Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 66

Anti-racism
Anti-racism includes beliefs, actions, movements, and policies adopted or developed to oppose racism. In general, anti-racism is intended to promote an egalitarian society in which people do not face discrimination on the basis of their race, however defined. By its nature, anti-racism tends to promote the view that racism in a particular society is both pernicious and socially pervasive, and that particular changes in political, economic, and/or social life are required to eliminate it. --Jagz (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Why are you telling us that? JettaMann (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere" United Nations DeclarationELDRAS (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is time to stop committing the 'moralistic fallacy' that good science must conform to approved outcomes." --Jagz (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good science does not have predefined outcomes. that is why racist science, like that sponsored by the Pioneer fund, Rushton etc., is such bad science - they twist anything to achieve their racist ends.  Like some editors. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop being belligerent. --Jagz (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

tag frenzy
Can t this go on the talk page. There are way too many redundant tags on the page. Also: "The discussion page may contain suggestions" is a joke. The talk page is so cluttered that I couldn't find any suggestions. --71.184.193.227 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It needs to go on the article page because readers need to be informed of any concerns someone has pointed out.  We cant assume readers will check the discussion page, and I am pretty sure guidelines ask to place it on article and not discussion. Brusegadi (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the tag itself, it answers the question. It belongs on the article to point to the discussion.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Manipulated and Controversial Data - for Better Consensus!
The IQ scores are not the benchmark in the determining the national IQ, the result can be manipulated and altered to give certain countries a significant advantage over others, especially in the western world which suffers from skin colour bias. These IQ scores can be used to reject people with dark skin in preference to light skin by assuming that they are of lower IQ. Chinese are light skin and are more acceptable to white men especially the chinese girls which are softer target for western males because of their stronger tilt towards multiple sexual partners. These IQ scores are nothing but a form of scientific racism, a old wine in a new bottle, to practice racism with a reason and even get a legal recognition for their evil deeds. You go and check the IQ score of a rural poor in developing countries who are illiterate and malnourished and brand whole country as of lower IQ is nothing but a consiparacy by the racist west. The IQ scores are more relevant in the countries where there is less social divide between the socio-economic condition of the urban middle class and rural populace. This article can be improved by removing the biased and manipulated data compiled by western editors to achieve the cause of white supermacist and vested interests. General discussion on race and intelligence with neutral point of view should be encouraged.--Himhifi 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot to use the word Nazi. --Jagz (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://groups.uni-paderborn.de/rindermann/materialien/PublikationsPDFs/07EJP.pdf -- see Figure 2 --Legalleft (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chinese girls do What????? This is bizarre. Can you provide a source to substantiate this racist statement that oriental girls are more promiscuous and into orgies?Die4Dixie 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Western males are more tilted towards what???? It's not just unsubstantiated, it's unintelligible. Please strikeout.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream view
It appears that the mainstream view among the experts in the early 1960's was the predominantly environmental explanation for the IQ gaps but now the mainstream view among experts is that there is a significant genetic component. That being the case, I'm not sure why there is such a fervent effort among some editors to remove possible explanations for how this genetic component came into being. --Jagz (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence for what mainstream view is. No reason to give numerous Pioneer Fund theories similar to one another. Enough to mention Rushton's as one example.Ultramarine (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Gottfredson's theory does not discuss racial differences. Could be in an IQ or human evolution article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should leave your Pioneer Fund personal biases out of Wikipedia. Please start now. --Jagz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Pioneer Fund is not a reputable scientific organization, it helps us identify fring groups. When editing the article on evolution we use affiliation with creation science institutes also to identify fringe groups. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, your opinion about the Pioneer Fund is not supported by the Pioneer Fund article. It's an opinion that appears to be held by those opposed to their reseach. Even if it was a universally accepted opinion, you would be guilty of condoning guilt by association, a type of prejudice/discrimination. --Jagz (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer Fund's status is questionable and it does push a specific agenda. It is wise to be wary. Although at times the race and intelligence issue is a scholarly debate it is also a political debate. The article needs to avoid the double-danger of references, research and opinion being read only in one context.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, I do not judge someone's guilt by association. Notability is indexed by a number of things.  Research funded by the NSF is probably notable; research published in a prestigious peer-reviewed publication is probably notable.  How else do you think we index notability in the scientific community?  Similarly, funding from the Pioneer Fund or publication in a minor journal created specificially to publish specific views is an index of non-notability.  This is not guilt by association, this is acknowledgment that "notability" is always a measure of standing within a community. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the recent edits -- describing Rushton's book is probably enough to cover the topic -- but the justification (based on Pioneer fund backing) is mistaken. Pioneer funded the MInnesota twins research which was subsequently published in Science. The funding of a research project doesn't tell you much about the notability of the research -- it's hard to imagine how it could in any direct way. --Legalleft (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectable journals, especially in controversial subjects, always require that the author list any potential bias or influence. Source of funding is one such possible factor. Like the tobacco industry sponsoring research on lung cancer and smoking. No evidence of actual errors in the research is needed. So funding is important.Ultramarine (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer Fund article says, "Its stated purpose is to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences. The fund focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial subject matter." It seems that its purpose is to help remedy the discrimination researchers face in getting funds for their controversial research instead of being an actual source of bias. --Jagz (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All -- doesn't this have absolutely nothing to do with Pioneer fund? The question was undue weight and notability. I pretty much agree that it's difficult to distinguish Rushton and Lynn's theories, so given that Rushton's book is pretty notable and Lynn's articles less so, it makes sense to describe the one and not the other. And all that has nothing to do with the Pioneer fund. Or am I missing something? --Legalleft (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine states above that there is no evidence what the mainstream view is. --Jagz (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the three preceding sections
I doubt that the three preceding sections - race and its correlates, high-scoring races, and tagging the article - will go anywhere because all three issues suffer from the same fundamntal problem. These three discussions just provide more examples of the ill-conceived nature of this article that starts with an imprecise topic. "Intelligence" is a vague and ultimately meaningless term that can be described an infinite number of ways - why not make it "IQ scores" which is specific, concrete, and what most of this article really is about, anyway? The confusion between "race," "ethnicity" and "nationality" is another example of sloppy thinking - sloppy thinking which is abundant in fringe theories but not the top scientific research. There is one body of literature that looks at the role of heritability in the difference in IQ scores, and this literature works through twin studies which is the most scientifically reliable way to get at the question. Race, ethnicity and nationality are all social constructs and inevitably bring in socio-economic status, or (for nationality) various development indices. Indeed, there is a separate body of literature on SES and IQ score variation, and that too could be a meaningful article.

The only excuse for a single article on race and intelligence is specifically to do one thing Wikipedia articles are not supposed to do which is forward fringe theories, because it is only in fringe theories that the issues are presented in such an unscientific and muddled way. This is why Jagz and others will always be confused by POV violation tags, or accusations of promoting fringe theories ... with the title "Race and intelligence," one can only provide fringe theories. Mainstream scientific discussions are always slightly of to the one side or another, and in fact form distinct, i.e. non-overlapping (and thus meriting different articles) bodies of research.

It is also why this article will always be plagued by violations of NOR, specifically in the orm of synthesis. "Race and Intelligence" can only be discussed in an NPOV and NOR compliant way by bringing together separe bodies of research, which will require synthesis on the part of editors to make it work.

Good luck, fellas, but as long as you have an article designed to promote fringe theories, you will always have these kinds of conflicts.

By the way I know some views on race and intelligence are too notable to exclude from Wikipedia, or rather, let me say, do merit encyclopedic attantion. Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve is one example. But it just proves my point - it is a book that has not really been engaged by scientists - I mean either social scientists studying SES and IQ variation, or population geneticists and biologists looking at heritability and IQ variation (except to trash the book). For this reason, I think that such work merits its own article. We do have entire articles on books ... we have an article on Guns, Germs and Steel ... and I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article on The Bell Curve and its reception. But general (meaning, topical) articles should be based on notable views from reliable sources and in this case we need more precise language that reflects the research that is out there and that leads to two different articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Human intelligence is one of the most important yet controversial topics in the whole field of the human sciences. It is not even agreed whether it can be measured or, if it can, whether it should be measured. The literature is enormous and much of it is highly partisan and, often, far from accurate." (Bartholomew, D. J. (2004). Measuring intelligence: Facts and fallacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., p. xi). --Legalleft (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this should be covered extensively in the article on human intelligence. But most virtually all of the notable literature this article or people working on it have cited refers to actual test score gaps.  I think many conflicts could be avoided if we limited ourselves to this more clearly defined issue, and had an article (or two) whose titles reflected this focus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me put it another way - and I am truly really seriously sincerely genuinely trying to be constructive with what I think is a simple, easily addresed point: "race" and "intelligence" are both ambiguous terms - for some, race is biological, for others it is an SES or marker for SES. As Legalleft points out, intelligence too can mean many things.  As long as the title of this article is race and intelligence, editors will reasonable want to cover both meanings of race and debates over its meanings, and debates over meanings of intelligence.  Then there are various permutations over the different ways different meanings of race relate to different meanings of intelligence.  The opportunities for this article to become overwrought will necessarily multiply endlessly.  Evidence of the soundness of my reasoning?  The edit history of the article itself.  Identifying more precise terms, whose relationships are addressed by large bodies of notable literature, will spare us a good deal of controversy and conflict. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a constructive suggestion but I'm afraid it doesn't work. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide the terms in which an external debate are cast. The extended, decades-long argument is over race and intelligence. Much as I'd like to Three Stooges style knock the heads of assorted psychologist together and shout "listen up knuckle heads, keep the speculation to a minimum - this is supposed to be science" I can't. Consequently the reality is that there really is a race-intelligence debate which is full of confused ideas, poorly defined terms and sudden leaps of inference. That is what has to be documented, not the debate we'd rather they had had.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia doesn't get to decide the terms in which an external debate are cast." is precisely my point. Casting the debate in terms of race and IQ is popular in the popular media, but not in the mainstream scientific community.  In the mainstream scientific community, people who look at differences in IQ scores between people of different self-identified races examine the issue in terms of sociological factors, not biological ones.  In the mainstream scientific community, those scientists who are concerned with the heritability of IQ do not look at differences between races - there is a huge literature based on twin studies.  The problem with this article is that it does not draw on these two large bodies of literature.  Indeed, it would be hard to fit both literatures in one article (without a Wikipedia editor violating SYNTH) because the two discussions are separate.  The attempt to connect race with heritability is made only by fringe scholars.  So the situation is this: a few Wikipedia editors have decided to dedicate an article to a fringe view, and systematically to ignore the terms in which the external debate is cast by scientists.  That is the problem.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The field of intelligence testing is large and it is true that the use of race as an explantion of intergroup differences in IQ is a minority opinion. However firstly the race explanation is of historical significance and secondly there exist a large critical literature from modern researcher who posit other explanations (or critique methodology) that are cast in terms of race-intelligence debate if only to explain why there is no such connection. That debate is of significance both in historic and contemporary terms. Racially based hypotheses have an impact the goes beyond a mere fringe theory. They are of significance enough to be the cause of debate and further scholarly rebutall within the wider discipline. For example Denny Borsboom excellent debunking of Kanazawa's evolutionary claims [] comes from an academic primarily focused on IRT rather than IQ, demonstrating the extent to which this debate has wide impact. The debate exists and it is a difficult one to document because the counter-argument is wide and complex, multi-levelled and multi-disciplinary. However, that counter-argument verifiably exists and hence although seperate fields of inquiry exist, scholars in those fields have joined the fray overtly (i.e. explicitly mentioning race and intelligence for the purpose of debunking hypotheses that link them). I think it is demonstrable without synthesis to show an ongoing debate in terms of race and intelligence which has had a significant influence on research in IQ, sociology and psychometrics. Nick Connolly (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, if you wish to present these fringe theories, they should be presented as they are in the real world, as the highly disputed fringe theories that they are, in fact bordering on pseudoscience. They should not be presented under the guise of being the current state of the art mainstream research, as nothing is further from the truth. This research is conducted by a handful of researchers, most of them being affiliated to one another (some through the Pioneer Fund), and their theories are highly debunked. If this are framed this carefully (as say, "creationist science" is properly framed), then indeed it might be worth an article. What I most strongly object to is presenting them as if they were mainstream, legitimate science with a large following; nothing is further from the truth.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. I dusted off my copy of Ashley Montagu's 'Race & IQ' (ed) which if you haven't read is a comprehensive debunking by various authors of Jensen's position and the Bell Curve's position. He does refer in his introduction as how one account for "differences in indiviudal abilities and group achievment of the different 'races'?" as a legitimate question. The answer to the question is not, of course, that somehow one group is genetically inferior. I'd see this article as being about that question and what was, historically, the default answer and how opinions have changed and diversified. It is like dealing with creationists but in this case we don't have a Darwin (or a DNA) because the ambiguity and lack of a deep theory of intelligence cuts both ways. Much of the structure is here. I think the right approach is to evolve this article towards a stable POV free survey of a controversial topic while bearing in mind that this is not the Intelligence article, the IQ article, the Psychometrics article or the Race article. Imagine an intelligent person who finds themselves embroiled in a debate on race and intelligence - I'd hope they'd be able to come to this article and have a good idea what positions will be argued and what data will be thrown at them.Nick Connolly (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Genetically different does not infer genetically inferior. Statements like this appeal to emotion and add nothing to the discussion.--Die4Dixie 14:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, we are talking about claims that genetic differences lead to superior or inferior IQ scores, so obviously this is about inferiority and superiority. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say this is the most reasonable and constructive approach to the article I have heard. It sounds to me like you are talking about an article that addresses a "meta-scientific" debate, one that is embedded in popular culture to an extent to which mainstream scientists must in some way acknowledge.  I see some value in this.  I do not think that it would be a substitute for a solid article on research on SES and IQ score variation (drawing largely on work by soiologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists), and another article on the heritability of IQ (drawing largely on work by population geneticists and developmental biologists, especially twin studies). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would not be an article on mainstream current research on SES and IQ score variations, but it could be encyclopaedic if presented from the side of a popular debate. These theories aren't scientifically notable, but they have certainly garnered the attention of a segment of the population, at least in the USA. Care would need to be taken to properly represent the debate outside the USA, as, AFAIK, the debate is much less notable there.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * *The current Achievment gap article could do with some work for example. I think the earlier points about undue weight make more sense in that context - i.e. what is the current state of research into achievment gaps between ethnic groups. This article then can be the 'whats all this fuss about race and IQ all about then?' article. For this a NPOV standard can be used - to be included the research has either appeared in a scholraly peer-reviewed jounarl or has been discussed in one (perhaps critically). That means Jensen or Lynn's views get a proper airing but not the views of some mindless racist. This standard allows for both race-IQ hypotheses and debunkings of them and is consistent with other controversial topics.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss this article. --Jagz (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you can't read this very section, this article and its orientation are precisely what we're discussing here. If I didn't know better, I'd think you're having severe comprehension problems.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do an RfC on the article splitting idea? You can also consider doing an RfC on the neutrality of article. --Jagz (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the consensus of editors wants to split the article, at this point I have no committed opinion. However, my point is that your previous comment that this section isn't discussing the article was totally off-base. You may want to dial down your attitude. If you do, I'll dial down mine, I promise. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been repeatedly discussed in the past to no avail. --Jagz (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, I am sorry you just do not get it. Slrubenstein, Nick Connolly, and Ramdrake were having reasonable exchange of ideas, leading in a constructive direction.  This very possibility firghtens and upsets Jagz.  As soon as he sees a few people working towards some kind of constructive engagement, he simply has to intervene with a meaningless, unconstructive comment.  It is his attempt to derail the constructive discussion we were having.  The only thing to do is ignore it.  I made a point, Nick made a point, I made a point, you made a point - let's just wait for Nick or other grown-ups to join us in our grown-up, reasonable, and constructive discussion.  Understand tht any time this happens Jagz will try to derail the discussion.  Just ignore it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about the same things over and over. --Jagz (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many comments today (including some of my own) appear to be veering from constructive content comment towards divisive/derisive commentary and personal attacks. Perhaps we should all have a cup of tea.
 * For the record, you can include me as one who is intrigued by and probably supportive of the possible realignment of this article that is being discussed. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See Alun's comments, and my comments, in the race section below, as to why the reorganization I propose would be an improvement. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Race
In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and ethnicity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept. Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race. --Jagz (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point! It is worth reading the article to find out (1) precisely how they define "race" and (2) what they conclude. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some geneticists have long argued that human genetic variability is so profound that race is not a scientifically useful label. Others point to clear disparities in health outcomes to argue that race matters. Recent research has found clusters of genes that can be used to identify broad racial categories like white, African-American, Hispanic or East Asian." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/washington/18nih.html?ref=us --Jagz (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Race is the word that English speaking people use to describe the categories "white", "black", "Asian" and so on. The extent to which human population genetics structure reflects those labels is of secondary concern. Even if there were no correspondence between population structure and racial labels, the continued pervasive use of those labels in research and in society would explain existence of discussions of "race and intelligence". Racial groups also differ in a myriad of social/cultural ways. In the 1960s the prima facie explanation of racial group differences in IQ scores was social-cultural-economic. Yet the discussion was still about race per se -- 'why do white children tend to score better than black children on tests?'. --Legalleft (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Race in the Social Sciences
Here is the definition of "race" forwarded by Eric Wolf in his 1982, Europe and the People Without History. This book was itself a synthesis of forty years of research by a host of cultural anthropologists. It was one of the most important books to come out in culural anthropology in the 1980s. I would not claim that all cultural anthropologists agree with it or love it, but I would wager that all cultural anthropologists would include it in their list of top ten books to have come out that decade. All would consider his views "notable" even if they do not share them.
 * The opposing interests that divide the working classes are further reinforced through appeals to "racial" and "ethnic" distinctions. Such appeals serve to allocate different categories of workers to rungs on the scale of labor markets, relegating stigmatized populations to the lower levels and insulating the higher echelons from competition from below.  Capitalism did not create all the distinctions of ethnicity and race that function to set off categories of workers from one another.  It is, nevertheless, the process of labor mobilization under capitalism that imparts to these distinctions their effective values.
 * In this regard, distinctons of "race" have implications rather different from "ethnic" variations. Racial distinctions, such as "Indian" or "Negro," are the outcome of the subjugation of populations in the course of European mercantile expansion.  The tern Indian stands for the conquored populations of the New World, in disregard of any cultural or physical differences among Native Americans.  Negro similarly serves as a cover term for the culturally and physically variable African populations that furnished slaves, as well as for the slaves themselves.  Indians are conquered people who could be forced to labor or pay tribute; Negroes are "hewers of wood and drawers of water," obtained in violence and pu to work under coercion.  These two terms thus single out for primary attention the historic c=fact that these populations were made to labor in servitude to support a new class of overlords.  Simultaneously, the terms disregard cultural and physical diferences within each large category, denying any constituent group political, economic, or ideological identity of its own.
 * Racial terms mirror the political process by which populations of whole continents were turned into providers of coerced surplus labor. Under capitalism these terms did not lose their association with civil-disbility.  They continue to invoke supposed decent from such subjugated populations so as to deny their putative decendents access to upper segments of lthe labor market.  "Indians" and "Negroes" are thus confined to the lower ranks of the industrial army or depressed into the industrial reserve.  The function of racial categories within capitalism is exclusionary.  They stigmatize groups in order to exclude them from more highly paid jobs and from access to the information needed for their execution.  They insulate the more advantaged workers against competition fro below, making it difficult for employers to use stigmatized populations as cheaper substitutes or as strikebreakers.  Finally, they weaken the ability of such groups to mobilize politically on their own behalf by forcing them back into casual employment and thereby intensifying competition among themfor scarcde and shifting resources.


