Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 68

Topics for Request for Comment
I am considering doing another Request for Comment on more specific issues, perhaps related to the neutrality issue. Does anyone have suggestions on issues for a RfC. --Jagz (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes: about your disruptive behaviour. Having another RfC regarding the neutrality of the article is forum-shopping, pure and simple. You've already been warned several times against doing that.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it will be soliciting outside advice on specifics of how best to fix the neutrality issue. You are definitely not assuming good faith by allegations of forum-shopping. --Jagz (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the only one who warned you against this. User:Cailil warned you when you tried to take the same issue to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. I still think you should be soliciting feedback on your own behaviour.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cailil was not assuming good faith either as my intention was to improve the article with more specific information. The disruptions caused me to abandon it. --Jagz (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would second an RfC on User:Jagz. At present a WP:SPA, he is is deliberately disrupting the project, here and elsewhere. His "forum shopping" - misrepresenting other editors like Slrubenstein at the drop of a hat (or a woggle) - seems to be unacceptable behaviour.  Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, your behavior here on the Talk page is getting outrageous. --Jagz (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you think yours isn't? Telling people to "go to bed without dinner", inserting the same POINTy retort four times, asking the same question of different people over and over, just to try to get a different answer? In all fairness, I have to say this: as an editor, you need to grow up.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell us what your contributions to the article and not the Talk page have been since it was unlocked on February 1. --Jagz (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not germane to the subject of this thread.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then put it on your Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is still interest in content-forking the article and feel that there has not been a consensus reached on doing so, you should consider a RfC as the next step. --Jagz (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, stay calm. You neither own this talk page nor the article. Your statements above contravene the very essence of WP. You are an WP:SPA editor trying to push a non-mainstream point of view. You are trolling here and being disruptive in several other parts of the WP. Your actions at present are inexcusable. Please think very carefully before misrepresenting how WP is edited as you have just done. The fact that you have lurked on this page for a significant period of time gives you no special rights, in fact rather the contrary. You are one of the very worst editors I have seen on this page, apart from other banned WP:POV pushers User:Fourdee and User:MoritzB, both with rather nasty private agendas.  Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please stop pushing the POV that the genetic hypothesis is fringe. --Jagz (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, excellent idea, Yes I think Jagz has been warned plenty!! Great idea, having another RfC! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to do an RfC on content-forking, then please stop trolling the article. I noted your post here: --Jagz (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What precisely about that post did you note Jagz? I have warned you for a) assumption of bad faith b) forum shopping and attempting to ask the other parent and c) for disrupting the project (.  You are continuing to behave in this manner - even after being warned - and have created a poisonous atmosphere on this page.  I already explained to you specifically that "asking the other parent" is incompatible with site policy.  I will also remind you that you closed a RfC here a matter of weeks ago.       Informing me that this issue is still on-going was proper.
 * Jagz, your above comments to Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein are out of line with site policies on usage of talk space, site etiquette and the civility requirements of wikipedia - please review site policy on these matters. All in all I have to agree that a User RfC for Jagz would be appropriate.
 * Also Jagz, your comment about me above is inaccurate if there is a problem with my bahviour ask a sysop to review it. You called attention to yourself by making the FTN post all I had to to do was read this page in order to see that there was consensus, that there was an RFC and that you were "asking the other parent"-- Cailil   talk 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your allegations of forum shopping are assuming bad faith. Trying to get more information is not forum shopping. Slrubenstein, Mathsci, and Ramdrake have made virtually no contributions to the article since it was unlocked on February 1. In fact, they are disrupting progress. I have made many edits. As you can see in the above sections, I have bent over backward trying to help the article along and encouraging them to engage in editing the article while putting up with their disruptive and rude comments. They are refusing to cooperate with improving the article, apparently because they want to content-fork the article. They have apparently not gained consensus for content-forking the article so I have suggested they do an RfC on content-forking since content-forking is apparently the only thing that will appease them. I think I'm being demonized because I have not supported their (Slrubenstein's) content-forking idea. --Jagz (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No Jagz I'm no alleging anything. You attempted to use FTN to circumvent consensus by "asking the other parent" and have tried to open an RfC to do same.  This not an allegation, this is evidential fact.  If you think my behaviour is incorrect please ask a sysop to review it.
 * This project is founded upon collaborative and consensus based editing. Everyone must abide by consensus even if one disagrees with that consensus - in this case your position has not achieved consensus but you just aren't hearing it. This type of behaviour is disruptive.  As pointed out by Mathschi you don't own the page.
