versus environment + genes debate. The strength of the current one is that it gives a splendid overview over all these (highly correlated) findings and opinions in one place. Arbor 07:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back to the original question at the top of this section for a moment, I don't particularly like "IQ" either. How about "Race and the Measure of Intelligence," and then in the immediately following text highlight the idea that measuring something(s) in a black box is an uncertain business at best.

The issues Rikurzhen has just reiterated regarding the pop view of race and the various attempts to make meaningful categories of humans by considering genetically related "families" is a major stumbling block or maybe I should call it a tar baby. But maybe it is also a good opportunity to educate the general reader about just how iffy both [race] and [intelligence] are. BTW I just thought of a couple of examples of presumed measures of intelligence that may be appropriate for discussion. I started learning Chinese in 1960, when I was 20 years old. I lived in Taiwan for 7 years. But learning that language has never been easy, nor have all those years of study led me to the level where I might do well on the Chinese equivalent of a GRE. I think that there are two reasons involved. One is that humans seem to learn languages better the earlier they start. Something appears to solidify in the brain at around the beginning of adolescence, and after that time language acquisition is a definite "add-on" kind of thing -- something that is added on to one's native language. But the other thing is that as an infant, living 24 hours/day with well educated and intelligent parents, one is exposed to things that demand to have a name, e.g., "pinwheel." Those names stick, even though they will probably never come up on an intelligence test. By the time an infant is 3 s/he already has a very large proportion of his/her language ability. "Wolf children" recovered from the wild after around the age 11 never learn enough of any language to be useful. So I think that, e.g., for a Japanese student to start learning English at ae 12 and then be able to pass an American college entrance exam in English in the 99th percentile would indicate a much higher "g" than the same exam result produced by a native speaker of English.

Put it another way, I am constitutionally retarded when it comes to learning Chinese, and I think that the same experimental finding would be made by testing the IQ of any adult who learned Navaho tracking skills at age 20 after having grown up in the caves of steel somewhere. To learn that skill successfully seems to depend on the mind being a very active sponge capable of sopping up all kinds of minutiae actually spending ten or more years doing little else. It also seems that learning the game that the Japanese call "go" has a cut-off point. It seems that almost anybody can learn the rules of play, but that nobody has ever become a go master who started after about the age of ten.

Let's be sure that we pay adequate attention to the politics of "race and intelligence" too. What needs are said to be served by these measurements? To what use are these measurements actually put? Are people using calculations of "low IQ" to freeze people out of educational opportunities? (Don't budget more money for primary schools on the west side. They're too dull to benefit from it.) Or are people using calculations of "low IQ" to indicate prior training that hasn't brought these individuals up to the levels at which they are capable of functioning? Are there tests that have been designed as dual measures of intelligence and competency?

I'll give you an example of what I mean by the difference between underlying intelligence and competency. I encountered one 15 year old student in a disciplinary school who did not even know his multiplication tables. Obviously he was a total dud in math class. But I used the analogy of somebody laying foot-square tiles on the floor of a new kitchen to teach him the idea of area, then got him to see that you could cut and swap a parallelogram so that it became the familiar rectangle whose area you already knew how to calculate. As quickly as I drew the shapes for triangles and other such figures he could give me the formula for computing their areas.