 * While the categories of race serve primarily to exclude people from all but the lower echelons of the industrial army, ethnic categories express the ways that particular populations came to relate themselves to given segments of the labor market. Such cateories emerge from two sources, one external to the group in question, the other internal.  As each cohort entered the industrial process, outsiders were able to categorize it in terms of putative proveniance and supposed affinity to particular segments of the labor market.  At the same time, members of the cohort itself came to value membership in the group thus defined, as a qualification for establishing economic and political claims.  Such ethnicities rarely coincided with the initial self-identification of the industrial recruits, who thought of themselves as Hnovarians or Bavarians rather than as Germans, as members of their village or their parish (okiloca) rather than as Poles, as Tonga or yao rather than "Nyasalanders."  The more comprehensive categories emerged only as particular cohorts of workers gained access to different segments of the labor market and began to treat their access as a resource to be defended both socially and politically.  Such ethnicities are therefore not "primordial" social relationships.  They are historical products of labor market segmntation under the capitalist mode.

I quote Wolf extensively because I think he fits in with some claims made by Legalleft. But i have a larger point to make. Now, this view of race is radically different from the one presented by Alun. But this does not indicate a debate between evolutionary biologists or population geneticists and cultural anthropologists. That they happen to use the same popular term - race - is perhaps a coincidence; as technical terms, these are homonyms, really two completely different words, that mean completely different things, and are used in completely different contexts. Only lay people would mix them up, which is why there is some confusion among lay people (which I suggest explains why they are drawn to fringe theories that have no standing among scientists, biological or social). There is simply no reason to connect this definition of race to the one advanced by Alun. We are citing two incomensurate bodies of literature, bodies of literature that are concerned with different questions and different methods for answering their quesions. They might belong in one article on "race" that tries to cover the entire spectrum of views of race held by academics, but that is the only conceivable framework that would include both literatures. To put them in the same article on race and intelligence would be like having an article on Monkeys and intelligence, and have one section refer to cercopithecoida and another section refer to a made-for TV pop-music band. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really a brilliant analysis Slr! Of course it's obvious to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about that the term "race" (which I just managed to type as "arce" and that made me laugh) is not, and never has been, used consistently as Legalleft claims. Even the terms "white" and "black" are not at all as clear cut as Legalleft is trying to claim, and that's a citable fact. Alun (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article
When I and others started pruning and reorganizing the article after it was unlocked on February 1, I expected that environmental factors would be by far the predominant view; however, surprisingly, as the article developed, it became clear that this truly wasn't the case. The significantly genetic view is far more prevalent than I expected and it was in the article all along, just buried. It appears that the environmental view was prevalent in the early 1960's and people who expressed disagreement could possibly be fired from their jobs questioned these views put their careers at risk; this was perhaps partly in reaction to Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement in the USA. It seems that the tide has turned since then in favor of the significantly genentic view and there are probably quite a few "closet" believers we will never know about because of policitical correctness or fear of being labeled a racist, etc. I was never expecting that the article would show this but that is how it has turned out. --Jagz (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of no evidence that someone airing racist views in the 1960s was at serious risk of losing their job, except perhaps if they worked for the ACLU or B'nai Brith. It also seems to me that the strongest data about the relationship between poverty and social stigmatization and low IQ scores emerged in the 1980s and contines to emerge, as in the very important recent book by Flynn. I have a simple prediction to make: if someone does there research relying on the internet, they will find much material claiming that IQ differences between races reflect innate differences.  if one conducts their research through a sample of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the social or life sciences, and books published by academic presses, they will find much material documenting environmental causes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To Jagz: if you're judging by the slant of the article as it was back early this year, yes, it was still of course slanted on the side of the racialist view. This is because that is how the article was originally written, in conformity with the views of a handful of editors who took a WP:OWN attitude to the article, and eventually left sometime in 2007. Since then, no one has had the time to do a systematic overhaul. However, I can tell you this: if you overhaul this article based on the relative weight of the different views when the articles were merged, you will still have an article which is in violation of NPOV. The only way to remedy this is to have someone go through the actual scientific literature on the subject (as opposed to the crumbs we can access on the internet) and rewrite the article accordingly.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about research funding bias? --Jagz (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. I'm taking you mean the Pioneer Fund?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My prediction is that if someone rewrites the article heavily favoring the environment view, it will in time be changed back to a balance similar to what's in the article now and it won't be because of anything I did. If you'd like, go ahead and try. --Jagz (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your prediction under one condition: it will come true only if POV-pushing racists continue to use this article to forward their fringe views. If editors follow our NPOV guidelines and do serious research, however, I would have to reject your prediction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you expecting a change? --Jagz (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I expect the article to change? Indeed I do.  In a section above, my "comment on the preceding sections," I explained what I thought was a fundamental problem with this article; that there should be two different articles; that trying to create one article will inevitably push it to fringe POVs; with the sole exception of you, people responded favorably to my thoughts.  Then, in the section on "race," Alun and I provided further explanation as to why any attempt to ground this discussion involving race in sound science would require two different articles, otherwise this attempt will continue to violate NPOV.  Someone put in an RfC as to whether the POV tag was warranted and whether the article complies with NPOV and now there is an overhwelming majority of editors who agre, this article is fatally flawed and privileges a fringe POV and misses entirely mainstream science ... so yes, given that we know this article is a POV mess and that an accurate account of mainstream science requires two articles, I'd say that we can all expect not only a change but a big change.  Or did you mean, do I expect you to change and stop pushing a fringe, often racist, POV?  One can always hope! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL --Jagz (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slr is correct: the issue is socio-economic in scope (environmntal, if you wish to eschew the sociological term), not "racial" (for whatever that term is worth -- not much in my opinion, but so be it). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated in the article:


 * "The January 1997 issue of American Psychologist published eleven critical responses to the American Psychological Association (APA) report, most of which criticized the report's failure to examine all of the evidence for or against genetic contributions to racial differences in IQ. Charles Murray, for example, responded:"Actually, there is no direct evidence at all, just a wide variety of indirect evidence, almost all of which the task force chose to ignore.'"
 * As long as this indirect evidence keeps getting ignored by social scientists, there will be many people who will not blindly accept your view that the issue is only socio-economic in scope; that will be seen as smoke and mirrors. --Jagz (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indirect evidence is their pathetic excuse for no evidence. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it is like religion. --Jagz (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected to stop edit war
Please solve the disputes on the talk page, and not by reverting the article back and forth between preferred versions. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll do our best, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything was peaceful after the article was unlocked on February 1 until you decided to start participating again. --Jagz (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, be warned, do not violate WP:NPA. You do not own this article and cannot dictate who can and cannot participate. Since Ramdrake knows a lot more than you do, and is a better editor, I'd say his involvement is ndespensible. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop being belligerent. --Jagz (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, this is a difficult enough topic without inflaming things further. Knock off the personal attacks and snide remarks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the page has been protected
We have about one week (March 29) to come up with a plan. I would say we should first take a look at the RfC responses and some of the last sections; IMHO, they did contain some useful suggestions about what to do with the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How to move forward
I have a procedural and a substantive suggestion for moving forward.

Procedural suggestion
My first suggestion is that we avoid researching this article in an unconstructive way. In my experience, here is the least constructive way to research an article, especially one on a controversial topic: begin with a personal belief, for example blacks are less intelligent than whites, or there are no differences in IQ, or IQ doesn't exist; whatever the belief is it leads one to start with clear ideas about the contents or structure of the article. Then insist on an article that caters to that belief, and they they just go out looking selectively for whatever sources would fit their belief. Obviously this second method leads only to bad scholarship - one ends up taking things out of context and misunerstanding them, or making connections between different sources when none exist.

What would be the opposite procedure? Do not start with a proposal about the contents or structure of thye article. Instead start by trying to identify reliable, verifiable sources; we can then distinguish between different kinds of debates (like, the debate over the reason ofr a certain average heritability of intelligence among single-chorion twins among biologists; the debate over funding for public education in the US among politicians and policy-makers; research on racist representations of diferent groups of people, largely by historians and sociologists) and between notable views, like Phillips 1993 and Stromswold 2006, and fringe views, like Rushton, in one discussion among scientists. It is by doing this kind of research that people figure out merits an encyclopedia article or articles, and what they should cover/include.

In other words, start with an open-minded question: what do the most respected scientists doing the actual research think? For me the answer to my question would come from reading the most notable books and scientific articles to see how the scientists themselves frame the issue. We might discover that there is a major controversy these scientists are debating and it actually is not about genetic versus environmental causes for the IQ gap at all, but something else. What? i have no idea - that is my point, let's not make any assumptions.

How do we know what are the best books and articles? I have a few suggestions that are meant to generate a list of publications we can all agree are notable among scholars: see if we can get syllabi for graduate school courses on the topic and see what books and articles they assign. See what books are published by university presses, and see if they were well-reviewed in the major relevant journals (in psychology, anthropoloogy, sociology, biology). Then see what other books and articles these books cite as authoritative. See what articles have come out in major peer-reviewed journals, and see what books and articles these articles cite as authoritative. I know one needs access to a good library to do this kind of research ... but I think this is the kind of research one must do to write a great encyclopedia article.

Let me be very concrete and propose a task we could divide up and do over the next week: I am saying it is premature to come up with a title until we have trawled the literature. I also think we have enough people who know enough to know how to do this, even before knowing what the right titel for an article would be. We are concerned with the following key words: "race", "intelligence", "genetics", "environmental" and either "SES" or a proxy (social or status would probably work). I suggest anyone with a good library and therefore a good reference librarian request a search for articles with these keywords in the major relevant journals. These would be:
 * Interdisciplinary
 * Critical Inquiry
 * Public Culture
 * Social Science Research
 * Social Text


 * Anthropology
 * American Anthropologist
 * American Ethnologist
 * Annual Review of Anthropology
 * Cultural Anthropology
 * Current Anthropologist
 * Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power
 * American Journal of Physical Anthropology


 * Communications (includes media studies)
 * Communication Theory
 * Human Communication Research
 * Public Opinion Quarterly


 * Education
 * Review of Educational Research


 * Educational Psychology
 * Child Development
 * Education Psychology
 * Education Psychology Review
 * Journal of Learning Science


 * Genetics
 * American Journal of Human Genetics
 * Annual Review of Genetics
 * Genetics and Development
 * Genome Research
 * Nature Genetics
 * Nature Review Genetics


 * History
 * American Historical Review
 * Comparative Studies in Society and History
 * Journal of Modern History
 * Journal of Social History
 * Past and Present


 * Sociology
 * American Journal of Sociology
 * American Sociological Review
 * Annual Review of Sociology
 * Journal of Historical Sociology
 * Law and Society Review


 * Psychology
 * American Psychologist
 * Annual Review of Psychology
 * Behavior Genetics
 * Behavioral Brain Science
 * Biological Psychology
 * Cognitive Psychology
 * Psychological Bulletin
 * Psychology Review

I have provided a long list of journals precisely in an attempt to capture a wide range of approaches and views. However, I bet many of these journals have not had any relevant articles in the last few years. So while I realize this is a lot of journals, I bet if we restrict searches to all keywords, I bet the results would be managable. I am pretty sure I got the leading journals in these relevant disciplines but yes, it would be great if there were other editors who could sy "no, this is not a respected journal" or "Add the following to the list ..."

A keyword search of these major journals would not I think assume or imply any particular point of view. As I said I think that if we use enough keywords, the results will be managable but perhaps someone can suggest a way to further limit it (for starts, we can ask the reference librarian to search just the past three years. I bet that won't turn up much and we will want to expand it to the past five or even ten years.

The result will be a determinate set of articles that would tell us what the main debates are which would dictate to us the articles and article titles and contents. The key point is not to cherry-pick sources or quotes we like. I have no idea whatr this process would yield; that is the whole point.

But if we want to slide over this stage, based on what I know, I believe this method would lead to three articles, which leads me to my substantive proposals:

Proposal One: "Controversies over Race and IQ in Popular Culture"
This article is ostensibly about debates concerning the relationship between race and intelligence; much of it seems to be about the view that racial differences cause differences in IQ. This is a nonsense view among scientists. But it seems to be a view popular among many non-scientists. So let's call a spade a spade. I see this article as following on some discussion from above:


 * The field of intelligence testing is large and it is true that the use of race as an explantion of intergroup differences in IQ is a minority opinion. However firstly the race explanation is of historical significance and secondly there exist a large critical literature from modern researcher who posit other explanations (or critique methodology) that are cast in terms of race-intelligence debate if only to explain why there is no such connection. That debate is of significance both in historic and contemporary terms. Racially based hypotheses have an impact the goes beyond a mere fringe theory. They are of significance enough to be the cause of debate and further scholarly rebutall within the wider discipline. For example Denny Borsboom excellent debunking of Kanazawa's evolutionary claims [] comes from an academic primarily focused on IRT rather than IQ, demonstrating the extent to which this debate has wide impact. The debate exists and it is a difficult one to document because the counter-argument is wide and complex, multi-levelled and multi-disciplinary. However, that counter-argument verifiably exists and hence although seperate fields of inquiry exist, scholars in those fields have joined the fray overtly (i.e. explicitly mentioning race and intelligence for the purpose of debunking hypotheses that link them). I think it is demonstrable without synthesis to show an ongoing debate in terms of race and intelligence which has had a significant influence on research in IQ, sociology and psychometrics. Nick Connolly (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, if you wish to present these fringe theories, they should be presented as they are in the real world, as the highly disputed fringe theories that they are, in fact bordering on pseudoscience. They should not be presented under the guise of being the current state of the art mainstream research, as nothing is further from the truth. This research is conducted by a handful of researchers, most of them being affiliated to one another (some through the Pioneer Fund), and their theories are highly debunked. If this are framed this carefully (as say, "creationist science" is properly framed), then indeed it might be worth an article. What I most strongly object to is presenting them as if they were mainstream, legitimate science with a large following; nothing is further from the truth.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. I dusted off my copy of Ashley Montagu's 'Race & IQ' (ed) which if you haven't read is a comprehensive debunking by various authors of Jensen's position and the Bell Curve's position. He does refer in his introduction as how one account for "differences in indiviudal abilities and group achievment of the different 'races'?" as a legitimate question. The answer to the question is not, of course, that somehow one group is genetically inferior. I'd see this article as being about that question and what was, historically, the default answer and how opinions have changed and diversified. It is like dealing with creationists but in this case we don't have a Darwin (or a DNA) because the ambiguity and lack of a deep theory of intelligence cuts both ways. Much of the structure is here. I think the right approach is to evolve this article towards a stable POV free survey of a controversial topic while bearing in mind that this is not the Intelligence article, the IQ article, the Psychometrics article or the Race article. Imagine an intelligent person who finds themselves embroiled in a debate on race and intelligence - I'd hope they'd be able to come to this article and have a good idea what positions will be argued and what data will be thrown at them.Nick Connolly (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say this is the most reasonable and constructive approach to the article I have heard. It sounds to me like you are talking about an article that addresses a "meta-scientific" debate, one that is embedded in popular culture to an extent to which mainstream scientists must in some way acknowledge.  I see some value in this.  I do not think that it would be a substitute for a solid article on research on SES and IQ score variation (drawing largely on work by soiologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists), and another article on the heritability of IQ (drawing largely on work by population geneticists and developmental biologists, especially twin studies). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would not be an article on mainstream current research on SES and IQ score variations, but it could be encyclopaedic if presented from the side of a popular debate. These theories aren't scientifically notable, but they have certainly garnered the attention of a segment of the population, at least in the USA. Care would need to be taken to properly represent the debate outside the USA, as, AFAIK, the debate is much less notable there.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the key to an NPOV article is to find reliable, notable sources first, however, and then decide on the contents and structure later.