 * Your above comment about the other users is, once again, uncivil and inappropriate - please do not call the kettle black. This is now your second warning in a matter of minutes - please review site etiquette-- Cailil   talk 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I tried to use FTN to get more information on what others consider to be fringe in the article. Additionally, I didn't try to open another RfC, I only discussed it. Also, I reserve the right to open another RfC to get additional information unless you can provide me with some policy that says I can't. --Jagz (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The information has already been provided on this talk page, often more than once. By asking again, you are only proving either 1)you don't understand it or 2)you're not willing to trust the information provided by the other editors or 3)you haven't understood or don't trust the outside input provided so far by the two RfCs you generated or 4)any combination of the above. I believe asking the same or a similar question again (about the neutrality of the article, or what is fringe in the article - both of which are intimately related questions) would be a willful breach of asking the other parent again and would certainly constitute disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which could get you blocked. Again: you have thoroughly exhausted the community's patience. Pushing it further will not help you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you were warned several times as to what constitutes forum-shopping. After a number of warnings, if you still are violating this principle, then you are the one acting in bad faith. Second, there was a consensus here about what to do with the article, which you managed to trash with your incivil remarks, edit-warring and generally insulting all editors around. You have NOT bent over backwards to try to accomodate other editors: otherwise, you would not have edit-warred, blind revert after blind revert. You also failed to mention that, while every editor on this article was willing to go to mediation, you single-handedly made mediation abort by your refusal to mediate. Also, all the above points to a systematic misrepresentation of the facts, trying to whitewash your actions and to demonize those of the editors you are in conflict with. Your behaviour is unbecoming of a Wikipedian, and pretty much is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I withdrew from mediation before it started for personal reasons but was not trying to abort the process. I was hoping that it would continue. --Jagz (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, you've been here long enough to know that if even one party refuses mediation, mediation is automatically aborted. It even says so on the mediation page. So, please, no more lame excuses.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. --Jagz (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you'll stop the futile complaining?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it alright to call someone a 'borg' rather than a 'troll' ? --Zero g (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Personal reasons"? I fear that Jagz might now be misrepresenting himself. He's had plenty of time to make his excuses or apologies for his absence during the mediation discussion. There is no evidence anywhere on WP that he made the slightest attempt to do so. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we reading the same talk page Cailil? The only person who is consistently rude and uncivil is Slrubenstein. --Zero g (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Zero g, as another WP:SPA, you might try to be a little more careful. Slrubenstein has not removed comments from other people's talk pages or gone forum shopping or trolled. Jagz is trolling here and I do not think he now requires help in this. In your case I would be interested to know why, after an absence of one year on WP, you are back again only to edit WP articles related to the discredited theories of a small coterie of WP:FRINGE scholars? Is it due to a renewed subscription for American Renaissance? Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually at a KKK reunion when a fellow hate monger expressed his annoyance with people incorrectly using the abbreviation WP, and how someone should put that straight. --Zero g (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Mathsci should limit his editing to the articles on mathematics, France, and Jerry Lewis. --Jagz (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * American Renaissance publishes [ http://www.amren.com /store/video.htm videos] by Lynn and Rushton, presumably with their consent. I wonder whether you could explain that? Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an abuse of the notion of WP:FRINGE. There are many notable points of view. Hunt and Carlson offer one enumeration of 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). I can't see how it's possible that any of those four views can be considered fringe by the technical description given at the policy page. The volume of scholarly literature on and about those views is just enormous. Time would be better spent making sure all of them are well explained in the article. --Legalleft (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, there are some interesting reviews which to my mind demonstrate that hypothesis a) is in fact fringe. Here are but just a few links:
 * Lieberman's very good paper from 2001, including about a dozen commentaries,
 * Cernovsky's very interesting criticism of intelligence research,
 * Gray and Thompson' Neurobiology of Intelligence
 * interesting criticism of the Pioneer Fund-related research,
 * more of the same.
 * I can dig up more if you wish, but I believe the above should demonstrate my point.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those articles suggest the opposite in a variety of ways. Foremost by their very discussion of (a) they make it a noteworthy issue. Secondly, sources like Thompson and Gray's review suggest a research paradigm to investigate (a) versus (b) -- meaning that they take both very seriously. The review I cited does the same. As do all those papers that argue (b-d) are right and (a) is wrong. Sowell and Flynn come to mind as two famous examples of scholars that support (b) and that actively argue that (a) is wrong but worth considering. Those theories have been a topic of scholarly discussion for 30 years -- so I really think it's a misuse of the term "fringe" in the WP:FRINGE sense. This seems like a clear cut issue to me. To be somewhat silly -- if a prosecutor brought (a) to trial on the charge of WP:FRINGE the judge would dismiss the case. --Legalleft (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try comparing with these definitions: fringe science and junk science. Also, you seem under the impression that scientifically marginal (fringe) subject lack noteworthiness. That isn't necessarily so. There are many examples of noteworthy, but fringe scientific subjects.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you quit imposing your "fringe" POV beliefs on everyone else. --209.155.81.130 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not my beliefs. Just read the references I mentioned above and you'll see this position is shared by mainstream researchers.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then quit imposing their POV beliefs on everyone else. --209.155.81.130 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a number of scientists reject something as junk science does not mean it is thereby noteworthy enough to be in an article on the topic. The article on Evolution does not have content on the views of Intelligent Design - not "despite" the fact that people like Dawkins and Gould have criticized it, but because they and other scientists have criticized it. Similarly, the weight of scientific views against racist science does not make racist noteworthy of inclusion in this article, it makes it fringe science. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * SLR, not sure, but methinks you are feeding a troll.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, regarding your above comment, your logic is baseless and twisted. You and Ramdrake are both engaged in pushing POV beliefs. --Jagz (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake : "under the impression that scientifically marginal (fringe) subject lack noteworthiness" -- I wrote "There seems to be an abuse of the notion of WP:FRINGE." in response to "discredited theories of a small coterie of WP:FRINGE scholars" and similar uses. If what's implied is fringe science rather than WP:FRINGE, then my particular point doesn't apply. But perhaps you can see where I was coming from.