To me. the general reader needs to be educated more about the difficulties and ambiguities and public policy consequences of the research than about any assertions that have been made about the intelligence of various races. P0M 14:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If fundamental skepticism were the major focus of the research literature on this topic, I would think this should be discussed more in the article. But currently, this level of skepticism is not circulating in scholarly circles. So we should leave most of the the skepticism about the individual topics of "intelligence" and "race" to those articles. And then cite the controversy in the background, which is what is done right now. Also, I don't like lengthy title changes. There seems to be a good basis in common langauge and other litature (Google finds books and articles with that title) to stick with the simple title we have now. --Rikurzhen 18:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * ...Why aren't these concerns a problem for the research? ... because while there may be reasonable uncertainty about the IQ score or race of a single person, when you study large groups of people, all of these complications get averaged out. IQ tests, or any such test, is actually better at coming up with a precise group average than an precise individual score because errors are averaged out. --Rikurzhen 19:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes ... Why we can't replace intelligence with IQ in the intro ... Psychologists no longer treat the mind as if it were a black box and behaviorism is no longer mainstream. Many suggest there is more to intelligence than IQ, but no one has shown they can measure any other aspect of intelligence that isn't mostly IQ/g. Also, the article dedicates considerable space to brain measurements and reaction time tests, which are not IQ tests, although they are correlated with IQ. Changing intelligence to IQ would enforce a minority POV of this topic. --Rikurzhen 10:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Race and IQ" was just an example; the point is that the article assumes that the view that IQ/g/etc accurately measures all aspects of intelligence/brainpower is generally accepted by scientists. I agree completely with P0M. Rikurzhen, if our view is held by such a minority, why do so many people have an issue with this article? ··gracefool |&#9786; 10:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Because everybody's read the same book. Here's a section from the article on this:--Rikurzhen 11:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * [Gould's] views can be constrasted with those expressed in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", a report from the American Psychological Association, and "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".


 * But rather than arguing about those details... why change the name of an article to something less conventional when the conventional name is better understood? --Rikurzhen 11:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gracefool: yes, your view is held my a minority of scientist in the field, at best. There is a huge disparity between public opinion and science in this question. It's the same with evolution. But please stick around and help Rik and others to improve this article. We needs your input very much. Arbor 11:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Rikurzhen on the title and general usage. "IQ" is inaccurate, "intelligence" is simple, and the controversy is acknowledged. Titles convey general content, rarely nuance, and the present one does the duty well. --DAD 05:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about "Race and measures of intelligence" or similar? That would be more accurate. ··gracefool |&#9786; 05:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CDF vs PDF
Suggestion from peer review ... which is better? (in form, not presentation) suggestions for improvement? --Rikurzhen 07:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) Graphs hidden --Rikurzhen 22:15, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying this. Well, I think I do like the overlapping bell curves more. I don't think we need anything on the left axis (maybe just number of individuals, but no figures). Maybe one could add the means as a vertical line to intersect with the x-axis. If the caption then says "For example, the mean IQ of Asian Americans is blabla" I think many people will be able to understand a lot just by looking at the graph. We need some mathematical illiterates to test this :-) ! Arbor 07:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * CDF is absolutely better, although they really should have error bars or 95%CE or something of the sort . Guettarda 13:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The CDF is more accurate, because we can show mean and SD. I'm not sure what meaning a 95%CE would have on a CDF plot. Someone else? --Rikurzhen 17:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, brain wasn't properly switched on that early in the morning. Guettarda 18:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am really fond of Rikurzhen's last version (with 'simplified' and 'filled' bell curves). As I already mentioned on the Peer Review page, it does a number of important things: (1) it's easy to understand for the nonspecialist. If you've ever seen a bell curve, or just a frequency bar chart, then you know what it means. (2) It makes it clear that the main variance is within groups. (3) It puts the focus on means. To the casual reader, the cumulative distributions shows that "all blacks are dumber than whites", because the black curve is always below the white one. Rest assured that I understand that this is not so, but that's not important. We are already targeting a fraction of the population when we show a bell curve, but that fraction becomes even smaller when we start off the article with a cumulative distribution.