Montagu's book is good, but here are three other, more recent, and I think essential for the article I am proposing or any comparable article on the popular beliefs about race, or racist science:


 * The Problem of Race in the Twenty-First Century. Thomas C. Holt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. 146 pp.
 * Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms. Alexander Alland Jr. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 219 pp.
 * The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. William H. Tucker. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002. 286 pp.

(Anyone who doubts that Rushton and Hernstein and Murray are fringe theories and wants to know what good sources are, should read these books!!) Is there any chance Ramdrake and Nick Connolly could divide up these three books along with Montagu's book and write a first draft of this proposed artcile, using their won discussion above as a starting point for clarifying the scope of the article?

Draw on major popular magazines (Time, Newsweek) and newspapers to see how the popular media reports the issue. Also, look for articles in the major media studies journals: To see how they analyze the portrayal of this issue in the medial.
 * Communication Theory
 * Human Communication Research
 * Public Opinion Quarterly

"Constructing Paper Dolls: The Discourse of Personality Testing in Organizational Practice" Majia Holmer Nadesan. Communication Theory, Volume 7, Issue 3, Page 189-218, Aug 1997,

"Poverty as We Know It: Media Portrayals of the Poor" Rosalee A. Clawson; Rakuya Trice The Public Opinion Quarterly > Vol. 64, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 53-64

"Race, Public Opinion, and the Social Sphere" Lawrence Bobo The Public Opinion Quarterly > Vol. 61, No. 1, Special Issue on Race (Spring, 1997), pp. 1-15

It is also worth looking at: for possible analyses of this issue in popular culture.
 * Public Culture
 * Representations

"The Regents on Race and Diversity: Representations and Reflections" Marianne Constable Representations > No. 55, Special Issue: Race and Representation: Affirmative Action (Summer, 1996), pp. 92-97

"The Trope of a New Negro and the Reconstruction of the Image of the Black" Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Representations > No. 24, Special Issue: America Reconstructed, 1840-1940 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 129-155

"Individual Fairness, Group Preferences, and the California Strategy" Troy Duster Representations > No. 55, Special Issue: Race and Representation: Affirmative Action (Summer, 1996), pp. 41-58

"Darwin's Savage Mnemonics" Cannon Schmitt ''Representations' > No. 88 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 55-80

Proposal Two: "The Heritability of IQ"
What do people mean when they claim that racial differences cause differences in IQ? According the the lead, it sounds like some people think that race stands for biological differences. In the "Race" section above Alun demonstrates that for biologists race is subspecies and there are no meaningful human races in a biological sense. The question is whether there is a genetic component to differences in IQ scores and this question has nothing to do with "race." Study on the biology of IQ hinges on twin studies. Here is a fair sample of the major sources:

To start us off, I propose we look at these articles:
 * Bouchard, Arvey, Keller, Segal, 1992, Genetic Influences on Job Satisfaction: A Reply to Cropanzano and James,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77(1): 89-93
 * Devlin, Daniels, Roeder 1997 “The heritability of IQ” Nature 388: 468-471
 * Jacobs, Van Gestel, Derom, Thiery, Vernon, Derom, and Vlietinck, 2001, “Heritability Estimates of Intelligence in Twins: Effect of Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 31(2): 209-217
 * McCartney, Harris, and Bernieri, 1990, “Growing Up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metanalysis of Twin Studies” Psychological Bulletin 107(2) 226-237
 * Phelps, Davis, Schwartz, 1997, “Nature, Nurture and Twin research Strategies” in Current Directions in Psychological Science 6(6): 117-121
 * Plomin and Loehlin, 1989, “Direct and Indirect IQ Heritability Estimates: a Puzzle” Behavior Genetics 19(3): 33-342
 * Race, Townswend, Hughes, 285-291, “Chorion Type, Birthweight Discordance, and tooth-Size Variability in Australian Monozygotic Twins” Twin Research and Human Genetics 9(2) 285-291 (no, not about IQ – but as it is about other clear phenotypic traits it provides a good benchmark for assessing the value of twin studies and the various factors one must also take into account)
 * Reed, Carmelli, Rosenman, 1991, “Effects of Placentation in Selected Type A Behaviors in Adult males in the national Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Twin Study,” Behavior Genetics 21(1) 1-19
 * Segal, 19999, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell us About Human Behavior
 * Sokol, Moore, Rose, Williams, reed, and Christian, 1995, “Intrapair Differences in Personality and Cognitive Ability Among Mynozygotic Twins Distinguished by Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 25(5) 456-466
 * Stromswold, 2006, “Why Aren’t Identical Twins Linguistically Identical?” Cognition 101(2): 333-383

I repeat, the point is not to cherry-pick quotes that we agree or disagree with. The point is to examine reliable sources to find out - yes, find out, as if e may actually learn something new - what the notable views are. From what I gather from this literature, most of the current scholarship - mainstream scholarship - on IQ scores is not even concerned with the debate "is it environmental or is it genetic." There is a body of literature, and I provided many citations above, and obviously an article on this research must be organized around the most notable and mainstream views on the matter - it should include all notable views ... but I think that the major notable views should be the principle factor in the organization and presentation of the article.

Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles. These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70. In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies.

Perhaps someone who has training in genetics and access to these journals could take the first step in sketching out an article on Heritability and IQ.?
 * Here is the existing article: Heritability of IQ. --Jagz (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - the article is indeed a start but does need work. But you are right about this being the article in which to address the heritability of IQ.  Since this article exists, I think we can reserve other articles (like the present one) for other issues. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article also confuses heritability with inheritance. Heritability is a measure of the contribution of genes to variance, the article states this specifically in the section "Heritability calculations", but in the introduction it states "The degree to which IQ, or intelligence quotient, is passed down through the generations has been the subject of extensive research. " This is untrue, heritability does not measure this, it attempts to measures the relative contribution of genes to the Variance of a phenotype. Regardless of the validity of IQ as a measure of phenotype (something not necessarily accepted by many scientists), heritability does not measure the contribution of genes to a phenotype. As such it is a relative measure. When we can control for environment, then the genetic contribution to variance in a trait that is under both environmental and genetic influence will be high, when we can control for genes the environmental contribution to variance will be high for the same trait, the measurement is not a fixed, constant for any given trait, but varies depending upon the study design etc. The article is also incorrect in claiming that "Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genetic variation within a population." Heritability is the proportion of variance in a traight that is attributable to genetic variation when we control for environment. This article seems to have been written by someone whith a pov to push who does not know what they are talking about. Alun (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a pretty poor article, but that's not important here. -- The article is also incorrect in claiming that "Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genetic variation within a population." -- That one is correct. You can estimate heritability by a number of methods, some of them don't involve controlling for environment, such as MZ twins reared apart. http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgssapplets/heritability/heritability.intro.html --Legalleft (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is possible to measure heritability without controlling for environment. But we are not discussing the estimation/measurement of heritability, we are discussing the definition of heritability."Heritability refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment." In this article Stephen Rose also states that heritability estimates are little more than an example of GIGO, which is the opinion of a reliable academic source and therefore citable on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the same thing as "controlling" for environment as the term is commonly used, but rather a matter of the fact that the heritability of a trait is a function of the existing genetic and environmental factors in a population when you measure it. If the genes or environment changes (if the population changes), you can't necessarily say what the heritability is any longer. Also, one can cite Rose or Kamin or whomever, but they're opinions are extremely marginal. See Not in Our Genes. --Legalleft (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without controls no scientific experiment is ever valid. The measurement of heritability is clearly more applicable when the environments of the individuals under investigation can be assumed to be relatively uniform, it was invented for measuring crop yields, where environment can be relatively easily controlled. Likewise the measurement of environment can only be done when genetic factors are relatively homogeneous (or why bother to use identical twin studies? this is controlling for genetics). I don't know how the term "control" is "commonly used", but I do know how it is used in science and that's how I was using it. Alun (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Heritability estimates in humans are not performed the same way they are in experimental systems. You rely on natural experiments and estimate the partitioning of the variance based on these natural experiments: twins, other familial relations, siblings, etc. The only sense in which there's a control is that, for example, twins reared apart are assumed to have no shared environmental variance, whereas adopted family members are assumed to have no shared genetic variance, and so on. For references see: Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1998). or better yet Falconer, D. S. & Mackay, T. F. C. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (Longman, Harlow, 1996). --Legalleft (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal Three: "IQ and SES"
In the "Race" section above, I explain how for anthropologists races have nothing to do with biology. Anthropologists and sociologists do howeve recognize races as social constructions. What this means is that "race" is a marker of social differences. So if someone says that race may cause difference in IQ, they could be saying that social factors cause differences in IQ. Indeed, social scientists argue that to understand differences in IQ between races we have to look at non-biological stuff. By the way, we might want to include various achievement scores given to school children at different ages. In any event the book by Flynn is robably the state of the art in current research on the matter and would be invaluable.

James Flynn, What is Intelligence

But we should also just put the terms "IQ" and "SES," or even "race" and "intelligence," into search engines for these journals and see what we come up with.: Again, I do not know what we would come up with - that is my whole point, this is unbiased - but whatever we come up with would reflect good solid scholarship.
 * Review of Educational Research
 * American Anthropologist
 * American Ethnologist
 * Anthropology Quarterly
 * Cultural Anthropology
 * Current Anthropologist
 * Journal of Anthropological Research
 * American Journal of Sociology
 * American Sociological Review
 * British Journal of Sociology
 * Journal of Historical Sociology

I did a search of some anthropology journals and came up with this:

"Institutionalized Racism and the Education of Blacks" Arthur K. Spears Anthropology & Education Quarterly. Jul 1978, Vol. 9, No. 2: 127-136

Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High. Signithia Fordham. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. 411 pp.

"Social Stratification and the Socialization of Competence" John U. Ogbu Anthropology & Education Quarterly. Apr 1979, Vol. 10, No. 1: 3-20.

Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. John U. Ogbu.

"High-Stakes Accountability, Minority Youth, and Ethnography: Assessing the Multiple Effects" Kris Sloan Anthropology & Education Quarterly. Mar 2007, Vol. 38, No. 1: 24-41.

"The Comparative Motor Development of Baganda, American White, and American Black Infants" Janet E. Kilbride, , Michael C. Robbins , , Philip L. Kilbride American Anthropologist. Dec 1970, Vol. 72, No. 6: 1422-1428.

"The Collection and Analysis of Ethnographic Data in Educational Research" Stephen E. Fienberg Anthropology & Education Quarterly. May 1977, Vol. 8, No. 2: 50-57.

"Social Economic Status and Educational Achievement: A Review Article" George Clement Bond Anthropology & Education Quarterly. Dec 1981, Vol. 12, No. 4: 227-257.

''Interrogating "Blackness": Race and Identity-formation in the African Diaspora Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race.'' Milton Vickerman. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999. xi + 2)1 pp.

Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Mary C. Waters. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press, 1999. xii - 413 pp.

I haven't read these so I have no idea what view they support- again, that is the idea of not cherry picking.
 * You can use this article, it needs help: Environment and intelligence. --Jagz (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this can just lead to more confusion. Geneticists debating the heritability of IQ address, among other things, fetal environment. This is not about reproducing an arbitrary and unscientific distinction between genes and environment, this is about adequatly representing notable bodies of research and scholarly debates. There is a body of research (some of which i cite) that addresses social and economic status, this is much more precise than "environment". Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing arbitrary about distinguishing between genes and environment when it comes to population-wide individual variation (as compared to individual-level causation) -- unless you are generally criticizing the methods of behavior genetics. Also, while issues such as chorion and prenatal effects are discussed in the literature, you have to dig pretty deeply to hit that level of detail. At that level, the primary literature is too complex for a novice to summarize (or even catalog). Bouchard and McGue's massive review reported this on chorion :
 * The applicability of the equal environmental similarity assumption extends to the prenatal as well as the postnatal environment. In utero, twins can be distinguished in terms of whether they share a chorion, and thus have a single placenta. MZ twins can be monochorionic (MC) or dichorionic (DC) depending on the timing of their division; DZ twins are always DC. MC twins almost always share the same placenta and if this makes them more similar than DC and DZ twins we may have a specific example of violation of the trait-relevant equal environment assumption (Prescott et al., 1999). A small number of studies comparing very small numbers of MC and DC twins suggested that MC twins are more similar than DC twins on some, but not all, measures of mental abilities (Melnick et al., 1978; Rose et al., 1981). A greater number of small-sample studies (Brown, 1977; Welch et al., 1978; Sokol et al., 1995; Gutknecht et al., 1999; Riese, 1999), however, failed to replicate these chorion effects. Moreover, a recent, large epidemiological study (Derom et al., 2001) using a near-representative sample from the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey could not replicate the specific effects previously reported and found no chorion effect on total IQ (rMC = .83, n = 175 pairs; rDC = .82, n = 95 pairs; rDZ  .44, n = 181 pairs). This latter study did report a chorion effect for two different mental ability measures, but the effects were very small, prompting the authors to emphasize caution and the need for replication. Nevertheless, careful assessment of twin placentation at birth would be highly desirable and significantly improve the quality of twin studies. It would also be very useful to parents and physicians as some rare physical disease processes occur in MC twins that do not occur in DC twins (Machin, 2001). For these diseases chorion type is a trait-relevant environmental variable. Generally speaking, however, twins do not differ in terms of their disease related characteristics (Andrew et al., 2001), but see Phelps et al. (1997) for arguments regarding viral influences on schizophrenia, Phillips (1993) for arguments regarding placentation and the fetal origin of disease hypothesis (i.e., that adult-onset disorders are affected by in utero stress and trauma), and subsequent defense of the twin method by a number of investigators (Braun and Caporaso, 1993; Duffy, 1993; Leslie and Pyke, 1993; Macdonald, 1993; Christensen et al., 1995). An entire issue of the journal Twin Research was devoted to the fetal origin of disease hypothesis (Lambalk and Roseboom, 2001), but none of the articles dealt with behavioral phenotypes. Fortunately, inferences about the nature and existence of genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in behavior do not rest solely with twin studies....
 * Also in that review they critically discuss the Devlin et al Nature paper. That kind of analysis is beyond the scope of a wikipedia editor. Thus, a reliance on 2ndary sources is essential. --Legalleft (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal Four: How to deal with theories that are fringe among scientists but notable in popular culture?
I would propose additional single articles. So, for example one article on J. Philippe Rushton, that goes into great detail about his book and its reception. One article on The Bell Curve that goes into its arguments and the reception. (e.g. The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America Steven Fraser, ed. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995. 216 pp.)

The idea is simple: to comply with NPOV, we need a way to include notable views in Wikipedia while keeping fringe and pseudoscientific views out of articles on scientific topics/areas of research. Specific articles on controversial books seems like the most elegant way to accomplish this. After all, what is notable is the controversy provoked by the book - not the contribution of the authors' views to any scientific research. So let's have articles on those controversial books!