SLR : The comparison to evolution is off by many orders of magnitude. There are zero surviving peer reviewed articles in support of intelligent design, formerly n=1. The citation counts behind each of the 4 theories Hunt and Carlson outline are prima facie equivalent, and many orders of magnitude greater than 1. By that and many other metrics the situations are not comparable. Flynn doesn't say Jensen isn't doing science, he say his interpretations are wrong. Sowell doesn't say Jensen is racist, rather he says he's more ethical than some of his critics.

All: this back and forth name calling is hardly constructive. --Legalleft (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the genetic hypothesis has neither been proven nor disproven. Maybe junk science has been used to try to prove it but if so that does not disprove it. --Jagz (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Filling in your ethnicity on an IQ test and Performance
Studies showed that BLACK Kids who had to tick a box describing their ethnicity before they started an IQ test, did siginificantly worse on the test than BLACK kids who didnt have to tick a box describng their IQ before they started an IQ test.

So reminding them of their ethnicity before the test, meant they performed worse (lack of confidence/anxiety) and had lower Iq's.

Also, Black kids have an IQ of 97 and white kids and IQ of 101, surely the prejudices aqquired over the life of a black person and the poor education and social deprivation would further decrease his/her IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.5 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add your references. --Jagz (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of the above is well-known and described under Stereotype threat.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What happens when non-Asians tick the East Asian box before starting the IQ test? --Jagz (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Making progress on the article
Since Slrubenstein's proposal to content-fork the article has not taken off, what can we do to make progress on the article? I have read the RfC comments. I would like the editors to list here clearly what we can do to make progress on the article. --Jagz (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you were community banned from editing this article, that might help. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other suggestions? --Jagz (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Jagz, since you ask, yes I have a suggestion for you. In future you should not remove other editors' comments on administrators' talk pages and that you should try to resist escalating meaningless content disputes of your own creation into futile wikidramas. And that you do not remove my edits to this page like this one:
 * Jagz seems to be filibustering. The inclusion or not of "different" before races is a completely trivial point that does not deserve any kind of prolonged discussion. Please stop disrupting this page, Jagz, unless you have a point to make with some intellectual content. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your behaviour seems disruptive. You have insulted and misrepresented editors here and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just looked and your sentence is still there. The discussion on that sentence is over so I'm not sure why you put the comment there in the first place. --Jagz (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not "my sentence". Please try to make remarks accurately on this talk page, if that's possible. Remember: DYB, DYB, DYB, DOB, DOB, DOB. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is not your sentence, then whose is it? I am assuming good faith. --Jagz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go and look at the history page, Jagz. Not one word is due to me. Please stop behaving like a WP:TROLL. Mathsci (talk)
 * I really, really have no idea what you are talking about. Your comments are getting disturbing. --Jagz (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're still edit-warring about the section, aren't you?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Slrubenstein's proposal to content-fork the article has not taken off, what can we do to make progress on the article? I have read the RfC comments. I would like the editors to list here clearly what we can do to make progress on the article. --Jagz (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is exactly what you are now doing by posting exactly the same message twice. I can see why for example this section could be regarded as trolling, since you pointedly shunned mediation-related discussions earlier in the month. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop placing your off topic comments in this section. You can discuss on my Talk page if you want. --Jagz (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have done in this section is twice slurred the name of Slrubenstein. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the way to make progress on the article is to present the belief that the genetic hypothesis is fringe as a POV and the belief that the genetic hypothesis is not fringe as another POV. --Jagz (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that would be equivalent to putting the hereditarian hypothesis on the same footing as mainstream science. That's already been rejected all around.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That contention seems to be POV. --Jagz (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the article stands now, I don't believe there is any merit to the idea of content-forking the article. I suggest those willing concentrate on improving the existing article. --Jagz (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

citation describing criticism of Lynn and Rushton
In a previous thread, Nick and I both appeared to be familiar with the same argument against Lynn/Rushton's ice-age hypotheses. Here's a recent citation which describes that criticism:

It could be asked why cold is a stronger environmental challenge than drought or alternations of droughts and rainy seasons in areas such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and Middle America. One response might be the necessity and possibility of keeping supplies which is enabled by foresight (see the German proverb ‘Denk daran, schaff Vorrat an’. ‘Think of it, stock up on’.). Predictable and cognitively solvable environmental challenges could stimulate evolutionary cognitive development; diseases like malaria were not part of cognitively solvable environmental challenges in pre-modern times. Examples like differences in lactose intolerance show the ongoing process of evolution and the important differences in genes between groups. Rindermann. Eur. J. Pers. 21: 767–787 (2007) --Legalleft (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guessing the European Journal of Personality is not a genetics or evolutionary biology journal, and Ringermann is not a geneticist or physical anthropologist. Students of human evolution would certainly agree that "Predictable and cognitively solvable environmental challenges could stimulate evolutionary cognitive development" but this is precisely one of the arguments for the evolution of H. sapiens and the cognitive developments that resulted from this are found in human beings living in all niches.Be that as it may, the second half of the paragraph does not follow from the first half.  What, by the way, is the scientific basis for the claim that cold is a stronger environmental challenge than drought, by the way?  (Just to be clear, I am NOT knocking Inuit intelligence!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all an attempt to explain the ecological correlation between contemporary average IQ scores (and other test scores) of indigenous groups and (a) the latitude at which they are found, (b) mean temperature of that location, and (c) their average skin color -- understood as an adaptation to climate. Colder climates/lighter skin is associated with higher IQ. A fifth variable in that matrix is brain size. Interestingly, a recent paper reported that a variant which DOESN'T account for differences in IQ does cause differences in brain size. I'd be willing to wager that the brain size differences are directly related to the climatic variables (per Beals), but that IQ differences are only indirectly related. BTW - the bulk of the article has little to do with this section, which was addressing causal hypotheses. --Legalleft (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

survey of experts - 2008
of some note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