Remember that we are only talking about how to present this information in the introduction, as an eye-catcher that hopefully tells a large part of the story. The new image does this. The old one didn't. I completely understand the merits of the old one with respect to accuracy and information content. From that point of view it's much better, and maybe we want to keep both. Actually, maybe that is worth thinking about -- we can keep the old graph with all the numbers and mention Wechsler and statisticscruft and psychometric technobabble, just like it is now. But move it down. In the introduction, we have an attractive, dumbed-down version of the same information. (Looks like a million bucks, by the way. Good job.) Arbor 19:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I completely missed that problem with the PDF. Let's do both. --Rikurzhen 19:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't we include Ashkenazi Jews in the distribution graph? Right now the graph is misleading people into thinking that Asians are the most intelligent ethnic group, when in fact the Ashkenazim really are. Dd2 22:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reasons not to (originally) are that (1) average Ashkenazim IQ scores are not firmly pinned down and (2) they are a smaller minority compared to the other groups. --Rikurzhen 22:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * If we don't include them on the graph, we should make a note of it somewhere so that we don't mislead people. Dd2 22:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to compare if it were possible. "The differences [...] become more noticeable at the extremes; for people with an I.Q. over 140, the proportion is 4 per 1,000 among northern Europeans but 23 per 1,000 with Ashkenazim."--Nectarflowed T 01:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From that data, you can estimate the size of the average Ashkenazim IQ. In Excel =NORMSINV(23/1000)-NORMSINV(4/1000) is +0.66 SD, for an IQ of 110. --Rikurzhen 02:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article is much improved by having the PDF graph in the intro, not the CDF graph. As other editors have stated, it makes clear to the first-time viewer that the main variation is within-group, not between-groups, and avoids the illusion that "all group X are smarter than group Y". -- Karada 13:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History section
Nice to see a history section added. Maybe it's a good idea to also mention the debate's manifestation in the popular science literature, by pointing to Mismeasure of Man and Bell Curve. (This needs some refactoring of the rest of the article.) Gould has a lot more about the early history of this. Arbor 19:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Individual passages that may need attention
The article contains the following text:
 * It has been proposed that proportion of population who have high IQ score on verbal subtests are particularly important, this to explain the underachivement compared to IQ scores of East Asian nations.

Is it supposed to be "that the proportion"? "that the portion"? The rest of the sentence has as its predicate "are particularly important," which sounds like the subject should be some group of individuals. However, the grammatical subject of the sentence as it stands is "proportion." And "this is to explain" is not clear either. Does it mean "this proposal is intended to explain"? P0M 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know what it means to say, but I think we can just delete it. --Rikurzhen 02:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have a few tidbits as well, but I'm not really sure about them, so I put them here instead of being bold:


 * I think we can now drop the second sentence in the article. It is difficult to parse anyway. Instead I think we can extend the first sentence
 * Race and intelligence refers to the controversy surrounding the findings of many studies that racial groups show differences in average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores and other measures of intelligence such as school achievement, reaction time, or brain size.

This makes it clearer why this article is not called Race and IQ. (That's not clear from the current introduction.)


 * On a similar note, the headline of section 2 could be changed to Intelligence gaps among races or something similar. The subsections aren't only about IQ, so the headline shouldn't be either. A similar comment for section 4, even though it is less important.


 * The second paragraph could make it clearer that nobody holds the genetics only position. How about something like this:
 * These results have sparked public debates concerning not only the reliability of the studies and the motives of their authors, but also the validity and fairness of intelligence tests in general. A major debate concerns the question whether intelligence is determined exclusively by developmental factors (such as nutrition, richness of the learning environment during the individual's most formative years of life) or whether there is a heritable component that follows racial classifications.

(This can be formulated better, shorter, and clearer by a native speaker. The point that is important to me is to pre-empt the common misconception that anybody discounts the importance of environmental factors.)