Discussion of four Proposals
It is my believe that the method I propose is the best method for producing NPOV and NOR compliant, truly encyclopedic articles that do justice to the range of actual scientific researchy. I have proposed a minimum of three, perhaps up to six or seven, articles that would together provide comprehensive comverage of these issues while avoiding all the problems that have made this article a collosal waste of time, and useless to our readers. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One item that needs to be done once this article is unprotected is slap a Pseudoscience cat on it. This article is essentially a science article, so we should not give undue weight to fringe theories.  The fringe theories should be mentioned only as a section called Popular but very unscientific theories (OK, we can clean that up), with verified and reliable references stating where they are mentioned, and certainly adding verified refutation of the fringe theories.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is not a determination we should make without imposing our own POV. The point I've made repeatedly still remains: the views people find objectionable (for good reason) are still views that get coverage within peer-reviewed journals within the domain of IQ-testing. Yes much of the research is flawed, and is flawed in three fundamental ways; a lack of a clear theory of intelligence, poor understanding of the relation between IQ and intelligence and weak methodology in studying the differences. However much of those criticisms cannot be confined solely to those proposing a race-IQ link. Gardener's multiple intelligences, explanations of the Flynn effect, hypothesis behind SES and IQ, stereotype threat can all be regarded as weak science and arguably pseudoscience. This inevitable in a science which is still stumbling around in the dark. In short the above does not bring peace to the edit war. That edit war will only be resolved by including those views which do appear in referenced literature - no other solution is possible because those views easily meet the core criteria of Wikipedia which is VERFIABILITY - they are easily and comprehensively referenced. Consequently they can and will keep popping up without an editor engaging in vandalism. After all even if we cast the discussion in terms of SES (as indeed the historical discussion in the UK was primaily about I and social class) then a supporter of Jensen's view or proponent of the Bell Curve can still point to research which suggests that varitaions in SES may have a race/genetic origin. You need a better answer than that those views aren't popular. The danger is this issue metastatising into multiple articles.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I must side with Nick on this point, that few researchers have actually called the "Race and IQ" studies actual pseudoscience (although they have been largely debunked, and called "fringe" repeatedly. Is there a Fringe Theory cat we could slap on this rather than a pseudoscience tag, just for the sake of complete honesty?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is a definition, much like scientific method defines science. It does not always require a citation to prove it so.  However, I'm sure we can find one.  The casual reader needs to know that this so called "theory" is in fact unsupported by anything scientific, but those who engage in it utilize a process called "pseudoscience."  The anti-semites and racists will believe whatever they want, but our job is to present it in a manner so that the innocent bystander doesn't come to this article and think, "yeah, there's evidence that some race is dumber than another one."   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case I'd regard that as a definite POV imposition on the article. The methodological problems with the Race IQ claims would extend to many areas of psychology. These claims lie within an academic discipline and within the limits of that discipline.The people who have proposed such links are not minor fringe figures within intelligence testing but figures of some note in their own right . The discussion (and debunking) of these theories has taken place within scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Whilst the race-IQ claims may (like holocaust denial) be motivated by racism and promoted by racist groups that doesn't mean that the race-IQ claims are of the same pseudo-scholarship as holocaust denial. Seperating our distaste for the views that underpin the claims for the disputed evidence for the claims is important if a stable article is to be created. I agree with Orangemarlin that the innocent bystander is the person we should be thinking of, but we don't want that same bystander to be swayed by claims that supposed evidence has been hidden. We aren't doing that innocent bystander any favours if they don't come away adequately briefed. Nor should we pretend that there is a slam-dunk counter-explanation that transcends the methodological flaws in Jensen et al's work. The reality is we don't know why IQ varies across groups or whether there are heridtary differences between groups or even how big those differences are. That gap in our knowledge means that the more race based theories aren't as thoroughly debunked as we might like. Pretending otherwise is an error.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's any help, Francisco Gil-White is one of the few who actually called it "pseudoscience".--Ramdrake (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that works for me. Can we use it? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * smile you could but be prepared for a meta-argument about the argument. Once the argument comes down to which is the mainstream position and which is the fringe position the other side aren't unarmed. The next step after that is the meta-meta-argument in which all and sundry argue about which bit of research about which bit of research is the mainstream position is the proper kind of research and so on... Nick Connolly (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that Francisco Gil-White is also a somewhat fringy character in his own right. Since he is an anthropologist, maybe Slrubenstein would be more familiar with his works and the controversy about him. I'm no anthropologist myself.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick Connolly is correct (in everything I've read from him about policy).. Picking up where his comment left off. You can't categorize an article as Pseudoscience when there isn't a signficant scholarly consensus that the topic is pseudoscience. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Category. --Legalleft (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Legalleft, there isn't a significant scholarly consensus that the "pro" side of research is pseudoscience, but there is an easily demonstrable scholarly consensus that it is sloppy science. That, and the fact that the one peer-reviewed journal which publishes a significant number of these studies Ingtelligence, has several Pioneer Fundees (including JP Rushton as the head) on its review board should speak amply for itself.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is little understanding in science now of the biology of race, what intelligence is, and the biology of intelligence. An article about race and intelligence is mostly speculation from both the environmental and genetic standpoint. It is my understanding that the AfD on this article showed that people do not want this article split up as they called for all sub-articles to be merged with this one. They also did not want this article deleted. The fact is that environmental factors only show their effects via genes and that people are genetically different, so trying to separate environmental factors from genetics is impossible. --Jagz (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, human variation (both physical and genetic) has been extensively studied. Biologists understand how variation is distributed within the human species, and have concluded that there is no biological justification for the subdivision of our species into subspecific categories. Our taxonomy is well understood and our biology has been more extensively studied than the biology of any other organism. Any claim that human variation is somehow not "understood" displays either a lack of knowledge or a fundamental bias. Obviously we don't know everything, but to claim little understanding is simply wrong. Alun (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do currently have little understanding. The proposition that there exists "no biological justification for the subdivision of our species into subspecific categories" only illustrates what little understanding we currently possess.  We could equally state that there exists "no environmental justification."  However, it is likely this proposition will not hold up.  We're already seeing dings in the armor.  We only need our eyes to see that there is variance in phenotype among humans.  We could, if we chose to, divide humans into blue-eyed humans, brown-eyed humans, and neither blue-eyed, nor brown-eyed humans.  Whether there is utility to such distinctions is dubious.  We are currently witnessing a trickle of data coming out in rather high profile journals that define the biology behind such differences.  Furthermore, the nature vs. nurture dichotomy has recently died.  We know now that plasticity exists, i.e. "nurture" can change how some genes are expressed and how they act after being expressed; however, we also know that the phenotypic expression of some genomic changes/mutations/SNP/etc. cannot be compensated for regardless to changes in the environment.  The big question, in relation to this article, is whether the genomic correlates of phenotype will stratify across traditionally held concepts of race.  The mainstream of academia says no; however, in the last ten years or so have we have acquired more sophisticated tools to address this question.  Thing is, no one wants know the answer.165.123.139.232 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't use the word nonsense any more, it is offensive. --Jagz (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, no one here is saying that individual differences in IQ aren't at least partly genetic; in fact, there is good evidence that they are at least in part genetically driven. What most editors (and the majority of the scholars in related subjects) object to is introducing the notion of race, which in the human race species is entirely an empirical, social construct, and use it as a valid proxy for human genetic diversity. While there is good evidence for a genetic cause to individual differences in IQ, there is no direct evidence for group differences in IQ, much less racially-based. That a dozen or so researchers publish a gazillion papers trying to demonstrate that this isn't the case doesn't change the fact that mainstream science has oft deconstructed such arguments and found them faulty, even sloppy thinking.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the AfD? Actually, I believe this article survived two AfDs. --Jagz (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD has nothing to do with this. In fact, several editors from the latest AfD thought the article needed to be rewritten extensively (some even from scratch). The AfD was not a license saying the article was balanced, NPOV or anything of the sort. It was just a consensus that the subject was noteworthy enough to be kept. It didn't say anything about how correct or incorrect the science behind this field of research is.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposals essentially involve deleting an article with the name "Race and intelligence", do they not? The AfDs seemed to indicate that the consensus is to not delete this article. The AfD also seemed to show that people do not want the article broken up into sub-articles. No? --Jagz (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the proposals essentyially involve a complete rewriting of the subject matter, and possibly a change of title, if appropriate. The need for a complete rewriting has already been raised several times in the different AfD. People didn't want the subject broken up into several different articles, but the proposal is to write this one as the fringe science that it is and to write another one on the legitimate science of IQ heritability studies. Not sure why you'd be confused here.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my request for a rewrite of the article from last year. --Jagz (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure Jagz's comments are useful - the proposals I made above make it clear that intelligence is heritable. Tere is no debate over that. There is some debate ove the actual heritbility, and an article should go into it. And whether one of us is interested in this or not, geneticists are debating the influence of fetal environment in twin-studies and this is highly relevant and we should cover that as well, t least in some article. Jagz brings up the AfD - old history, but maybe because he recently put in and RfC on the neutrality of this article and the overwheloming majority say it violates NPOV. An article with such NPOV problems either needs to be completely rewritten or replaced by other articles. At the time of the RfC there were no clear, workable alternatives. Let's see if can develop some. I have proposed three specific articles.

I also used the word "pseudoscience" which I now fear turns out to be a red-herring. If several constructive editors take issue with my use the word, let's just drop the matter, I take it back, okay? ersonally I do have serious qualms when psychologists start to make claims about fields of knowledge outside their own disciplinary expertise (e.g. evolutionary theory); I would be just as skeptical of an anthropologist making original claims about astronomy. But no Wikipedia article can suggest that an entire academic discipline is pseudoscience and that was not my intention.

Finally, about Gil White: disclaimer, I know him personally. Bracketing our personal relationship, I would say that his claims about psychology itself as being pseudosciece are fringe. In fact, he had a tenure track position in the University of Pennsylvaia's psychology department and one could say he is as much a psychologist as anthropologist. Be that as it may, he was dismissed from his position and much of his work is controversial. Did he call psychology pseudosicence in a peer-rviewed publication? If so tht may count as a reliable source and as long as we identify him as a controversial figure perhaps it could go in. But if it came from his website I would not include it.

Rather than argue about pseudoscience, perhpas others could start revising, reformulating, or building on my proposals? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * SLR, I have no more wish than you to argue about R&I research putatively being pseudoscience. Gil-White's comment about this was in his online self-published book "Resurrecting racism", so I have reservations possibly just as severe as you about including it. However, the question which is bugging me is this: how can we fairly, neutrally represent a field of research which (as my father used to say) is famous for being infamous? What I mean to say is that the volume of science dedicated to debunking the theories of Rushton, Murray, Lynn and co. is to the best of my knowledge larger than the even very prolific writings of these authors. If you also figure that many may also have found the theories unworthy of a dignified response, this is a field with far more debunkers than proponents, whether or not we want to call it pseudoscience. That is why I originally asked if there was a clear "Fringe theory" cat distinct from the pseudoscience category. The pseudoscience tag may not apply in all rigor, but reality commends that this be treated with a fair warning to the reader that this isn't seen by many as good science in any sense of the word. Constructive suggestions and comments most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SLR, you state, "Jagz brings up the AfD - old history, but maybe because he recently put in and RfC on the neutrality of this article and the overwheloming majority say it violates NPOV." It is unfair of you to publicly question my motives in this manner. --Jagz (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you write, "how can we fairly, neutrally represent a field of research which (as my father used to say) is famous for being infamous? .... a field with far more debunkers than proponents ...." I think we should skip the semantic argument over pseudoscience entirely and stick with the point that you so clearly make. I believe that in these cases, the matter is best served by articles on the specific controversy itself. If The Bell Curve is notable because it spawned loads of critiques, especially in trade presses or intended for popular audiences, and is not part of any notable scientific debate, I think it is too fringe to be included in any article on a scientific debate. But the controversy itself is notable. This is my fourth proposal: we have an article already on The Bell Curve; cover the controversy there. We have an article on on Race, Evolution and Behavior - cover the article there. This is a content fork: some articles cover controversial books (proposal four). My proposals two and three are meant to cover notable scientific debates. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in the kind of a priori rewrites being proposed. For example, the *precise* heritability of IQ in the US population (mostly from data on whites) has little importance to the scholarly debate regarding the cause of group differences. The solution -- there are similar, shorter-than-book length articles on this topic in the secondary and tertiary literature. Just model the article after them. Here are many from the external links section: All one need do is *report* what's written in this articles and others like them. It should be fairly easy and most of the article content is already aimed in that direction. --Legalleft (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence
 * Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. American Anthropological Association. Adopted December 1994.
 * Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13–23 Jan–Feb 1997
 * James Flynn and Charles Murray debate – news summary
 * June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
 * Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
 * There Are No Public-Policy Implications Robert J. Sternberg
 * What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True? Linda S. Gottfredson
 * Heredity, Environment, and Race Differences in IQ Richard E. Nisbett
 * The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson
 * Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
 * Race, Genetics and IQ Richard E. Nisbett (PDF)
 * The Inequality Taboo Charles Murray archived version
 * The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) online (page-image) version of ISBN 0-8157-4609-1