"At first glance, such discrepant views may give the impression that experts remain deeply divided over almost all aspects of the science of mental abilities. However, given the longevity and volume of research in the science of mental abilities, it is likely that there are areas of scientific consensus. We believe the appearance of controversy regarding a number of issues is driven by two factors. First, given the volume and increasing technical sophistication of the empirical literature, we admit it can be quite difficult for even research scientists to determine where scientific consensus has been achieved and which propositions and hypotheses are still legitimately in question. Second, the highly visible non-scientific commentaries (e.g., Gould, 1996; Murdoch, 2007) continue to give the impression that the field is in disarray. Indeed, such a sentiment was expressed by Reeve and Hakel (2002) who stated, “… scientific research on intelligence has often met with fierce public opposition. Even within the scientific community, the debate is often sidetracked by misunderstandings and misconceptions. The same questions are asked repeatedly, false claims and criticisms are based on misconstrued or misunderstood evidence, and important questions remain ignored. This wastes the resources, time, and energy of partisans, scientists, and the public.” (p. 69)."

...Though some commentaries give the impression of controversy regarding the importance of cognitive abilities and the validity of ability testing, the results of this survey clearly demonstrate that there are areas of resounding consensus among experts. Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. The areas for which we found evidence of continued controversy appear to deal with what might be considered more detailed questions rather than core or fundamental questions. For instance, there appears to be lack of consensus regarding the degree to which specific abilities contribute meaningful variance above g, and as to the exact breadth of the g-nexus. These are important issues to be sure, but they are not the type of issues that call into question the fundamental importance of cognitive ability, or the validity and utility of ability tests in general.

... it would appear that questions regarding the nature of race differences in intelligence, and the implications of adverse impact, are still in need of additional research. It should be kept in mind that investigating views on the nature of race differences was not the focus of the survey; as such, there were only a few general items relating to this issue. Clearly this issue is complex and multifaceted; we caution readers from making strong inferences on the basis of these few items. Nonetheless, a global evaluation of the results does suggest a few general trends. For example, there appears to be some consensus (but not unanimity) among experts that professionally developed tests are not biased against minority groups. At the same time, there are clearly some unresolved issues. Two items in particular (items 39 and 43) which deal with the nature of racial differences reveal polarized opinions. Thus, although this will undoubtedly continue to be a highly politicized and polarized line of inquiry, these results suggest that additional research is needed to better understand this phenomenon.

Two points to take away from that.

(1) Non-expert claims about what is and is not established cannot be trusted. Even individual expert claims require some skepticism on the part of editors -- and require full attribution and citation. Thus, crucially, naked claims by editors to know the extent to which a particular positions is supported by expert opinion are not a reliable basis for article construction. Such claims are themselves subject to expert disagreement.

(2) Surveys of expert opinion such as this one and earlier ones such as Snyderman and Rothman's, as well as multiauthor statements such as the APA report and the Mainstream statement paint a picture of general agreement about the basics of intelligence research, the reality of differences in cognitive ability between racial-ethnic groups, and the disagreement between experts about the causes of those differences. That latter point is important -- if there was agreement that a genetic explanation was nonsense it would show up in these surveys. Thus claims that the hereditarian hypothesis is WP:FRINGE or even fringe science cannot be taken as obvious and if presented would require attribution and citation. --Legalleft (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found that trying to discuss this subject is like trying to change someone's mind about whether God does or does not exist. You might want to just go ahead and start making some edits to the article. --Jagz (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Legalleft, I do not agree because you are mixing apples and oranges. Psychologists do research on intelligence tests and what those tests measure and yes, I would grant authority to statements by the APA as to what constitutes mainstream science on intelligence and the way it is tested.  But psychologists are not geneticists and typically do not have any training in genetics (or even evolutionary theory) and do not conduct research in genetics.  The APA cannot therefore judge mainstream science in genetics any more than it can in physics or astronomy.  There are of course trained geneticists who have their own professional organizations and I would take their statements about mainstream science concerning genetics as reliable. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I understand your argument, and if the situation were different I believe that reasoning would be sound, but I believe the particulars of this situation weaken your point considerably. Rather than trying to expand on that, I'm going to keep hacking at the article, and hope that the point that I was making comes across in that way. --Legalleft (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back Legalleft's edits
I rolled back Legalleft's edits, as I felt these were adding undue weight to the genetic hypothesis, and started again quoting Rushton and Jensen pretty much everywhere, and I believe there is consensus against that. I woul invite Legalleft to reintroduce his edits one by one so they can be properly discussed on the talk page as necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Here are some of my specific concerns: In a nutshell, these are the problems I see with these edits.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Encarta cannot be cited, as it is a WP:RS
 * Personnally, no major objection to the Singer quote.
 * The section on tests comes across as trying to attack environmental effects and defend genetic effects. Also, the test for X effect section seems a bit superfluous.
 * The section on chronometric measures goes into too much detail and seems too speculative.