 * The History section could precede the Moral criticisms. Arbor 20:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That all looks good to me. (completely unimportant note: a very few people probably do think it is 100% genetic, a few said so in the 80s survey, but that's a fringe POV we can safely ignore.) --Rikurzhen 19:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I will try to have an extra look at the article with non-US eyes. (I am European.) FIrst, I am missing here (and in the Race article) a brief introduction to the 4 US ethnic groups. The fact that this classification is routine in the US is not common knowledge, neither are the 4 races. Hispanic, to a European, probably means somebody from Spain. The Race article tells me that the FBI uses that classification, but it was my understanding that it is used everywhere, for example on questionnaires, polls, census data, job and school applications, etc? (I am European, and I am never asked my "race".) Arbor 08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. --Rikurzhen 09:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, what I am still missing is a brief introduction to the concept of racial classification in the US, and how ubiquitous it is. I am still baffled by this very idea. From what I found on the net:
 * It isn't just on a single decennial census form that we are told to check off little racial boxes. Apply for a job, and you are asked your race. Bid on a public contract, and you are asked your race. Seek admission to a college, try to get financial aid, request a home mortage - and you are asked your race.
 * Is this true? If so, it needs to be mentioned. I fear there is a discrepancy about how natural the entire concept of (discrete) racial classifications is in the mind of the reader, depending on whether she is from the US or not. For example, I have never lived in a country where I have been asked my race (instead, for example, I have been asked my religion when I lived in Denmark and in Germany). &#8212; Note that I am not questioning the validity of the classification. I am not asking for an argument like Race is an arbitrary classification resulting from the US census tradition to group her citizens into races. (I merely want to promote international understanding! :-) The US obsession with race is weird, from an international POV, and needs to be acknowledged.) Indeed, I would be happy if we mentioned that the US racial classifications largely agree with genetic markers (I forgot which study that was.) Arbor 13:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generally the answer is yes... This could be difficult to present in NPOV because for a U.S. editor many of these ideas are common knowledge (i.e. no specific source comes to mind). ... Race is reported on the Census, on job and school applications, in law enforcement, and for almost anything related to working for the government directly or indirectly. There are laws which require special treatment of minorities in some economic exchanges with the government (e.g., contracts). Also, voluntary affirmative action is practiced by many/most large educational and corporate groups. ... it's difficult for me to figure out what the missing details are from a non-US POV. ... Race is mentioned in the US constitution, including some horrific bits about how slaves should be counted in the census, along with the 14th/15th amendments giving equal rights and protections (and the vote) to all citizens. ... Non-white racial groups are large minorities in the US, 25-30% total off the top of my head. (I already mentioned Tang et al in the bit I wrote about definitions.) Racial tension has existed since before the founding, so I'm sure we someone could re-tell US history entirely from the POV of race relations. ... What else? --Rikurzhen 16:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

flynn
the B-W gap not shrinking argument against the Flynn effect applies both to scores within the US and internationally. that's why I tried the less specific formulation. --Rikurzhen 18:35, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shangi 1983
I haven't read everything in the article, but isn't Shangi (1983)'s finding that of no difference in IQ between white, Indian, African and mixed Trinidadians? Or has this been superceded by more recent work?

Shangi, Lennard M. 1983. Racial stratification, sex, and mental ability: A comparison of five groups in Trinidad. Journal of Black Studies 14(1):69-82 (available through jstor stable link. Guettarda 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the results are unusual, but what's more unusual is that there are no papers in the ISI database that have ever cited this paper. zero citations. --Rikurzhen 20:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Flew under the radar, methodolgical problems? I fouind two references to the paper, one in what appears to be a conference proceedings: http://www.aare.edu.au/93pap/lietp93135.txt and one in an annotated bibliography http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/DEPT/Multicultural/mebib94.html
 * The author himself appears to be into brain injury clinical work in Canada, based on what appears on google. Interesting.  Guettarda 21:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

undefined terms
Am I missing something? What are "r" and "k"? Are they defined before they appear in the article as "r-selection" and "K-selection"? Why is only the K capitalized? P0M 01:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks like the first mention. The letters are variables in an equation. The stuff in r-selection and K-selection is all I know about it. --Rikurzhen 02:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

They need thumbnail definitions. "r" stands for "favoring reproduction potential over other adaptations", and "K" stands for "traits that are highly adaptive in a stable environment." P0M 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I don't feel confident doing it without reading about it further. --Rikurzhen 05:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've made some changes. I'm pretty confident that I see what Rushton's claims are, but not so sure that I've formulated it smoothly enough. It's kind of messy to try to change one or two sentences in the middle of a paragraph sometimes.