Also, it's probably advisable to keep the level of technical detail to a minimum. The level of complexity reported in a magazine such as The Economist or Scientific American is probably where we want to limit most discussions. That itself should limit the agglomeration of esoteric details. --Legalleft (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Legalleft, it seems you are making a priori judgments. I merely observe that there is a considerable body of research, including debate among scientists, cncerning the heritability of IQ.  I think this encyclopedia should have an article providng an account of this research and debates.  That is all.  That this body of literature happens to address things you personaly are interested in, or that I personaly am interested in - or not - is neither here nor there.  You seem to want to cherry-pick sources that address a qustion you are interested in.  I want to avoid cherry-picking and write encyclopedia articles about (among other things) questions scientists are interested in. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) My aim was less ambitious than that and (2) I appear to have misunderstood your suggestion. However, if I understand your suggestions correctly now, it means that there is very little take-away for this article. It also means that the point which I intended to make originally still stands: anything written by scientists about both race (widely-construed) and intelligence (widely-construed) should be written up, making as much use of journalistic style and the organizational structure of available source materials as possible. That means making as little use as possible of attempts at grand organizational schemes that presume one or another theory about what is true about the topic (this is what thought you were suggesting) -- just simple reporting, sub-topic by sub-topic. Lastly, (3) I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be articles in wikipedia about each of the topics you listed, just that this article isn't appropriate for all of the material that should be covered under each topic. --Legalleft (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposal
Based on Slrubenstein's ideas and above comments I think it is clear some forking is inevitable. Based on Ramdrake's comments and others there are clear concerns about undue weight and the unsoundness of much of the methodology in works that have advanced claims about Race & intelligence. However Legalleft and others have (IMHO) legitimately attempted to include in the article research that has been discussed in peer reviewed journals (if only critically).
 * Suggest rename the article "Race and IQ" or perhaps with a modifier such as "debate" or "controversy" (though consider POV issues there also). (The current article and the Jensen et al position centres around IQ scores and the intelligence issue is speculative, so it is not imposing a POV to refer in the title to IQ rather than intelligence). The article then stands primarily as an overview of claims of a link between race, IQ and hence intelligence and how those views have been debated. This way the views of Jensen et al get their day in court but likewise the extensive debunking literature gets a sensible place to live within its proper context (i.e. journal articles explicitly criticising Jensen's views make less sense in a more general article about IQ and heredity). Many links already exist to the associated articles such as The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man so some pruning can be done. I think this is pretty much in-line with what Slrubenstein has already suggested. The other articles that they suggested can then avoid being dragged into same edit-war situation by making this article the proper place to explain those issues which may be notable within IQ-testing but are fringe in comparison to a wider domain (eg anthropology, genetics or cognitive science). Nick Connolly (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support -- I suppose that helps to emphasize the psychometric origins and emphasis of the discussion. No particular word choice is going to be perfect, however, and that change does bring certain problems. For example, "IQ" would tend to exclude some measurements that are otherwise relevant. Also, IQ itself is a "vehicle" in the language of Jensen (1998) not the "construct" of interest. I don't have any better suggestions. --Legalleft (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Other measures wouldn't be excluded if given in the context of correlation with IQ.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * it's better than what currently have TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of us agree that this so-called "theory" is bogus, and is unsupported by the vast wealth of research. It is notable, and it can retain it's current title.  If you read Intelligent design, which is also a bogus theory, you'll note that it is accepted for what it is, an attempt by Christians to force feed an anti-science and anti-evolution stance on US schools.  It is clearly stated what it is and what it is NOT in the lead.  We aren't giving undue weight to the anti-science POV pushers by acknowledging that this issue has some unfortunate supporters.  But with verified and reliable references, we must write most of the words debunking this theory logically.  Most admins will support that effort, and keep the racists out of this article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is going to spin off topic, but it must be pointed out that this comment is almost completely inaccurate. The accurate bits are (1) intelligent design is pseudoscience and (2) public discussion of this topic does damage science. However, the black-white difference in performance on tests designed to measure cognitive abilities is one of the most precisely quantified value in all of psychology. It has been an active topic of research since at least the 1970s, and has spawned a massive body of research literature which has evolved over time. Moreover, there is much more to the topic than the very contentious issue of causal hypotheses, about which, for example, The Bell Curve had very little to say. --Legalleft (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a bit insulting. So, in the spirit of insults, do you know anything about intelligent design?  Apparently not, because it is also the subject of intensive research, most of which I personally dismiss, like I dismiss the research for this article, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't believe in it.  And I would contend that psychology has about as much interpretation and no "black/white" differences as does religion.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be insulting, and thus used language like "inaccurate" rather than "wrong". However, your opinions are apparently not well informed. :) Intelligent design involves little to no actual research and is mostly obfuscation -- it has none of the character of normal science. The difference in average test scores by self-identified racial and ethnic groups in the US is a plainly observable and extremely well documented fact (also known as the Achievement gap when applied to "achievement" test scores), toward which much research has been directed -- ultimately with the aim of ameliorating whatever problems are causing the gaps. It is clearly controversial and people react strongly to all aspects of the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that this research operates as normal science (to the extent that any social science can be described as such). --Legalleft (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is NPOV. Legalleft says that ID research has none of the character of normal science and i am sure he believes it.  But ID proponents sincerely believe that they are doing good science.  Wikipedia cannot take sides concerning the sincerity of beliefs about right or wrong.  That is why we have NPOV - so that views we judge differently can all be accomodated.  In Wikipedia, content forks are allowed but not POV forks; all articles must comply with NPOV.  My proposal was an attempt to create certain content forks that would facilitate coherent NPOV articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between ID and this topic is that this one occurs within the subject domain and that subject domain itself has methodological flaws. 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Proposals 2 and 3 are definitely solid ideas, although I just assumed those topics were for the IQ article anyway. --Legalleft (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals 2 & 3
Reading through the above the discussion I think there appears to be consensus that Slrubenstien's proposal 2 (An article on intelligence and heredity) and proposal 3 (an article on intelligence/IQ and socioeconomic status) make sense and are basically uncontroversial. Perhaps those articles should be started, whilst the role of this one is still under discussion? Maybe once we agree on what this article isn't, there may be more consesnus on what it is. Nick Connolly (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe views
What are the so called "fringe" views and how do you know that they are fringe? --Jagz (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a prior discussion of "fringe" in general. --Jagz (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article should present contemporary debate
As the article states, "The contemporary debate on race and intelligence is about what causes racial and ethnic differences in IQ test scores." The debate includes genetic and environmental factors and these points of view are presented in the article.
 * No, the debate does not include genetic factors; people who say so are fringe ... and so here we go again, Jagz insisting we keep the article an NPOV-violating, fringe POV-pushing mess. Why not give others a chance to work our way out of this mess with some better alternatives? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So there you go again, criticizing someone for making a comment. --Jagz (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So there I go again, criticizing you for making a disruptive and unconstructive comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slr, don't you just love the victim mentality? This article is NOT going to be much fun.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion on this page limited to the content of the article pls? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The contemporary debate does include the issue of genetics as a causal factor, and has since at least 1969. The 1987 survey by Snyderman and Rothman suggests it was far from a fringe view at that time among those in IQ research. All of Flynn's work stems from an attempt to get around the heritabilty paradox that Jensen recognized. Flynn, Gottfredson, Turkheimer, and Ceci were discussing the topic in November 2007, and there have been myriad public debates at various venues over the past few years, including the Flynn/Dickenson vs Murray debate at AEI and in the literature in 2006. --Legalleft (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the genetic hypothesis at least has the status for this topic that the multiregional hypothesis has for the evolution of modern humans. It matters less what the current vote-count is for one hypothesis or the other so much as the existence of evidence and arguments in both directions has shaped contemporary understanding. Moreover, the existence of theories such as the Dickens-Flynn model or Templeton's "Out of Africa again and again" theory make no sense unless you understand the background of competing theories. --Legalleft (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Legalleft, I'd be cautious with the Snyderman and Rothman poll, as it has been called a push poll more than once. I'd rather stick to the APA statement on the Bell Curve to figure out where the mainstream opinion really lies. I wouldn't either say that the genetic hypothesis has a status comparable to the multiregional hypothesis (unless you can find a WP:RS which says so); I'd say we're considerably benath that in credibility.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read anything about push polling, but I would assume that the date (1987) means that it can't be taken to represent current opinion accurately -- a lot of new data is available and just psychometrics in general has evolved. However, it's probably a decent reflection of views at the time. My overall point being that (1) there's more to this topic than the causal hypotheses, and (2) Jensen's hypothesis is an integrated part of the literature, not something on the fringe. --Legalleft (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Every pro-genetic study has been spit on. --Jagz (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments in civil terms. As I noted earlier, this topic is difficult enough without unnecessarily inflaming the discussion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This topic has been getting discussed for over six years. Don't single me out. --Jagz (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, please refrain from making unconstructive comments and you won't be singled out. Your comment on pro-genetic studies for example was unconstructive.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetics determine hair color, eye color, height, weight, skin color and all anthropological features such as bone size and length, cranial shape and muscle distribution et cetera. It is just common sense that gentics also determine intelligence. If you deny that, you might as well deny the existance of DNA while you are at it. The only reason this is such a contentious subject is because of the high value we, the white culture, place on intelligence. It has been a defining mark of our race and culture for millenia. Therefore to us, questioning one's intelligence is seen as an insult, thus politically correct folks seek to equate all man with the same intelligence. --Confederate till Death (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * True genetics determines much of our phenotype. However, there is still debate as to how much of a given person's intelligence is determined by genes, and how much by environment, be it placental, maternal or whatever. Nobody is denying that humans aren't born equal in intelligence, and nobody is denying that genes plays a role in this. The crux of the debate is whether the social construct of race (which for reasons Alun has already explained, isn't a valid biological construct) is an appropriate proxy for human genetic diversity in the case of variations of intelligence in humans. While the construct of race seems to be a good proxy for human genetic diversity in some cases (in particular relative to some diseases with a gfenetic predisposition factor), the overwhelming majority of researchers have spoken out that this construct is not a good proxy in the case of variations of human intelligence. I don't know how to make this any plainer in English.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by 'good' proxy. It would certainly be very useful in a huge number of ways to be able to say that statistically, those who self-identify as race x will, on average, have a lower IQ by n points than those who self-identify as race y.  Subjective perceptions of race are much more socially common, so such information would tell us a lot more about the existence of racism or lack thereof in general society.  It would also be a lot cheaper than DNA testing.  Basically, it would be immensely useful to know what, if any, genetic differences exist between races as the public in the US currently perceives those races.  Torokun (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think when we are discussing differences between White, Orientals and Negroes, the racial boundaries are very clear. Ambiguity in genetics may only begin to be found when one begins comparing Germans with Dutch, for example. Or English with Germans for that matter, due to the relatively recent invasions etc of the isles. The fact is Whites, Orientals and Negroes have evolved completely seperately and along different lines for hundreds of thousands of years. --Confederate till Death (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear, Confederate, that you know way more about racist philosopies than you do about actual science. Perhaps you would like to take a few months or years and learn about science and genetics and come back when you have a better grasp of the subject. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RedPen, I do know where you're coming from, but let's try to WP:AGF on this and refrain ourselves from WP:BITE, however tempting that is. Thank you for understanding. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Confederate, sorry to call you on this, but some of what you say is demonstrably false. Skin pigmentation differentiation in humans in only a few thousand years old, not hundred of thousands of years old. Secondly, if you read modern studies on genetics you will find that the color scheme doesn't really fit human genetic diversity: there is more diversity within the "Blacks" in Africa alone than there is in the rest of humanity. The racial boundaries are on the contrary extremely fuzzy and subject to interpretation. I can send you some good science paper link regarding this if you're interested.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some valid points, but don't forget that statistical genetic variation is not the same thing as qualitative phenotypic variation. In other words, small genetic variations can lead to either miniscule or large differences in practice.  It is only natural that there is the greatest diversity in the populations which have undergone the least winnowing, but that ultimately doesn't mean a whole lot with respect to the average abilities or qualities of the races.  Torokun (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK confederate, care to support your claims with a reliable source? I know of no reputable biologist who would claim that "Whites, Orientals and Negroes have evolved completely seperately and along different lines for hundreds of thousands of years." In fact I would go as far as to say that this claim could only possibly be made by someone who is completely ignorant of even the very basics of human evolution, so I'd like to see the source for this claim. Wikipedia requires that you support your claims with reliable sources, so please show us your sources to support your claims. I've read a great deal about human genetic variation and evolution from reputable scientific journals over the last couple of years and nothing I have read supports what you are saying. This appears to be little more than a folk idea of "race". Alun (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you're sort of arguing past one another. --Legalleft (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing
"POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the promotion of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is always uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.

If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. If the problem persists, consider filing a request for comment, get a third opinion, or if appropriate, file a report at fringe theories noticeboard. There are other options available to resolve such situations explained at dispute resolution." --Jagz (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you're getting at. Why are you quoting policy at us?--Ramdrake (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you know the answer already so I will not reply. --Jagz (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what Jagz means. he means that he now perfectly understands what pov-pushing is, after all he's quoted the policy. Therefore he is clearly stating that he has realised that the promotion of minor or fringe views is not acceptable on Wikipedia. As such I am looking forward to him engaging more constructively with the promotion of more mainstream poonts of view regarding this article. Alun (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have any further dissatisfaction regarding POV pushing, please follow the policy. --Jagz (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One should always follow the neutrality policy Jagz, then pov-pushing doesn't need to come into it. Pov-pushing is unacceptable here and can lead to a ban from editing if it is persistent. Alun (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Neutrality
This is a possibility to help resolve the neutrality problem. Go to the project link to find out more information.

WikiProject Neutrality aims for promotion of the neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines as set out in WP:NPOV, removing bias from articles and helping to resolve POV-related disputes.

The goal of this WikiProject is to help to better establish Wikipedia as a legitimate encyclopedic source by removing bias from Wikipedia. Its focus will be on pages which contain visible bias towards some political or racial group, as this is the most flagrant form of NPOV violations on Wikipedia, however it endeavours to ensure that all articles are sufficiently neutral. --Jagz (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagz, tha latest RfC on this specific question returned an overwhelming consensus that this article isn't neutral. You were the only one thinking it was neutral enough. Now you seem to want to refer this article to another WP mechanism to ask the same question. Do you really expect it will return a different opinion? Or are you in fact forum-shopping in order to try to find someone who'll agree with you?--Ramdrake (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your post seems to be inflammatory so I will not reply. --Jagz (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking a legitimate question, and I would appreciate your response. The motivation of your edits is what's in question here.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting a mechanism by which the neutrality problem of the article can possibly be resolved. --Jagz (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see any suggestions above, just a statement about the project. I'm all in favour of neutrality, but clearly there is a consensus that this article is not neutral. If Jagz is looking for the inclusion of more editors in this article who are interested in neutrality, then I welcome this move, just as I welcome his new found interest in countering pov-pushing. This is a big step forward for this article. Alun (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I included a link to the project above. You can read about it there. --Jagz (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the neutrality of how drastic the difference of intelligence between races is is in question here is disgusting. For far too long these differences have been shoved under the rug and lead to 'equal' treatment for inequal parties leading to victimisation and negligence towards those who require more need, or more facilitation through societal methods.

Most of the "OMGOMG POVPOV" posts I've seen on this article over the years are people very likeminded to myself for the most part, however I read the article first and foremost and realised it's not legitimised racism, but social observation. To say there IS no difference IS racism. To say that an African goat herd from some isolated region does not require special needs in a new country of settlement compared to a technology toting educated and savvy Japanese businessman settling in the same nation is beyond racism, it's farcical.

Whilst I know the posters here have good intentions, it's this ignorance of differences of races that breeds the neglect and the coming around of 'victim-culture' and victim groups. At present this is a big issue here in Australia, where the Aboriginies are treated as equals and social welfare projects had previously treated them as such before they realised this political correctness and throwing money at a problem wasn't addressing the key issues that they needed help of a different kind.

I submit that inequality is not racism, that equality is different to equal rights. All should be afforded equal rights, and those inequal to the 'average man or woman' should be afforded more rights and assistance from those around them, be it the state in more forward nations, or philanthropic groups or community groups in more hardlined conservative nations.

The bottom line is, if you claim this article is NPOV because you are offended by the fact that there is a drastic difference in intelligence between races, your argument is flawed and DIRECTLY responsible for the vicious cycle that our world is in today. Read the article, read the facts. Sure, if some racist dimwit pipes up and is like "LOL BUT U AZNS HAV LITTLE WEEWEES" even I'll roll my eyes and NPOV at that. But for the love of $deity, please stop NPOV flagging and CENSORING this bloody article.

As for censoring, the following image keeps being removed, this image allows an amazing visualisation of where we, as a human race, need to focus our efforts of development and aid of fellow man, and it should be kept on this page. I was SO dissapointed to come here in reference to something for a colleague and find the page in it's current state, censored and locked up.



Please leave the above included in the article. And please, everyone just settle down and use logic and reasoning ration than emotion and passion to do the right thing. 122.107.42.146 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. I can only assume it is a joke. Alun (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that hilarious, or a joke, Alun? Look at Rhodesia, and look at Israel. We build an entire country and basically hand it to the Negro Rhodesians (now Zimbabweans) and they destroy it. Now look at the Jews, 5.2 million were euthanaised and the rest treated rather badly. Now they have built their own country and are purportedly taking over ours. There is a huge disparity between the abilities of the races, even when one (the Negroes) is given a huge head start, and the other has half their population forcibly euthanaised. --Confederate till Death (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at Botswana or South Africa. If it were not for AIDS these countries would be performing extremely well. One of the major problems in Africa is that it was divided without considering ancient tribe divisions.  Did you know that when choosing two people at random in Uganda, the probability that they belong to different ethnic groups is above 90%?  Did you know that there is some positive correlation, ceteris paribus, between ethnic homogeneity and income?  So, yes, there are differences in income and no, they are not due to intelligence.  For example, national income in these countries can be low, but the income earned by natural residents can be much higher.  If intelligence were the difference, you'd expect Africans to do poorly everywhere.  Finally, I have studied economic growth and economic development for a few years now and there is not one theory that mentions innate ability to explain income divergence.  So, I have to agree with Alun on this one.  On Israel, they had many well educated individuals when they started out, education that any black man would have not been able to obtain back in the more-racist days; and Israel also gets much foreign aid from the US, not that would cause any fundamental difference.  Brusegadi (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comfy, this is not a forum for you to push your racist agenda. This is a talk page to discuss the article. It's hilarious because racists like yourself and the above anonymous user seem to think that you can come here, leave poorly worded, often illiterate and always ignorant rants and somehow think you should be take seriously (and perversely you are claiming to be part of the "intelligent race" when you leave these rants). Wikipedia is not a chatroom, it is not a forum for racists, we only use reliable sources here, we don't include any old crap just because an editor believes it. We don't publish your or the above editors beliefs. I can't remember a single time you have provided a reliable source to back up a claim. You make ridiculous assertions that you seem to have invented, and then you expect to be taken seriously. I'm still waiting for a reliable source that shows that "whites, blacks and orientals" have been reproductively isolated for hundreds of thousands of yours, another daft claim. I suggest that if you want to leave racist claptrap on the internet then there are many more places where you would be more welcome, but this is an encyclopaedia, it is not here to publish your odious drivel. Alun (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This topic necessarily requires the discussion of contentious racial issues. Insults like racist name calling violate WP:Civil and WP:NPA. --Jagz (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility and NPA vios are hardly the issue here: the issue is the affront to the intellect by parties who feel so inferior that they need to proclaim their superiority based upon their wilful misreading of fact and a reliance on philosophies born of ignorance. Besides, to be honest, based on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines, one can spew hatred so long as one is "nice" about it.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this topic is too controversial for you to be involved in. --Jagz (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that this discussion is too controversial for you, Jagz. The Rfc found the article in violation of NPOV. If this is too controversial, just walk away. If you want to join us in fixing the article, follow the consensus. IF you see things so fundamentally different from the rest of us, perhaps we need mediation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it (BTW, it should be "involved with"). However, I despise stupidity and ignorance, and am more than happy to dispel or destroy both.  You figure it out from there.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Newton never claimed to have gravity figured out. Maybe we can learn something from that. --Jagz (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, OooohKaaay. De profundis clamo te, Iagz, mihi veritam monstratur.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the consensus of the community is that he was and now he's been indef'ed. Time to move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I havn't the time right now to write a cited reply, but simply calling me a racist will not make the facts disappear. That is always the first defense tactic of a liberal, living in his life of denial. Perhaps exploring reality will prove more rewarding for you. At least give it a try. --Confederate till Death (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Define reality.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Belgium French/Flemish status
Ok I just had a look at the table and agreed with most of it. It's a fact Jews are the heighest class in Israel and whites in New Zealand etcetera. It is however not true the French speakers (Walloons) in Belgium are the upper class. I don't know what kind of source is used but I have lived in the Netherlands and Belgium all my life and I can tell you: the Flemish (Dutch speaking) region is by far the richest part of Belgium. Lots of Flemish want to seperate themselves because they feel they are financing the poor French with their hard work. Almost all big cities and indutries lie in the Flemish region and most the French-speakers are (relatively) poor farmers. This is a well known fact, evidence is everywhere, for instance here: (...)Since Flanders is richer and has significantly lower unemployment than Wallonia(...) So, it is a fact the richer Flemish are the majority, and the Flemish part of the country is culturally and economically more important. How then can it be you call the Flemish the lower class? Baldrick90 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be removed from the table because the Flemish and Walloons are primarily geographically separated. --Jagz (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They also speak different languages. --Jagz (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beware of many of the tables in this article, they are from fringe sources. Brusegadi (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The table in question does not differentiate between intelligence tests and achievement tests (learning) so it can be removed on that basis alone. --Jagz (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Results from achievment tests aren't irrelevant and, with some caveats, are correlates with IQ/g. If we are taking the broad-brush approach I wouldn't delete something on that basis. EG the national IQ data included data from PISA if I remember rightly.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance I am with Jagz -the source that the table is from should really provide the analysis that 'achievement test scores are a facet of intelligence'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The PISA 2006 results for schoolchildren 15 years of age show that the Flemish outperform the Walloons. --Jagz (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, something being "wrong" is not a reason to remove it from an article, unless it is wrong in the sense lots of sources directly say the one source is wrong. A better approach to the issues is to revisit the source and see what the point being made was. If its possible to make the same point while redacting the table, then make it shorter on the basis of selecting the most important example and leave out the rest. I imagine you'll find that the French/Flemish example is not very important and can be left out. Secondarily, there's nothing special about an "IQ" test that makes it relevant to the article that isn't also true of an achievement test. Just note what kind of intrument was used in the assesement and that should be sufficient. "IQ test" isn't a single thing but a wide range of research instruments, some of which are less good as measuring what IQ tests try to measure than certain "achievement" tests. --Legalleft (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also thought about the fact that this information was wrong and shouldn't be there maybe. Especially since there are sources that point to the opposite. Most recently some more comparative information was released about school results in mathematics, physics,... all over the world. The Flemish were amongst the top ones while the Walloons were quite a bit lower. Even with a somehow less demanding school system over there. Besides that, the Walloon part hasn't been the richest for quite a while. At the moment the country is mainly held together financially because of the input from the Flemish area.