By point:


 * Citing the primary authors words, in this case, the words which sparked the entire debate seems like an improvement. Also, citing another encyclopedia just isn't good form; especially in this case where hundreds of other scholarly citations are possible to get the point across. Either editor-written prose should be used or a direct quote -- no need to quote another copyrighted encyclopedia. Given that it is often argued that Jensen's position was misunderstood, a direct quote seem preferable in this case.* Great, I think it adds much needed context.
 * Those are the arguments made which are offered to support the genetic hypothesis. If you understand the argument, Jensen et al argue for a genetic contribution by showing the insufficiency of environmental factors. You'll find I made extensive use of antagonistic sources as citations -- this is how Flynn, Jencks & Phillips, Loehlin (writing in Sternberg's book), and others describe the arguments.
 * The chronometric measures are considered by several third parties to be the most important evidence because they come from outside psychometrics. They have been debated since the early nineties. The reason why Jensen is cited so much is that he's done so much of the research -- Jensen (1993) for the first chronometric paper, iirc.

In general:

You should restore my edits and work to improve them. Jensen's 1969 argument rests on two pillars -- a theoretical one based on heritability and an empirical one looking at putative environmental effects. I choose the most representative and highly cited examples of these empirical tests by looking at how Jensen's academic adversaries describe them. A topic is given undue weight when it receives more prominence than it deserves. I think its best to leave it up to experts, like the ones I cited, as to what's the proper weight to give these results. The metrics you used -- tends to support the genetic hypothesis and mentions Jensen -- makes no sense as a criteria for judging individual facts. Of course some facts support the genetic hypothesis, that's why there's a debate at all. Citing Jensen is just good form because he's the most prominent person with the view and has written several reviews covering all of this.

Put some elbow grease in and improve the text as I've tried to do. We're getting closer to the point where an average reader might be able to understand this article. --Legalleft (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Factor x:

Do you mean that it isn't explained well? If you think the common-factor / factor-X debate isn't important, then we have far bigger issues because that entire section is built around explaining that distinction, and how realizing it changes the expectation of what the environmental causes should look like. It essentially explains why the Flynn effect is such a big deal. --Legalleft (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jensen has no argument based on heritability. He is not a trained geneticist which may explain why he uses the word in a way that could not even be called a fringe theory among geneticists - he simply uses the word to mean something it does not mean in genetics.  It would be like my calling my girlfriend "borderline" because she is almost a communist but not quite there.  Sure, i can use the word however I want, but this way I am using it simply has nothing to do with psychiatry.  Similarly, Jensen can use the word "heritability" anyway he wants, but the way he uses it has nothing to do with genetics.  I have never seen a geneticist say otherwise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SLR -- Jensen has no argument based on heritability. -- Your claim is mistaken at two levels. I suppose I should have addressed this in the section above rather than delaying. First level - this isn't molecular genetics. It's behavioral/quantitative genetics. The truth is actually the opposite of your claim -- a molecular geneticist has no expertise in heritability estimation. Behavioral/quantitative genetics was actually invented in part to study IQ. Jensen not only is an expert in behavioral/quantitative genetics but he was developed some of the mathematical methods used, and has published extensive on it. Many psychometricans are also behavioral/quantitative geneticists -- Wendy Johnson comes to mind. Second -- Jensen very much does base his argument on heritability. Massive amounts of text have been dedicated to examining this argument in the scholarly literature. The argument has, IMO, now been described very clearly in the article. Whether his argument is correct or not is a matter of POVs, which we should be able to manage. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also very concerned that the expanded section on hypothesis testing violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, at least, as it presents the genetic hypothesis on equal footing with the environmental hypothesis; actually, it even goes so far as advocating the genetic hypothesis. The previous round of RfCs, I believe made it clear that the consensus was that the genetic hypothesis was the position of a very small minority, even a fringe position. Slrubenstein also has a point that the hypothesis is championed by psychologists who, if they may be experts on intelligence are in no way experts on race or on genetics. Lastly as an accessory point, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is purported twice to support the genetic hypothesis. This is purely Ruston et al.'s reinterpretation, as the original authors originally said (and repeated in the follow-up to nthe study) that the results supported the environmental hypothesis rather than the genetic hypothesis.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, let's take this step by step. I think your points are logically valid but happen to be factually incorrect. Let me outline just a few. (1) SLR is wrong for the reasons I gave above. (2) Uninformed editors opinions about how common a scientific view is are essentially meaningless for us. If we simply wrote things by majority vote of editors, then Stephen Colbert's jokes about wikipedia would be true. The notion that the topic isn't worth discussing is itself a disputed POV (e.g. Turkheimer versus Flynn), and should be described as such in the article. Nick and I both seem to agree that you can't make sense of this topic if you simply leave out the genetic hypothesis. And Nick specifically disagrees with SLR on this point. Taking the position that material in the article should only support on POV is clearly an WP:NPOV problem. -- To spell that out more clearly. Consider that 52 professors signed a statement that the genetic factors might contribute to BW IQ differences and not long after a panel of 11 experts said there wasn't much [direct] evidence for that view. Who's side do you take? NPOV says we skirt the issue by describing the range of views. (3) Rushton and Jensen actually played no role in the MTRAS debate except to comment on it after the fact in their 2005 review. You'll notice that I included a description of the various interpretations of the data. You're free to refactor and rewrite as you choose, but MTRAS is a big deal for this topic. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also regarding Factor X - what it is and what it stands for isn't explained anywhere in the article, so a section on factor X actually is detrimental to the legibility of the article by non-experts. This article was going in the right direction yesterday by shortening or identifying some of the overlong sections, but this latest round of edits adds back cumbersomeness in the article; worse it reads as positively advocating the genetic hypothesis, a direct violation of WP:FRINGE for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read this section: . Please feel free to reorganize the sections for readability, but the common-factor / factor-X distinction is the key theoretical notion that launched Jensen and Flynn's debate, the Flynn effect, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Legalleft, I do not see where I ever wrote "molecular genetics." I just wrote "genetics." And I was never refering to molecular genetics. If we limit ourselves to population genetics and its mathematical modles everything I say holds. jenson misuses "heritability" like many people misuse the words depression and split personality. The word exists and it has a clear meaning in genetics. jenson was not trained in this field and gets the term wrong. He is not expert on genetics or heritaiblity and his claims about them are as pseudosciency as claims that a professor of comparative literature may make about personality disorders. just because you have a PhD. in one field does not mean you are an expert in another field. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just wrong. If you don't trust my word, consult Neven Sesardic (Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 4 (2000), pp. 580-602). Holding and describing that POV is fine, but enforcing it as a matter of policy is not. --Legalleft (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More specifically, "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I m right. Sesardic is a philosopher, not a geneticist. I know of no evidence that his views are given any weight by geneticists. I think heis another example of someone with a PhD in a field other than genetics who wishes to pass judgement on genetics. in fact, his argument is as confused as Jensen's: according to him, Jenson suggests two kinds of heritability, that which explains WGD and that which explains BGD; moreover, the evidence for the BGD heritability is WGD heritability plus "other empirical factors." The problemn is there are not two different kinds of heritability, only one. If anything, Sesardic supports my claim, which is that heritability does not apply to BGD. Sesardic goes to pains to point out that Jenson supports his claims that genetics explains BGD because of "other empirical evidence." Heritability thus has nohing to do with it, it is simply not germaine, the question is, what is this "other empirical evidence" and Jensen has never convinced any geneticist that his evidence demonstrates that BGD are explained by genetics.