I'm also going through and looking at outlining and topic sentence issues. Most of it seems clear and smoothly flowing.P0M 06:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. --Rikurzhen 06:37, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Creating new article for "Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation"?
This article in now very long. I think that the section "Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation?" can be moved to an article of its own. Indeed, the article would be improved since that section is the most technical and can easily be summarized in one or two sentences like in the conclusion. The biggest problem would be moving the references. Both articles could be submitted for featured article status at the same time. Ultramarine 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * weak oppose. for a couple reasons. (1) Wiki is not paper -- size is not a strict reason for breaking an article. if we had numerous subtopics, then I might endorse the split, but a mere 50/50 split seems not worthwhile. (2) I see no reason to expect that someone would want to read the second half if they haven't read the first half; i.e., no advantage to allowing one article to be linked without having content from the other. (3) the second section gives plausible explanations for the data in the first section. so there's a strong reason to want to see both at the same time. (4) I'd be afraid that the content of the two would diverge or duplicate and become unweildy. such trouble has befallen the many sub-articles of the race article --- overall I don't see a strong reason to go thru the trouble --Rikurzhen 21:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Size is a reason to split a wikipedia article, see the message that appears every time this article is edited. It is good policy since many people are put off by a very long article. As stated earlier I think it would also improve the article as the explanation sections can very easily be summarized as in the conlucsion with "we do not know" which should be enough for the casual reader. Especially those not used to reading peer-reviewed articles as the section is very technical. Wikipedia should not only be for the active scientists and I think most of these will abandon reading through the article due to technical language in that section. I do not understand your objections that the first half explains the later, the Policy and Conclusion sections are very independent. Many sub articles do not diverge, see for example the subarticles on IQ.


 * Raw size (i.e. length in KB) is not an issue any longer, but I completely agree that readablity should be a top priority. I meant section 3 give explanations of section 2. While "no consensus" is true, there are actually two large sides that strongly disagree with one another, rather than a single large group of undecideds. I'm still concerned about what happened to race when it was split up, let's see what others think. --Rikurzhen 21:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * If we do vote to split, I suggest Race and intelligence (Interpretations) or something in that form. --Rikurzhen 22:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer something like "Race and Intelligence: Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation?" since I think that there may be other sections on interpretations, for instance policy is one interpretation. Ultramarine 22:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object. The article can be improved in style and organization, but it would be a mistake to separate cultural and genetic determinants of intelligence. To do so would be to reproduce a debate over "nature vs. nurture" that all anthropologists (and perhaps psychologists and evolutionary biologists) reject. The proposal is actually ironic, since the very reason "nurture" (or "culture") is important is because we can understand our world symbolically and teach, and learn from, others. And this capacity for learning and symbolic thought &mdash; which I take to be key elements in "intelligence," are products of our evolution. In other words, to say that intelligence is the product of our evolution, or the product of our culture, is ultimately to say the same thing. The real issue here is not explaining the cultural vs. biological basis for intelligence, because no one doubts that our intelligence is the product of our evolution which means it must have a "genetic basis." Debates such as "all culture" or "all genetics" are not over whether or not intelligence has a genetic basis, but rather how to explain variation in measures of intelligence among populations. This certainly is a complex topic but it need not be divided into "nature' vs. "culture." Another way to look at it is in terms of different kinds of intelligence &mdash; a view a number of psychologists now take.  Another issue is debates over the validity of "g."  Yes I know many scientists insist on its validity, but many reject it; this is the kind of debate that the article should include as a major component.  Finally, I think the source of much of the confusion concerning the genetic versus the cultural determinants of intelligence lies in the word "heritability" which many people &mdash; especially psychologists &mdash; simply misunderstand or misuse.  But a sophisticated explanation of heritability as used by evolutionary scientists (and I mean people who were really trained in evolution, mostly biologists and anthropologists, and not psychologists) would go far to clarifying why it is just too simplistic to reduce the matter to "nature vs. nurture," let alone treat each one separately. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not entirely understand your objections. I simply propose moving the section now called "Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation?" to a new article. This would not affect the content of either article, buy make them easier to read. Regarding objections to g theory, IQ, and race, they should be discussed in those articles, otherwise we have pointless repetitions in several articles. Ultramarine 22:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're proposing we use something like Summary style, right? Is there a WikiProject for this kind of page that we could use as a template? (Note: I still weakly oppose.) --Rikurzhen 22:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like this although I didn't know of that page. Read the arguments presented there for having shorter articles. Ultramarine 00:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading from the top, I was not a fan of splitting out specific information. However, I agree that length has made the article intractable and daunting.  I support a Summary style article, and would enjoy contributing to such an endeavor.  (I consider the present article painfully verbose, and accept it mostly as a consequence of authorship by committee.) --DAD 00:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing I would at the moment agree to is to make a Race and intelligence (References) article to hold the complete bibliography for this and any other articles in this series. We'd still use inline references (Author, Year), but the full bibliography would be in a separate page. ... Before making further changes, someone should make a proposal. --Rikurzhen 00:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This article was voted on to see if it should be deleted. The consensus was a clear one to KEEP. The results of this debate can be seen at Votes for deletion/Race and intelligence. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