Mediation, anyone?
Folks, it looks to me like we have opinion issues about this article which may best be resolved with outside help. Thus, I just want to test the waters: who would consent to mediation, formal or informal?


 * Consent to mediation formal or informal is fine. Ramdrake (talk)
 * Consent to mediation If others feel that mediation will help the article move forward, I will actively participate (as much as growing workload will allow) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consent every little helps - but I think there is more consensus than there appears to be. The talk page is for debating the article and too often we are debating the issue or worse yet the politics underneath the issue. I suggest an Assume Not Racist and a Assume Not Part of a Politically-Correct Conspiracy to Hide the Truth policy applies before replying :) Nick Connolly (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nick Connolly is 100% on target here. --Legalleft (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consent although the consensus is that this article is a POV mess, pushing pseudoscience. There seems to be POV-pushing, which won't make any mediator happy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consent Obviously something is very wrong here. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Why not? Alun (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK --Legalleft (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes as I see no alternative - this article has been stalled with NPOV violation charges for ages. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree to mediation by a member of the Mediation Committee. --Jagz (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You would need to file a formal request at Requests for mediation. Please note that unless everybody involved agrees to mediation, the request will not be accepted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, Tim Vickers is 100% ruled out as mediator because of derogatory statements Slrubenstein made about me on his Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really haven't read enough of the background on this dispute to assess individual editors' contributions to this situation, Jagz, so I can't make any comment on personal issues. Please realise, however, that I'm not actually one of the team of mediators who deal with these requests, so I wouldn't be involved in running the mediation. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, here is a link directly to the mediation page.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in mediation but you can go ahead without me. You can do what you wish with the article. --Jagz (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that Jagz wants to withdraw from mediation, I'd like to ask the other editors i there is still a need for mediation, or if we are all in some agreement about what to do with this article? Please let me know.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

specific problems
I tried to figure out from the edit history what was happening before the article was locked. I appears that editors had issues with particular sections (sometimes just sentences) of the article. If possible, could editors please outline any problems with particular sections below. I'll start. --Legalleft (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 History
 * 2 Contemporary issues
 * 2.1 The Bell Curve
 * 2.1.1 "Mainstream" statement
 * 2.1.2 American Psychological Association response
 * 2.2 Policy implications
 * 2.2.1 Achievement gap
 * 2.2.2 Eugenics
 * 2.2.3 Biotechnology

Is this important overall? Perhaps a better focus to this section is attempts at remediation. That sort of fits with the under-developed 5.Interpretations section below. --Legalleft (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 Test results
 * 3.1 Increases in IQ scores over time
 * 3.2 Reaction time
 * 4 Nature and nurture

Plant diagram -- someone wanted to remove it. Is there something wrong with it. It's very famous, but not often well explained. In this case, I think it's well explained (because I wrote the caption ;) ). --Legalleft (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 4.1 Viewpoints of notable scientists and researchers
 * 4.2 Genetic
 * 4.3 Environmental
 * 4.3.1 Health
 * 4.3.2 Stereotype threat
 * 4.3.3 Quality of education
 * 4.3.4 Racial discrimination in education
 * 4.3.5 Caste-like minorities

The table itself could be shortened to present fewer examples. Perhaps those that are most emphasized in the original source, or those which have been cited as examples in other sources. --Legalleft (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 5 Interpretations

This probably needs to be expanded. The contemporary national IQ map could go here. --Legalleft (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 6 Criticisms
 * 6.1 Outdated methodology
 * 6.2 Fluid gF'

Concept is too new. Importance can't be known yet. --Legalleft (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 6.3 Utility of research
 * 6.4 Test construction
 * 6.5 Source of funding

Add http://www.pioneerfund.org/Gordon.pdf --Legalleft (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think that we should include materials from pioneer fundees (Miller, 1994, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 6 (Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 58-61) Gordon had at that stage received around $210,000; unless that material appears in a peer reviewed journal article or similar --JonathanE (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make for a very strange article. Assume for the moment that you want to explain how race and IQ are not connected - the key texts that argue that they are not connected explicitly mention the work of people like Arthur Jensen who has had Pioneer Funding, some have even appeared in the jounarl Intelligence which has some Pioneer associations. You can't debunk these ideas without explaining them and you can't explain them without talking about (and referencing) key proponents such as Jensen or Rushton or Eysenck. The article would make no sense as it would amount to arguments by people who think there is no connection between race and IQ stating why ideas we haven't explained, by people we don't mention, are wrong. It would be like the Climate change denial article studiosly not mentioning anybody who'd been funded by Exxon Mobil. The answer is to include notable ideas, include notable attempted debunking and include a reference to the role of the Pioneer Fund (and link to the main Pioneer Fund article). Let people join their own dots.Nick Connolly (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is, what is this article about? Jensen - regardless of his funding - is very notable in the scientific community for having opened up a debate that most scientists consider to have dead-ended.  That debate is really a historical moment in IQ research.  Since Jensen, others - notably Rushton, and The Bell Curve have kept a certain kind of debate going, but it is not notable in the scientific comunity - in the scientific community they are fringe and have no place in an article on the scientific debates.  On the other hand, they are notable in popular culture, and if this were an article on a debate in the media and in popular culture, they would be included.  Looking at all the elements listed, I see a mess that just tries to mix too many apples with too many oranges, some lettuce, and mayonaise.  Bluch.  There are some important things in here, but it doesn't serve any of them (or our readers) to try to mesh them in one article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but in a way apples, oranges, lettuce and mayonaise is what we have. Its like the spaghetti bolognaise I had in a hotel in Romania once - instant noodles, spam and ketchup. But if that was a common occurence we'd still need an article on noodles, spam and ketchup even if it was fringe (or pseudo) bolognaise. This is the bad-Romanian-bolognaise article. For the tasty italian dish you need to go next door :) Nick Connolly (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except you need to make it perfectly clear that that concoction isn't what people legitimately call "spaghetti bolognese", it just tries to pass itself as the real stuff. The same way, the debate around Rushton's hypotheses isn't the reasl scientific debate, just a wannabe debate that catches the popular fancy.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oranges and mayonnaise? Berrk! But seriously, I agree with Slrubenstein here that we must keep the line separating scientific debate from popular debate. The merits of Rushton's hypotheses aren't widely discussed in the science papers - except to be pointed out as an example of deficient science.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd settled that. Content fork into articles discussing the demonstrable facts about heredity-IQ and SES-IQ. Those are worthwhile articles and they can have brief links to this one, thus stopping those articles getting embroiled in this quagmire. This article is then what is it that the Race-IQ people think, why do they think it and why do people claim they are wrong. That way the reader goes away fully briefed and ready to do battle in the war-of-ideas.Nick Connolly (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have we settled that? If so, great - but Jagz's edits suggest to me that he rejects that approach, and I am not sure about Legalleft's position.  But if we agree on the content fork, then to respond to Legalleft's question about the contents of this article: we simply remove anything that is represented as actual current scientific discussion concerning variation in IQ scores, and refocus this as about a popular controversy, perhaps modeled on the Intelligent design article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that I disagree with. The suggestion is that discussion of race differences in IQ and related variables is not science. What is acceptable (and IMO obvious) is not the put debates about the within group heritability and gene/environmental factors affecting IQ in an article about racial group differences in IQ. Those should be in IQ or some article spun out of IQ. Thus, it's the characterization of this as a "popular" rather than "scholarly" controversy which is unacceptable. It can be about both, but certainly not just the one. --Legalleft (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My point, exactly. Thanks, SLR. --Ramdrake (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just do it all within the current article? --Jagz (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, just so as not to mix legitimate science with popular debates. That's already been explained several times above.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz is just being belligerent. Jagz knows the answer to his question already.  He knows because I have explained in detail why we cannot do it all in this article.  I explained in my 19:55, 19 March 2008 comment.  I explained in my 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)edit.  I explained why in my 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)edit.  I explained why in my 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  I explained why in my 09:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  I explained why in my 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC).  I explained why in my 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  I explained why in my 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  I explain why in my 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  I explain in even greater detail in my 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC) edit.  And I explained why in my 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) edit, which was just on ehour and six minutes ago, and just about six inches above this comment.  Now, why does Jagz ask why not do it all in this one article, when we have painstakenly explained in great detail why not?  He has never explained why he disagrees with our explanations, he just keeps asking us why, why, why, and every time we answere, he again asks why.  This is not a discussion, it is not a debate - that would require him to explain why he disagrees with our reasons and reasoning, and why he believes his reasons and reasoning are better.  But he does not do that.  Why not?  I can imagine only two possibilities: first, either he is one of the stupidist morons to ever stick around Wikipedia, and he just does not understand why the vast majority of people who responded to his RfC find this article in violation of NPOV, and he just does not understand population genetics or sociology, or he just doesn't understand our plain-English explanations.  But of course, I do not think this - he has apparently made good edits to articles on scouting, so he obviously is not a stupid moron.  This leaves only one other possibility: he is deliberately disruptive and beligerent, and refuses to read or take seriously our comments on this talk page.  Well, Jagz, either way, you should just go away.  If you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation, just leave.  Or, wait - does what I am saying bother you?  Do you insist on participating in this discussion?  Well, how about mediation?  We need to take some steps to rein in your insulting, beligerent, disruptive edits.  But if you simply refuse to read and respond to my answers to your questions, I have to say I see no point in responding to or taking seriously anything you have to say.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Deal with it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I do not agree with your proposal. --Jagz (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, please state your reasons for objecting, or else your objection becomes logically pointless.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is important for people to know the science or lack of it behind the popular debate. May as well just keep it in this article but maybe reorganize it to separate the two. Having it all in one article will make it easier to update in the future as new research becomes available. Additionally, I have experienced school desegregation first hand. --Jagz (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick's proposal. I just want to clarify a few things. I think you suggested earlier that the article could be renamed "Race and IQ", I support this idea. When you say this article is about "what .. the Race-IQ people think" who exactly are we talking about? For example Rushton has some very spaced-out ideas about r/K selection, would we include this sort of thing? Or do you just mean the basic sophistry about heritability and "race" that Jensen has been pushing? I think we should just stick to the basic formulation of Jensen and include it in the article. It's very simple, he basically believes that (1) "race" is a biological reality, (2) that heredity can be used to show that genes have a greater influence on a trait than environment, therefore the difference in test scores is due to genetics and (3) that IQ is a measure of "intelligence. Then all we need to do is give the opposite points of view that (1) race is not a biological phenomenon (and there are thousands of papers that can support this), (2) that heredity is not a measure of the relative contribution of genes to a trait and (3) that IQ measures are neither objective nor reproducible (in fact Layzer (1974) states "we do not know what an IQ test .. is supposed to measure"). Then we have basically summed up the evidence and given all points of view except for fringe ones. Alun (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun, if that were an accurate characterization of the various POVs, then truely this would be a worthless topic on which to build an article. Fortunately, the scholars involved hold much less riduclous positions, and so there is something worth describing here. For example, here's chapter 12 of Jensen 1998 book, which describe causal theories of group differences. --Legalleft (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun, IMHO, I see two ways to do this:
 * As you've pointed out, do the point and counter-point summary of the racialist position.
 * Go through the main theories of the most notable proponents of the racialist position, and summarize from there. Of course, we'd need to be careful to avoid too much redundancy, and we need not go through all the theories of the main proponents (re: Rushton's r/K theory). This would be trickier, and involve more research, but in the end it might make clear that we haven't ignored anybody notable, and would avoid editors adding their pet notable theory (whether it be Rushton's, Lynn's, Murray's, or whomever's).--Ramdrake (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick is right. This article can't and shouldn't be "about" the heritability of IQ, the environmentalibility of IQ, or the genetic/environmental determinants of IQ first and foremost because those topics are about differences within groups (within families) not between groups. Secondly, because there's a literature about race and IQ that's different than the heritability of IQ literature. They connect only in so far as the Jensen/Flynn heritability paradox problem is an issue. Lastly, it's just a bad idea to try to answer meta questions when you have a topic as controversial as this. Stick with the newspaper style of reporting attributable facts/opinions and leave it at that. The content of the article should look something like the content of the current article +/-. --Legalleft (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I really don't think it should. This article, according to consensus violates NPOV. We need to change presentation significantly, and clearly label as such those theories which are fringe and those which are mainstream. Otherwise, we would be misleading the reader.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake's right, we have an overwhelming consensus that the article is not neutral, so I can't see how it makes any sense to then claim that the content should remain largely unchanged, it's the current content that makes it non-neutral. Alun (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagreeing ... To aim towards progress, could you enumerate some of the problem as I tried to do above. I don't believe there are any theories which are obviously "fringe" (by the wikipedia definition) currently presented in the article. By my understanding, it would be safe to say that a theory which has been published in a peer viewed journal would not readily be classified as fringe. A theory which has attracted hundreds or thousands of citations would definitely not be fringe -- it would obviously be important/notable even if not "mainstream" (whatever that means). Secondarily, I caution against making claims about how widely supported or not a position is based solely on our own analyses. If a source says X is outside of the mainstream, then attribute such a claim to the source (provided basic notability is met on all sides). --Legalleft (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (1)"I don't believe there are any theories which are obviously "fringe"" how is what you believe relevant? Wikipedia works by consensus and not by the beliefs of it's editors. Alun (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are supposed to use Fringe theories for guidance on what is fringe. --Jagz (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. That's the basis on which I was making that claim. "Fringe" theories are more or less non-notable, and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The main content of this article is certainly notable. --Legalleft (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (2)"it would be safe to say that a theory which has been published in a peer viewed journal would not readily be classified as fringe." Not true. Many theories that have been published in peer reviewed journals have bee discarded, that's the point of science, we produce theories, but they cannot all be correct, some theories that have been published in peer reviewed journals would now be considered "fringe". Foe example no one would dispute that Geosyncline was once a well supported theory, but it has been superceded by Plate tectonics, one would not now claim that postulating the relevance of Geosyncline theory is anything other than fringe, likewise the Multiregional hypothesis would now be considered fringe. The publication of a theory in a peer reviewed journal does not de facto make it non-fringe. Alun (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a technical point, re-read the article on the Multiregional hypothesis. In updated forms (e.g., introgression of locally-adapted ancestral variants) it is still a hypothesis that attracts support (a recent paper in PNAS for example). Further, without a published analysis to say what views are ascendent among which scholarly communities, we cannot do much to judge that issue (per 4 below). This line of reasoning is, I believe, expressed more clearly in Nick's essay. --Legalleft (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (3)"A theory which has attracted hundreds or thousands of citations would definitely not be fringe". You've made this point before about Jensen's 1969 paper, but as I pointed out to you, only a tiny fraction of the citations for this paper are actually in support of it. The overwhelming majority either cite it as poor science or are neutral about it. As such this claim is also bogus. Now if it attracted hundreds of thousands of citations because t had become the academic consensus you might have a valid point. Alun (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (4)"I caution against making claims about how widely supported or not a position is based solely on our own analyses." I agree, which is why I have stated that we should cover the main theories point by point and give the alternative points of view to each, including how the evidence may not fit the theories and how it can be interpreted in different ways. This is the only way to achieve neutrality, obviously. I don't see any problem with this. Surely you can't be suggesting that we should not give the alternative points of view? That would be a direct breach of the NPOV policy and is the main reason why currently the article is not considerd neutral, currently the article concentrates on the theories while more or less ignoring the science that contradicts them. If you are serious about neutrality then clearly you need to change your position. Alun (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of the racialist views have been published in Intelligence. Since that journal has several hereditarians on its board of review (including Rushton heading the board), one can legitimately ask how properly peer-reviewed it is regarding hereditarian views. I mean, it publishes many of Rushton's articles, and Rushton himself heads the review board. Just my personal opinion, but it sounds incestuous to me. Also, the sheer number of citations isn't an indication of scientific propriety. I'm sure creationism has many thousands of citations, and it's generally not regarded as science. I can supply several citations that Rushton's theories are bad, even sloppy science, if that'll convince you.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Olympics has a lot of citations but that isn't science either. --Jagz (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Do you have any citable evidence supporting this claim? For example, is this is a common complaint about the journal that its peer review is worthless? (Given that it invites and publishes rebuttals, it's hard to see that this is the case.) Has Elsevier or the academic institutions at which the editorial board members are faculty done anything about their scholarship? The point of those rhetorical questions is not to say that no one holds those views, but to say that it's inappropriate for editorial judgment to be based on that kind of reasoning in the absence of strong literature support for such a view. (2) IIRC, there has been only 1 paper published in a peer reviewed journal that proposed a creationist theory and that paper was subsequently "depublished". Intelligent_design --Legalleft (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Intelligence have a policy regarding listing possible bias such as funding? If not, why in such a controversial area? Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

other comments

 * You do realize that organization of the article is not the problem. How about reliable sources that can be verified? That's my problem.  Oh, and undue weight given to a fringe theory.  So, from my position, organization of the article ranks about #5 on the list of problems.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to address organization, but specific content in individual section. I don't see a reliable source or fringe view problem. I think we've discussed this before. --Legalleft (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is helpful. I disagree with Orangemarlin, sourcing is not a problem nor is undue weight so long as we are clear about what the article is for.Nick Connolly (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it awkward that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is mentioned in such a way that few people will notice it. The study quite clearly indicates that group differences in cognitive ability are real, substantial, and genetic. If this article was NPOV it would report the majority view as just that, the misguided majority view, but not as the rational or scientific one.