All the Sesardic (apparently a friend or colleague of Jensen's) really proves is my point that people without phDs in genetics should tread caefully when making claims about genetics. Funny, if a comparative literature professor makes claims about the power of Freud for explaining human behavior, psychologists react that people in literature do not understand pscyhology. Yet psychologists (and in this case a philosopher) seem to have no qualms about making bald claims about fields in which they have no training. that is pretty crappy science! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Behavioral Genetics Society, I wonder what standing it has among geneticists? The editorial board of the journal is almost all psychologists. I mean, really, if they wanted to be geneticists, why didn't they go to grad school and get phDs in genetics? Or, if they believe in interdisciplinary research, why don't they team up with geneticists, leave the psychometrics to the psychologists and the genetics to the geneticists? Isn't that how interdisciplinary research is supposed to work? I find it rather funny, a bunch of people who claim to be doing research in genetics while disregarding the views of people with PhDs in genetics.

But maybe it is time to go to the article on Psychology and start quoting Leo Bersani and Jonathan Culler on the centrality of Freud! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another point, I could found a society called "The Union of Responsible Psychologists", and get every academic who agrees with me to join, but that wouldn't make me an expert in psychology. What is the standing of the "Behavioural Genetics Society" amongst geneticists? I not there is only a single result for a google search for "Behavioural Genetics Society". Setting up one's own society to promote one's own work and point of view does not make that society relevant to the wider academic community. A search for Behavioural Genetics Society produces 257,000 results. Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand we do have the Behavioural Genetics Association, which does seem to be a proper professional body. There's also the BEHAVIORAL GENETICS RESOURCES site, which does not mention the "Behavioural Genetics Society" at all. Alun (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote, not what SLR misreported. -- "In 1970 Jensen was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and Behavior Genetics..." - from Miele's biography of Jensen. --Legalleft (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --Legalleft (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the article link of Behavior Genetics Association, whose journal is Behavior Genetics. Here is the article link of Intelligence (journal). --Jagz (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, do you feel that your background in anthropology makes you an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does your background make you? How does being a cub scout (or whatever you are) make you an expert in genetics or psychology? Thought I'd ask as you have several times complained about other's qualifications, while at the same time apparently having zero academic qualifications (relevant or otherwise) whatsoever. Alun (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I was in the Scouts years ago but that is changing the subject. Do you feel that Slrubenstein's background in anthropology makes him an expert on the subject matter of this article and Jensen's qualifications? --Jagz (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not changing the subject, you actually seem to know something about being a boy scout, but you appear to know nothing about psychology or genetics. What is your expertise in the fields of genetics or psychology? Why should we accept anything you have claimed here? If you want others to justify themselves then why can't you justify yourself? Alun (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz seems to completely miss my point, or distort it - typical of his trollish behavior. I never claim to speak with expertise as a geneticist. All I have been arguing is that psychologists cannot speak with authority about genetics either. My only argument is that mainstream views about genetics come from geneticists. As to why I understand the concept of heritability better than many psychologists, the answer is that American anthropology comprises cultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archeology and linguistics. Although my own research is in cultural anthropology, as an undergraduate and graduate student I needed to take courses in physical anthropology. These covered the Darwin, Mendel, and the modern synthesis/evolutionary theory; primate behavior (including ethology and behavioral ecology); population genetics; paleoanthropology (human evolution based on the fossil record). The first two years that I taught anthropology to undergraduates, I taught four-field introductory anthropology. This means that in addition to teaching cultural anthropology at a graduate and undergraduate level, at a first year undergraduate level I had to teach the theory of evolution; the location of human beings in the phylogenetic taxonomy (including the differences between plattyrhini and catarrhyini, the differences between cercopithecidea and hominidae, and the differences between genus homo and other apes); human evolution; and basic population genetics (e,g, Hardy-Weinberg; clinal variation; drift; heritability). I wouldn't teach this stuff at a higher level - I can't tell the difference between jaws from H,. habilus and H. erectus and have not followed the debates concerning H. ergaster and H. rudolfensis, for example. But I understand the basic concepts and can have an intelligent conversation with my physical anthropologist colleagues, whether they specialize in primate behavior, paleoanthropology, or population genetics. And i appreciate the amount of training and research one must do in order to become a geneticist. That is why I would not make original claims about genetics, and am skeptical of original claims about genetics made by psychologists, especially when what they say contradicts (or is refuted by) actual geneticists.