genetic/intelligence section title
If the section is about evolutionary explanation of genetic differences then it has to include at least one mainstream theory on genetic differences between raises rather than just Rushton's loony ideas. But if you want it to be specifically about evolutionary explanations for intelligence differences, then Rushton is the main point. Which will it be? --Rikurzhen 23:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * By all means add the mainstream evolutionary explanation for genetic differences between races. However, I saw no such explanation, only a graph. Ultramarine 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay... but you realize these will be evolutionary explanations / data for genetic differences in general, not specifically about IQ? --Rikurzhen 00:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong about this, although this should be pointed out. Ultramarine 00:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm.. It is correct to summarize that one mainstream explanation for the different races is that a common African ancestor have interbred with different preexisting local hominid populations? Would the other mainstream explanation be that simply different distances from Africa and geographic bottlenecks have created different races? Ultramarine 02:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit tired right now, but the second sounds like the older Out-Of-Africa hypothesis, whereas the first sounds like Templeton's and others newer synthesis hypothesis. --Rikurzhen 02:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, this is Jorge Daza, comming from the VfD page. I read Rikurzhen's link that was supposedly a paper, but I found no paper. Just a news article about a research that is not documented anywhere. A Google search on Neil Risch (the author of that research) gives this first hit []. In his list of publications there is no mention to that research paper. In his list of Research Interests there is no such a mention about the genetics involved in intelligence, just some neurological disorders. Please, tell me that you're not basing such an important topic on a news article. Somebody, has to correct this. This whole article has no scientific ground at all.
 * Jorge... calm down. I said that was a summary of a paper which was about genetic differences between self-identified races, not about race and intelligence. You can find the whole paper with PubMed. If you check the references in this article you'll see they're extensive and go far beyond the content of the paper I mentioned. --Rikurzhen 00:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please put the link to the whole paper. In case it exists the paper will show in any case a relationship between a self-identified subject and a know genetic predisposition to some illnesses that had already been classified genetically. There is a huge difference between studying 326 known alleles and their relationship to race than studying no known alleles which have no know relationship to intelligence. You can't extend by no means those results to intelligence. They should find first the genes associated with intelligence. Then another study should be made that relates those to self-identified subjects. That research doesn't exist as you well know. Again, the grounds on which this article is based have no scientific value. -- Jorge Daza


 * Please see the text of the article for the context of where this paper was cited... ;  ;  ; And please read the article before declaring that it is baseless. --Rikurzhen 16:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)