 * Certainly, objectively measured environmental influences should be mentioned, but the pseudo-scientific musing of quotable figures should be removed since they distract from a factual article. --Zero g (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the authors of the study, Scarr and Weinberg interpreted their results that racial group differences in IQ are due to environment only. It's the reinterpretation by Lynn which argues that the data clearly supports a hereditarian alternative. So, no, the group differences cannot be said to be genetic based on this study.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of interpretation issues, I think it's true that MTRAS should be more prominently mentioned. I had in mind that a section addressing attempts at remediation, which MTRAS is an example of, would be an appropriate place to expand on that topic. Other attempts include pre-school type intervention programs such as Head Start. --Legalleft (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Head Start is a matter of policy. This is really a different topic from the science (good or bad) related to the subject. Also, I'd like you to precise why the MTRAS should have more prominence?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This kind of discussion, which is not leading to a consensus, is a perfect example of why we need mediation. I have no idea if he would accept but I would like to propose User:Tim Vickers. To my knowledge he has never edited this article (if he has, it must have been a minor edit a long time ago) and I have no idea what his views are. But he knows science, and he knows Wikipedia policy. Legalleft, Alun, and Ramdrake - would you agree to asking him? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like he's very well qualified. Personnally, I'd say go for it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier. To be honest I'm a bit lost as to what the problem is now. Nobody seems to actually disagree with Slrubenstien's content fork proposals. The current circular argument seems to be on whether the views are fringe or not (an issue we know we can't resolve permanantly but know that we can deal with by citing sourced opinions as to whether the views are fringe or not). The NPOV issue is, I think, due to mislabelling. The article isn't a summary of current scientific opinion on links between race and intelligence - I don't think such an article is possible as there really isn't an distinct opinion. For most disciplines it is a non-question. The only purpose this article can serve is to describe the opinions of Jensen et al and their critics - which what is does now but cack-handely. As the article is not going to go away (see past AfDs) the only solution is an article on the controversy - a solution which Slrubenstien has already proposed, which I keep plugging and which nobody has yet said is a bad idea. Now I've gone and broken my don't clutter up the talk pages anymore rule. I'm going to keep on adding summative opinions here:User:Nick Connolly/RaceIQEssay Am I genetically predispositioned to enjoy long rambling arguments? Nick Connolly (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has identified themselves with their real name on Wikipedia and has a good career at stake can hardly be expected to be an impartial mediator in this debate. --Jagz (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, in all logic, someone who uses his real name and thus places his reputation at stake in this kind of endeavour should make a good, impartial mediator, on the contrary. To act otherwise is to risk losing credibility to his name. Honestly, I can't follow your logic here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz's point, I suspect, is that the issue of race and intelligence is so highly charged as to make it difficult for people to assert a view sympathetic to Jensen etc. It is not an unreasonable point, but I don't believe Jagz is correct.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm correct in the USA. The British press recently caused Watson to retire so it's difficult for me to believe it would be much different in UK. --Jagz (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"I am correct in the USA." So, truth is relative? Watson retired in the USA but he did not retire in Brittain? Huh? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point lets just assume that we all said the various things that we would say about Watson. That we all took each others opinion about his comments seriously, debated them amicably and moved onto other matters...Nick Connolly (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, are you then arguing that "views sympathetic to Jensen etc" are indeed 'fringe' because 'no respectable scientist' would want to be associated in any way with them? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the genetic view is unscientific. There is no sound reason to dismiss it. New information about the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is still being discovered. I'm not convinced that it is a fringe view today but there is probably a difference in what some scientists believe and say publicly. Why should they become embroiled in the controversy unless it is unavoidable? --Jagz (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still dont see how that addresses my question: If even seeming to provide neutral mediation in a discussion concerning "views sympathetic to Jensen etc" would somehow be seen a 'supporting' a concept that is so detrimental to a scientist's reputation that you fear that no scientist would be willing to do so under her/his real name - doesnt that clearly identify the topic as a 'fringe view'? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice of mediator is described at . I brought up a potential conflict of interest. To determine fringe per WP guidelines, use WP:Fringe. I do not believe it would be characterized as fringe on that basis per WP guidelines. --Jagz (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still not seeing any general conflict of interest potential except for the 'fringe science' link. can you be more explicit in your reasoning behind why you feel threr is potential conflict of interest?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you say no one has objcted to my proposal but Jagz has, repeatedly, like here. More important, Jagz refuses any informed reasonable discussion. In the many months he has been participating in this talk page he has pushed only one POV - a racist view that simply disregards any actual discussion of mainstream science. He has never responded constructively to my comments, or Alun's, or Ramdrake's, except to dismiss or insult us. Even now, he is trying to subvert any attempt at mediation by making ad hominem attacks against Tim Vickers - and Jagz does not even want to participate in any mediation!! That is because he is a troll; he sinmply wants to use this page to promote his racist views, and he does not want to see any constructive work done on the article. So we have a dispute and it needs resolving. He took the first step himself, by posting an RfC. The RfC didn't go his way so now he doesn't want to take any further steps to resolve any disputes. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, although this seems to be an objection without a corresponding argument. Lets just say nobody has given a substantial reason for NOT following your proposal. If Jagz would like to put forward a case or a proposal then we should consider it. Currently I don't believe that he has - although I may well have missed it given the current multi-threaded talk page.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors on this article have already proven my point by persecuting me for not rejecting the genetic view. Rejecting the view would be unscientific and if I did so I would consider myself a putz. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Jagz, by the same token, you would need to consider seriously "creation science" and a whole bunch of disputable science to say the least. The proponents of "creation science" are dead serious about the fact that they are doing science, so why is it that anyone gives themselves the right not to take their science seriously? Because there is consensus that this isn't science worthy of the name. Similarly, race and intelligence theories (for the most part - such as Rushton's and Lynn's theories) aren't taken too seriously by a (majority) consensus of experts in the field. On that basis alone, we can label it as fringe science. I'd direct you, if you want an example of such consensus, to the Lieberman paper "How Caucasoids Got Such Large Crania and Why They Shrank", which I linked to in the last section below. That is but one example.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, we are never going to see eye to eye so give your fingers a rest. --Jagz (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, then please understand that by reiterating your objections and by failing to address the objections of others to your position, you are just placing yourself out of the consensus. However, consensus must happen with or without you. Don't be surprised when it happens without you.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see how creation science comes into play here. I don't believe it is in the article so it seems to be off topic. --Jagz (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not off-topic, it is an anaolgy. A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. If you do not have a dictionary you can use Answers.com. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets try to keep discussion focused on how to move ahead on the content of the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have to consider creation science because it is not in the article. Genetics is however in the article and has been in there a long time. There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s. --Jagz (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Jagz, you are not alone in the view that anyone publicly discussing race and intelligence risks attack (briefly discussed here: elsewhere: "Gottfredson (1998, 2005) has correctly pointed out that findings of racial influences on intelligence are deeply disturbing to many social scientists who are then motivated to attack reports of differences." ) and that social forces align to reward those who are speak contrary to the subject. --Legalleft (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

SLR, It may help to clarify what mediation does and does not mean. For example, the role of the mediator. --Legalleft (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Mediation LeadSongDog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, that genetics has been in the article a long time means nothing: there is no rule in Wikipedia that the longer something has been in the article the harder it should be to discard. This is just irrational. We discard things that violate our policies or are inaccurate or irrelevant. You write, "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." Alund has provided a detailed explanation of how discoveries in genetics since the 1930s should lead us to deiscard the discussion of genetics, or most of it, from this article. Now please tell me what discovering in genetics since the 1930s you have in mind that you that you think requires us to devote a substantial portion of this article to genetics? You mention "many" discoveries in genetics. Please explain to me just one discover in genetics since the 1930s that shows a link between race and intelligence. Just one. It is time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that there is no sound scientific reason to discard the genetic view, especially in light of the new genetic discoveries (in general) that are being made. Whether it should or should not be in the article will, I believe, be addressed by mediation. It is something that was put into the article by someone else and was allowed to remain for an extended period of time. I can't see creation science ever making it into the article for any length of time so I'm not going to discuss it, even as an analogy. Let's save this discussion for mediation. --Jagz (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, the way this works is that if there is a specific discovery in genetics that supports the genetic view, it should go in. So far, there haven't been any. Therefore, your argument doesn't apply. We can certainly wait for mediation, but everyone here has been asking you for specific points to support your position, and so far, everything you have supplied are generalizations such as the one above. Somehow, I suspect the mediator may also come to the same conclusion. This sounds like, as you've been told more than once already, that you want to ask the other parent again. What would really be helpful would be for you to bring up specific points to try to support your position.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To clairfy, "the mediator assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest." (emph added) While I agree that the mediator will likely "ask you for specific points to support your position" - it is in the service of helping the mediator help us arrive at a mutually agreeable point to move forward. Not because the mediator is some type of final judge of the validity or value of content or approach. (except "Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution.") TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask Legalleft first. He is much more knowledgeable than I am. I think he is in favor of having the genetic view presented. --Jagz (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can talk him into it, I'll go along with it. --Jagz (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No Jagz, you wrote "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." Obviously you are claiming to know of "many" discoveries in genetics. I am trying to go easy on you. I am asking you to provide just one. Were you just bullshitting us? You said there have been "many discoveries" that should be discussed in this article. Tell us about just one. Just one. Surely you can do that, can't you? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No Jaqgz, I am not going to ask Legalleft because I am not responding to what he wrote, i am responding to what you wrote. You wrote, "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." What exactly are you referring to? You said you know something, now tell us what you know. Or, if you really do not know, stop BSing and just leave this page. That is right, if you really do not know anything about the topic, you should not be involved in improving the article on the topic. Oh, do you know something? Well, you said you know of many discoveries in genetis since the 1930s about the link between race and IQ. So please, tell us, tell us about just one of these discoveries. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable caption
I just read the caption on the graph in the Race and intelligence. "William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn write that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites' between 1972 and 2002. This graph shows the gains for various tests.[62]" (emph added) If that is a direct quote, it needs to be identified as such otherwise it is unaceptable, sloppy, POV language. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? What's the problem? --Legalleft (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sloppy 'gained points on' phraseology is not adequate for an encyclopedia and comes from a non-neutral point of view.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More remarkable is the missed observation that the IQ scores of the groups changed, demonstrating that either the test did NOT measure an intrinsic characteristic of the tested groups or the cohorts were not selected by objective and neutral methods. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a common misconception. IQ tests are not measures of "intrinsic" but rather of actual behavior -- the same way a ruler is a measure of actual rather than intrinsic height. re: "gained points on" -- right that's rather colloquial, but as you recognized it might be a direct quote. i thought maybe there was a deeper problem. --Legalleft (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "IQ tests are not measures of "intrinsic" but rather of actual behavior". Quite Ll, Which just goes to show that the whole "it's genetic" argument is little more than a load of old cobblers. If it's actual behaviour rather than intrinsic behaviour then the difference can't possibly be due to "genetics" as wingnut racists keep claiming. Let's face it this really is fringe claptrap and we should treat it as such, the whole edifice is based on deliberate distortions and innuendo with little or no real evidence, these "theories" are based on at best a fundamental ignorance of science, and in the worst cases, such as Jensen, downright distortions of the facts (i.e. lies), and this is citable, so we should cite it. "Greg and Sanday make a clear distinction between the magnitude of the genetic contribution to a given trait (which cannot be measured for intelligence) and the extent to which the variability of a trait is due to genetic factors (which is supposedly measured by heritability estimates). Jensen seems to be aware of this distinction.....Jensen, however, does not follow through with the logical implications of this statement when he says in the same article that the control of highly heritable characteristics is usually in the organism's internal biochemical mechanisms and that traits of low heritability are usually controlled by external environmental factors. Jensen also confuses estimates of the variance in IQ scores with the magnitude of genetic contribution when he rejects the hypothesis of genetic equality between black and white samples reported by Kennedy, Van de Riet, and White (1963) on the basis of an analysis of the variances in the distribution of IQ scores for the two samples. The rational for rejecting the hypothesis of genetic equality between the two samples is based on the ubiquitous heritability estimate of 0.8 for the white population. Sanday (1971) ' On the causes of IQ differences between groups and implications for social policy' Race and IQ Montagu (ed.)" We have many reliable sources that deconstruct the ideologiews of these people, to create a neutral article it is high time we included some of the cornucopia of evidence that does not support people like Jensen. This article does not meet the requirements of neutrality, and never will until we start to include opposing points of views to those of racists like Jensen. Alun (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Let's face it" ... LOL ... no, you're mistaken. I believe you also once argued that no phenotypic differences between racial groups *could* be attributable to genetic differences. In the case of this quote, the author is mischaracterizing people's positions. Flynn does a much better job of describing Jensen's views -- as does this article. There's a reason that this debate has lasted for decades: because there's hard intellectual substance behind it. --Legalleft (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories Noticeboard
I listed the article at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for advice from outsiders on what they consider to be the fringe theories in the article. --Jagz (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagz, it sounds for all the world like you're forum-shopping again. Fine, let the editors from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard have a say on what is and isn't fringe. You won't get a different answer from the one you already got.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * --Ramdrake (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories has good advice for this article.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew the listing. --Jagz (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines
Time to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Tea will be served here User:Nick Connolly/RaceIQEssay in my drawing room. A set of guidelines I think would help and a proposed direction for the article as an article about a POV which is really what we have anyway. Don't feel you have to comment here or there, just mull it over. —Preceding comment was added at 10:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a lead paragraph on what I see as the purpose and direction of the article. User:Nick Connolly/RaceIQEssay plus some tweaks and typos Nick Connolly (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically we give the main theories about links between "race" and "intelligence" and describe them and the evidence for them, then we give counter arguments. That's neutral, that explains the "stste of play" for the debate, that gives all points of view. We don't need to explain "race and intelligence" in the article, we need to give the theories and their counter arguments. Alun (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes -- The policy suggestions are very good. I would quibble with the description of the history of the topic to some extent, but that's an area where my reading is weakest so I stand to be educated. I would also quibble with the characterization of this as only being about genetic theories (described in various places in the talk page as the views of 'race people'). I don't believe (for example) James Flynn or William Dickens think of themselves as 'race people' but they are engaging directly with the work of Jensen et al. -- asking the same questions, working with the same data, etc. Others operating in the same paradigm include: Sternberg, Scarr, Nisbett, Neisser, etc. All believe the cause of racial group differences are environmental in nature. Moreover, there is more to the topic than the causal theories (although they tend to attract the most controversy.) --Legalleft (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see your point. What I'm trying to say is that the main focus of the article is the 'race people' POV and that this is why people are objecting about its neutrality. The 'racial' view is the protagonist in the plot and because of its provocative role will end up taking centre stage in any article based on looking at race and intelligence. The enviromental view clearly is relevant but it also goes far beyond race and IQ and hence doesn't get adequately covered - and also gets distorted by appearing through a race-IQ lens. Slrubenstien's suggestion of content forking is the solution I think. This article should focus on the POV and reactions to the POV both as a spur to other research and critics.Nick Connolly (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for spending time preparing a well thought out proposal. I have some concerns, but as I am thinking them through I am not sure my concerns align with WP guidelines and policies - I will get back after I have a chance to give my thoughts more consideration. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks RedPen. I've tried to make the guidlines specific instances of more WP policies and ethos. Of course it may well be that such policies err in some way and that this article is exactyly the place where they fall down! Thoughtfulness is a good thing :) Nick Connolly (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some links to the Wikipedia policies at the bottom of the essay. Gosh this is more fun than editing the proper article...Nick Connolly (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice essay. This is how I see the article progressing.
 * History. Covering eugenics and testing in the 1920's how this led to a change in US immigration policy, including discussion of the whitening of eastern/Mediterranean Europeans in the USA, how they suddenly became white and "intelligent".
 * Jensen, his 1967/1969 papers, what they say, why they say what they say, the basis for his "genetic" hypothesis. Counter arguments, who disagrees with Jensen, why they disagree with him, work published that refutes/contradicts Jensen.
 * Flynn, the Flynn effect, what is it, why does it appear to contradict genetic theories about group differences. Counter arguments to Flynn
 * Rushton, his theories (r/K selection etc.), what are they, his evidence etc. Counter arguments to Rushton.
 * Lynn, his ideas and theories (i.e. northern Europeans being more "intelligent" than southern Europeans, men more "intelligent" that women). Who disagrees with him etc.
 * Etc. any other notable theories/people who publish work regarding race/intelligence.
 * Section on media coverage.
 * I think that is a sound structure you are proposing. Treat the main figures/controversies in roughly chronological order. Nick Connolly (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have strong objections to any article that presentes Rushton and Lynn's views as anything other than fringe pseudoscience. Jesnen is an important figure who raised an important question some time ago.  He also proposed an answer which all mainstream scientists have rejected.  This is not uncommon in science.  Jensen remains an important figure for having raised the question; his answer is now really just of historical interest. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should have adequate account of critics of Jensen et al. The framing of the article will not assert that these are scientific theories and there will be links to the content fork articles that describe current thinking on heredity and intelligence and SES and intelligence. We can't, as editors, say 'this is pseudoscience' but we can present expert opinions on that matter. The word 'claims' should be used extensively and supposed facts should be directly attributed (eg a map of national I should be prefigured as "X claims national IQ can be estimated and compared"). Anything that is not established science (i.e. most of this) should not be asserted as fact. IRT psychometricians would claim that IQ isn't a measure, anthropologists would claim that Jensen doesn't use race coherently, etc etc. This may end up being a circus for weasel words but that is the least worst outcome.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a risk in overemphasizing personalities. There are people who've written important things about the subject who aren't well known. A topic based rather than personality based construction will work better for that reason. Rushton and Lynn's theories are notable so much as they have attracted attention from others. By that criteria, Lynn's national IQ estimates are notable and Rushton's r-K argument is notable. In the topic based content, you have two topics rather than two personalities: international test scores and evolutionary theories. That leaves room for Diamond's GGS theory to counter Rushton, and it leaves room for the various reanalyses of Lynn's data (pro and con). Addendum: Lynn is also notable for contributions which supported the discovery of the Flynn effect and for theories related to the cause of the Flynn effect, but those are somewhat tangential to this topic. --Legalleft (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your concern with over emphasising personalities, but the work of people like Jensen, Lynn and Rushton is very closely associated with them and there are only a few people who are making the sorts of absolutist genetic deterministic claims that these people make, so the work becomes inextricably linked to these individuals. If we don't explicitly link a theory with the researcher who postulates it, then we appear to be implying that the theory represents a consensus view. The way I see it this whole "race"/"intelligence" debate became relevant in the modern world because of Jensen's 1967/1969 papers. Because he is the one who re-introduced this sort of thinking, then we need to discuss his specific reasoning and why he has drawn the conclusions that he has. Has he modified his position, if so how etc. We can then expand upon this by including some of his more up to date work and the work of others who agree with him. Then we include the work of people who dispute the conclusions that he has drawn. We don't need great detail, just to include the basic results they have obtained and the reasoning behind their conclusions. This is how we achieve neutrality. I have a lot of sympathy with Slr's position that Rushton and Lynn's views are fringe, but then I wonder if we are just making an arbitrary decision to include or exclude some theories based on what we think is fringe or not, what are the criteria for identifying a "fringe" point of view? I personally have some problems with the idea of minority and fringe views, sometimes it is obvious what is a fringe view, Steady state theory is now a fringe view, but it was promoted by the very well respected astronomer Fred Hoyle, the reason it is fringe is not because it is necessarily bad science, but because the overwhelming majority of astronomers support the Big Bang theory, indeed the Big Bang is usually portrayed as if it is a "fact". The problem in this article is that it is much more difficult to determine what a "fringe" view is because the debate is not constructed around distinct "theories" that compete (unlike Steady State vs Big Bang), we basically have Jensen who does not really have a "theory" as such, just a claim that his evidence supports an "innate" biological difference, and then counter claims that he has either misrepresented or misunderstood the science, these counter claims include all sorts of things from critisism of what IQ actually measures to the social construction of "race" to critisisms of how heritability is calculated etc. I think Nick made this same point quite recently. The only person who has attempted to offer some sort of actual theory (i.e. tried to give some sort of causal relationship between "race" and "intelligence") is Rushton. Besides there are plenty of sources that give comprehensive counter arguments to Rushton and we need to include these. How we deal with Rushton and Lynn is going to be tricky, we can explicitly state that these are fringe theories, but then we need a source that states this. We can certainly claim that these are controversial ideas and that there is much opposition to them, but personally I just don't know how we identify what is and what is not "fringe". I tend to think that on the whole the best thing to do is to include all relevant work, whether we think it is "fringe" or not, give the theory, give the critisisms and allow the reader of the article to draw their own conclusions having been given all points of view. That way at least we cannot be accused of censorship, but it does mean that we need to include a great deal more specific critisism of the work of these people. Given the amount of critisism of people like Lynn, Jensen and Rushton it should be obvious to the impartial reader that not only is this not consensus opinion, but that the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field reject biological deterministic reasoning on scientific grounds. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself very well, and I've waffled a bit. All the best. Alun (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, your descriptions are inaccurate. It's impractical to respond point by point. Instead, I'll quote Jensen (1998): "The relationship of the g factor to a number of biological variables and its relationship to the size of the white-black differences on various cognitive tests (i.e., Spearman’s hypothesis) suggests that the average white-black difference in g has a biological component. Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The “genetic distances” between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g. What I term the default hypothesis states that the causes of the phenotypic differences between contemporary populations of recent African and European descent arise from the same genetic and environmental factors, and in approximately the same magnitudes, that account for individual differences within each population. Thus genetic and environmental variances between groups and within groups are viewed as essentially the same for both populations. The default hypothesis is able to account for the present evidence On the mean white-black difference in g. There is no need to invoke any ad hoc hypothesis, or a Factor X, that is unique to either the black or the white population. The environmental component of the average g difference between groups is primarily attributable to a host of microenvironmental factors that have biological effects. They result from non-genetic variation in prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal conditions and specific nutritional factors. ... In brief, the default hypothesis states that the proximal causes of both individual differences and population differences in heritable psychological traits are essentially the same, and are continuous variables. The population differences reflect differences in allele frequencies of the same genes that cause individual differences. Population differences also reflect environmental effects, as do individual differences, and these may differ in frequency between populations, as do allele frequencies. ... Research will be most productively focused not on whether or not genes are involved in population differences, but in discovering the relative effects of genetic and environmental causes of differences and the nature of these causes, so they can be better understood and perhaps influenced. ... Thus far the quantitative implications of the default hypothesis have been considered only in theoretical or formal terms, which by themselves prove nothing, but are intended only to lend some precision to the statement of the hypothesis and its predicted empirical implications. ... Probably the most rigorous methodology presently available to test the default hypothesis is the application of structural equation modeling to what is termed the biometric decomposition of a phenotypic mean difference into its genetic and environmental components. This methodology is an extraordinarily complex set of mathematical and statistical procedures, an adequate explanation of which is beyond the scope of this book, but for which detailed explanations are available. ... A highly similar methodology (using a less restrictive model termed the biometric factor model) was applied to a much larger data set by behavioral geneticists David Rowe and co-workers. ... The default hypothesis that the difference between the black and white group means on the single general achievement factor has the same genetic and non-genetic causes that contribute to individual differences within each group could not be rejected. The data fit the default model extremely well, with a goodness-of-fit index of .98 (which, like a correlation coefficient, is scaled from zero to one). The authors concluded that the genetic and environmental sources of individual differences and of differences between racial means appear to be identical." Emphasis added. --Legalleft (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Legalleft, I don't really see how your response to my post is relevant to what I wrote. I generally gave my opinion regarding the presentation of the various points of view in the article. This is my opinion about how we change the article to make it more neutral. You have just given a quote from Jensen that doesn't address what I was writing about at all. Frankly I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I make two observations, firstly that we should present biological/genetic theories to explain the so called IQ gap, give the reasoning for these theories and give the reasoning of critics of these points of view. I don't see how this way of doing things can be "inaccurate", though anyone has the right to disagree with me. My second point is that it is difficult to determine what is "fringe" and what is not, therefore we should probably give all relevant theories/points of view, for the sake of completeness. These are the two points I was making, I don't see any reference to these points in the quote you have given, I didn't even mention how "race" is supposed to be defined. However it's good that you have given Jensen's definition of a "race" as a "breeding population", this is not generally considered a definition of a "race" because it is almost impossible to define a "breeding population", and even if one could do such a thing it would represent a very geographically restricted group because it would have to include only individuals with a very high probability of meeting and reproducing together, say people who are likely to meet on a very frequent basis. But it is easy to find sources that show that this definition cannot be a "race". This refers to Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1970 "population" definition of "geographical race" "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves." But of course as Richard Lewontin points out, this allows any group that differs from any other group to be defined as a "race" "In an attempt to hold on to the concept [of Race] while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the 'geographical race', which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate 'geographic race' and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of 'race' as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology." Clearly the African-American population of the USA would not constitute a "race" under Jensen's definition because they are distributed over very large geographic areas, just as the European population of the USA is, neither are "breeding populations", it is easy to show that "races" cannot be "breeding populations" and I don't think any serious population geneticist would hold such a view in the modern world, this definition would just make any localised population definable as a "race". Alun (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You both make good points. I think both can be accomadated. There are enough article surveying the subject for us to present an overview of the hypothesis Jensen introduced, but which exists independently of him, and of which he made different standards of claims (from 'is' to 'maybe'). I think we need to do that early, that is explain the key concepts that underlie the genetic explanation of IQ differences between races. This way the neophyte ready gets a summary of what the issues are. This will also gives some structure to the criticisms. The anthropological argument is of a different kind than the heritability argument; Gould's critique of g is different than Boorsbom's criticism of the classical test theory basis, and so on. This is one of the flaws in the current article - the Jensen position is wrong (IMHO) but it is at least superficially coherent. The counter-position is a mass of very different argument, not all of which are held by all critics. I don't know of somebody who thinks races are primarily biological but disagrees that IQ differences are down to genetics - but such a view isn't neccesarily inconsistent. Lastly we have to be careful attributing to Jensen claims he didn't make or only made overtly speculatively. Nick Connolly (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is evident that there is some kind of fundamental conflict between Alun and Legalleft, although it seems to me that both want to make a good-faith effort to work through it. At the mediation request page they ask for a sumary of the conflicts to be resolved.  Can Alun and Legalleft at least agree to a brief (few sentence) summary of the conflict, to post there?  I also wonder if there is a similar good-faith conflict between myself and Nick, as Nick agrees to my proposal but as I understand my proposal this article (and any that mentions Lynch and Rushton) would be about the popular controversy and representation of the debate in the mass media, and not at all about any scientific debate.  Is this too something that needs to be sumarized for the mediation committee? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look that fundamental to me. The "popular controversy" is about academic claims (I'm weasling out oif the word "scientific") made by academics in journals (or critiqued in journals). The article has to explain what the basic position under dispute is to understand what people objected to and how that position varies. That approach works equally well for a scientific hypothesis and for pseudoscience. Have a look at the Rational geometry page for a non-politically loaded approach to a minority academic viewpoint in mathematics.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me that this is not about the media reporting on a debate among scientists, it is rather about the media creating a debate that gives undue prominence to views rejected by mainstream scientists (Murray and Hernstein, Lynch, and Rushton)? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both of those are too simplistic. There is a debate between academics that does occur at an academic level - that is via journal articles and research papers and replies to those journal articles etc etc. That debate is fueled in part by the prominence that research into race can have in the popular media - particularly in the USA. Personally I think Rushton (or lesser figures like Watson, as far as IQ goes) are acting like trolls but like it or not they provoke debate at a scholarly level. Consequently there is a scholarly dispute to document. The attempts to debunk their view has also had an effect of provoking research - which in turn makes the dispute of more note. Nick Connolly (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any "fundamental conflict" between me and Legalleft, I just think that we are just not communicating very well. While I think I am making a specific point, when I read Legalleft's response it doesn't seem to be at all related to the point I was originally trying to make. This has been a pattern in several of our interactions. Maybe I'm being less explicit in what I am saying than I think I am, maybe Legalleft is reading more into my post than I think I am saying. But it's more like we just don't understand the point the other is making. Possibly this is normal for people from different disciplines. I'm a biologist and I am guessing Legalleft is a psychologist. This is what I think, we can separate the "popular controversy" from the "academic claims" and indeed we have to do this. Journalists nearly always get things wrong and misrepresent what academics are saying, even people like Lynn, Rushton etc. So my thinking is that we include the main "theories" and the rationals for those theories, we include criticisms of these "theories". There's probably a great deal more we can write about criticism of these theories than there is support for them, because these criticisms include a diverse set of arguments that do not conform to coherent "theory" (see the book "Race and IQ", it's a collection of more or less unrelated papers and essays). Then we have a separate section about how the media has covered this work and has made this work well known. But it is important to distinguish between what the theories actually say and what the media report that these theories say, because I'm sure these will be different things. I'm proposing a relatively simple structure of point and counterpoint. We give a broadly chronological outline to the debate. The theories of the various protagonists and the rebutals of those theories by other scientists. This way we get neutrality. Let's face it we are going to make this article neutral - and we already have an overwhelming consensus that this article is not neutral so the status quo is not acceptable - we need to discuss ways that we can re-model the article to include the specific criticisms of claims made by specific researchers. I personally can't see any other way of getting this thing to be neutral. Alun (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Full disclosure: I recently made some minor edits to this page without noticing its was fully-protected. After having had this brought to my attention, I've now undone them. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting, even though the edits were minor.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Presentation of views
Should the environmental/cultural view be presented as a fact, theory, hypothesis, conjecture, opinion, etc.? I can't see where it has been definitively proven to be responsible for more than a minor portion of the group IQ gaps in adults. --Jagz (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the overviews by Dickens and Nisbett. Without doubt, and with no one disagreeing, very important at least in developing nations.Ultramarine (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are they? --Jagz (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the article in the Environment section.Ultramarine (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That falls well short of the criteria needed to present group IQ gaps being the result of only environmental factors as a fact. --Jagz (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. WP:NPOV We will never present any view as "fact," we will say that there are people who consider this to be a fact."   What matters is not wheher yo or I think it is a fact but whether a notable view in a reliable source does. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is a science article, it should be stated clearly that scientific method and science does not deal with opinion, facts, truth, etc. ?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

there is science there
I suspect that a fundamental miscommunication between parties is that some believe there is no science here or if there is science kind of science it is a mess of obviously flawed inferences. If that were true, then it would justify being very critical of the content of this article. It is not true. There are problems with the science, but they aren't trivial. As an example that demonstrates both the existence of real science on this topic and the complex nature of the problems faced, here's is an example from a recent paper by Nathan Brody:

"There is an extensive behavioral-genetic literature on intelligence. Few of these studies deal with Black individuals. This gap in knowledge leads to difficulties in the interpretation of two of the more informative studies dealing with racial differences in intelligence. Fagan and Holland (in press) completed a longitudinal study that indicates that infant measures of information-processing abilities obtained in the 1st year of life are predictive of early childhood intelligence and of young adult intelligence. Fagan (2000) also obtained data indicating that the performance of Black and White infants on infant measures of intellectual competence is equivalent. There is at least a prima facie argument and some data supporting the inference that the covariance between infant information-processing ability and later intelligence-test performance is determined by shared genetic influences on both types of measures (see Thompson, 1989). If this is correct, it would imply that Black and White individuals have equivalent intellectual abilities in infancy. The lower performance on tests of intelligence exhibited by Black individuals later in life would, by this interpretation, be determined by environmental events that are operative after age 1. This interpretation would be strengthened if studies relating to inferences about genetic covariances between infant and adult markers for intelligence had been conducted for Black children. As they have not, the evidence in favor of this interpretation rests solely on the outcome of studies of potential genetic covariances for White individuals that may or may not apply to Black individuals. [paragraph mark] Jensen (1993) found that Black–White differences in intellectual performance are present on chronometric measures of simple and choice reaction times. Behavioral-genetic studies indicate that the phenotypic covariance between reaction-time measures and scores on tests of intelligence is attributable to genetic covariances (see Brody, 2007; Posthuma, deGues, & Boomsma, 2003). This result would imply that the poorer performance of Black individuals on chronometric tests is determined by genetic differences between Black and White individuals that are related to genetic differences in intellectual abilities. Studies that support genetic covariances between chronometric indices and intelligence-test performance have been conducted on White samples. We do not know if comparable results would be obtained for Black samples, thus rendering a genetic interpretation of racial differences in intellectual abilities based on these data problematic."

If it's not clear how it is a problem that there are not comparable studies with black individuals consider these related question -- what if the infant information-processing tests are biased against white infants? what if the reaction time measures biased against black individuals? Those are the types of issues that are reocgnized and grappled with by researchers working on this subject.

That is not to say that in the entirety of the scholarly literature there aren't broader questions asked about the research. Hunt and Carlson lay out the range of opinions: The investigation of racial differences in intelligence is probably the most controversial topic in the study of individual differences. Contemporary proponents can be found for each of the following positions: a. There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function (Rushton, 1995; Rushton & Jensen, 2005a). b. Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin (Ogbu, 2002; Sowell, 2005). c. Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups (Ogbu, 2002; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005). d. There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept (Fish, 2004; Smedley & Smedley, 2005). 

The Hunt and Carlson review is excellent in that it pulls together and synthesizes diverse reports, mostly with the aim of criticizing mistakes. Gottfredson then takes her turn criticizing mistakes made by Hunt and Carlson. The entire exchange is very informative. --Legalleft (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the same vein, you might also like this reference: . It's a review of some major points of the racialist hypothesis, nicely refuted from an anthropological perspective by Lieberman. Also followed by nearly a dozen commentaries on the review itself.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)