I have never - never - claimed to be an expert in genetics, and I defy jagz to locate one sentence where I ever made such a claim. As with the usual ignorant and disruptive BS he spews, I am sure he will ignore this challenge. But the fact remains I have never claimed expertise in genetics. All I have argued is that claims about genetics and what constitutes mainstream genetics, fringe theories within genetics, and pseudoscience parading as genetics, should come from experts in genetics. I am curious to see how Jagz will change the topic this time, in order to continue disrupting this article and pushing his racist agenda. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that properly summarized, the objections here are that the field of "race and intelligence", especially in regards to the genetic hypothesis, needs to summarize the views of experts in all three fields: anthropology (for race), psychometrics (for intelligence measurements) and genetics (specifically for the genetics hypothesis). I think it would be a logical fallacy to posit as an expert on the overall question anyone not trained in all three disciplines. Since these people would be rare (if they in fact exist), while Jensen's (for example) opinion may be valid in intelligence measurements, I don't think his ideas as to how to define "race", or on the population genetics aspect of his work. What we are lacking here is the opinion of population geneticists and anthropologists on the question. Without it, the article is hopelessly lopsided, not unlike having creationists define what phylogeny is.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe we need to differentiate between the genetic hypothesis itself and the belief that the genetic hypothesis is true. I think there may be some confusion here. A belief in the viability of the genetic hypothesis and the belief that it plays a role are two different things. --Jagz (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A belief in something that doesn't play a role in anything is useless, no? Especially in science. A hypothesis must exist to explain something - to have a role; if it doesn't explain anything, then it serves no purpose.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Belief as shown here: . The "researchers who believe that there is no significant genetic contribution to race differences in intelligence", however, are not necessarily rejecting the hypothesis. They believe that it is not significant or perhaps they are not convinced; this can be different than completely rejecting the hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He is trolling, again, Ramdrake - don't feed him. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is actually someone who is trolling the article, it has been going on for years, and it is not me. --Jagz (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not apply to a description of the genetic hypothesis. WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints. --Jagz (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The genetic hypothesis is a viewpoint, therefore WP:UNDUE applies. What next, WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to creationism???--Ramdrake (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The genetic hypothesis is a hypothesis. Here is the definition of a hypothesis from the Encarta dictionary: "theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation", for example, "The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe."
 * A viewpoint is defined as: "point of view: a personal perspective from which somebody considers something"
 * Are you contemplating adding creationism to this article? --Jagz (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to understand the "scientific method" by reading one possibly inappropriate definition from an online dictionary. Please try to find a sensible source, such as a recognized academic text. A hypothesis is not necessarily a theory. In mathematics this is not the case; it is quite unlikely that an online dictionary would explain this point. However, it would be explained in many introductory textbooks on mathematics. I would expect therefore that the correct place to look is in the relevant academic literature, if you have access to it. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some additional definitions of hypothesis: . Some additional definitions of viewpoint are here: . The genetic hypothesis and a genetic viewpoint are not the same thing. --Jagz (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion must necessarily use recognized scientific sources. Dictionary definitions have absolutely no relevance; playing with definitions of single words is an unscientific semantic game. Surely an encyclopedia article must reflect what scientists are actually doing (in sourced articles and learned journals). Do you in fact have access to such learned journals or texts? As an example of the use of recognized sources in writing WP articles, I edited an article on a Bach Cantata using the definitive reference book by Alfred Dürr plus a full urtext score that I own (formerly freely available on the web). Isn't it important to identify a comprehensive set of proper sources before editing a WP article? In this case it involves trawling through the scientific literature as Slrubenstein has suggested many, many times. Online dictionaries are not particularly useful for writing WP articles.  Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think there is a "genetic hypothesis" at all. I think there is an hypothesis that the observed difference in IQ between people identifying as "black" and people identifying as "non-black" in the USA is partially explained by genetic differences (indeed I think Rushton and Jensen modelled a 50% genetic and 50% environmental contribution). I also think that this hypothesis rests on a belief in the existence of actual "genes" that specifically contribute to IQ, as opposed to genes that may be pleiotropic and confer a higher intelligence by chance, for example. So the claim is not for a "genetic hypothesis", the claim is for a partially genetic explanation for the observed differences. Jagz has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't even understand the basics of this, he keeps making claims that no scientist has ever claimed, and he keeps citing unreliable sources such as newspapers. There is no such thing as a "genetic hypothesis" and to claim there is just highlights your ignorance. Alun (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Genetic hypothesis": . "Hereditarian hypothesis":  --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OR. Besides, there is hardly anything but blogs and op-ed pieces in the first few pages of each search - oh yeah, and some Wikipedia references to this article, which of course don't count.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some more. "Genetic hypotheis": . "Hereditarian hypothesis": --Jagz (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And more. "Genetic hypothesis": . "Hereditarian hypothesis": . --Jagz (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Since you insist, let's just look at the last link you give in detail: That's all. Dates 1978, 2003, 2006, 2003, 2005, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1968, 1944, 1965, 1945, 2007. Germaine Greer? User:Jagz, you really must try harder. Please try to find convincing sources using an academic database. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Race Bomb: Skin Color, Prejudice, and Intelligence - Page 152 by Paul R. Ehrlich, S. Shirley Feldman - Psychology - 1978 ... offspring of interracial marriages tell us anything about innate intelligence and race? ... there is no evidence to support the hereditarian hypothesis..
 * Race and Racism: An Introduction - Page 118 by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban - Social Science - 2006 - 278 pages Making a "science" of human intelligence, Galton created the first tests of ...now to the hereditarian hypothesis that race, social class, and intelligence ...
 * The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen - Page 169 by Arthur Robert Jensen, Helmuth Nyborg - Psychology - 2003 - 669 pages These findings are consistent with the default hereditarian hypothesis. ...theories of race differences make diametrically opposite predictions. ...
 * Destructive Trends In Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm by Rogers H. Wright, Nicholas A. Cummings - Psychology - 2005 - 346 pages What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? ... Should we do research on race differences in intelligence? Intelligence, 16(1), 1-4. ...
 * Race, Change, and Urban Society - Page 47 by Peter Orleans, William Russell Ellis - Social Science - 1971 - 640 pages ... deliberately contentious essay upholding the hereditarian hypothesis, ...analogy between intelligence and electricity, writing that intelligence, ...
 * Heredity & Environment by A. H. Halsey - Psychology - 1977 - 337 pages Page 11 One can have little confidence in the sociological knowledge about race of a man who ... And we can say on the evidence that the hereditarian hypothesis is ...
 * Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility - Page 310 by Germaine Greer - Social Science - 1985 - 541 pages... up in the scale of intelligence hereditary weakness to the level of hereditary strength. ... was to prove the truth of the hereditarian hypothesis. ...
 * Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development by Stella Chess, Alexander Thomas - Psychology - 1968 - 562 pages Page 214 Eysenck deals much more adequately with the concept of race, and places the hereditarian ... to support an hereditarian hypothesis regarding IQ differences, ...
 * The Black and White of Rejections for Military Service: A Study of ...by American Teachers Association, Martin David Jenkins - African Americans - 1944 - 51 pages Page 33 Nor are we unaware of the hereditarian hypothesis, advanced by Thorndike and others, ... and rejections for low "intelligence" in the several states. ...
 * Journal of Intergroup Relations by National Association of Intergroup Relations Officials, National Association of Human Rights Workers - United States - 1965 Page 23 ... hereditarian analysis of group differences in measured intelligence, ... for controversy that has made Jensen's hereditarian hypothesis one of the most ...
 * Federal Aid for Education: Hearings Before the Committee on Education and ... - Page 347 by United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Education and Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, United States Office of Education, United States, Senate, Congress - Education and state - 1945 Nor are we unaware of the hereditarian hypothesis, advanced by Thorndike and ...opportunities and rejections for low intelligence in the several States. ...
 * IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea by Stephen Murdoch - Psychology - 2007 - 288 pages

WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is this an admission that you are quite unable to support your arguments and that they are in fact false? If that is the case, we can revert any edits you make on this topic. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, I believe he's resorted to calling a WP:troll anyone who disagrees with him. On the downside, it's very uncivil and a definite personal attack under the circumstances. On the upside (for him), it saves him from having to take a good, hard look at his actions. Actually, I believe this applies to him.

(I quote - from the "Big, Giant Dick section")
 * BGD: Start calling people "NAZIS!!!" (In this case, "trolls")
 * BGD: Reverting 100 times a day against your opponents in an edit war.
 * BGD: Begin sourcing extensively, using reliable fonts of knowledge such as Wikipedia Review, Vanguard News Network, and Uncyclopedia as references. (Or in this case, Google)
 * 1) Starting a single-purpose account to push your particular point-of-view, while carefully adhering to all Wikipedia policies and making a few token edits to other article to muddy the issue.
 * 2) Engage in highly offensive vandalism (...) and make sure to blank the warnings on your Talk page so that your pattern of vandalism goes unnoticed for months. (In this case, warning for incivility and revert warring).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jagz (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, I'll assume this is a picture of you?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. --Jagz (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Biomedicine
Could User:Jagz please explain his unsourced sentence on biomedicine and why he twice attempted to add the same citation from an opinion piece in the Guardian making no mention of biomedicine? In this case it looked as if he was just reporting unsourced hearsay. Surely WP is concerned with reporting the current state of recorded human knowledge, with carefully sourced references, not the privately held beliefs of individual editors? Biomedicine seems to be completely unrelated to the current article. What is going on here? Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence and its reference came from an earlier version of the article. I added the sentence back once after fixing the reference link. The second time I added two additional references, one of which used the term biomedicine and the other was referenced in the original reference. --Jagz (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, he is just a troll - just revert his silly or policy non-compliant edits. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be a troll than an asshole. --Jagz (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:3)--Ramdrake (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of using foul language, could User:Jagz please answer my questions? Mathsci (talk)
 * Mathsci, as a courtesy to the rest of us, could you provide a difflink instead of the pronoun this? It would save us all trying to read between the lines.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you found it difficult accessing the history of the main page. Here is User:Jagz's original edit . It was subsequently removed on 3 occasions firstly by User:Wobble, then by me and most recently by User:Jim62sch. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article essentially complete
The article now is essentially complete with some sections needing cleanup. I think this is as good as the article is going to get under the current circumstances. --Jagz (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, of course. For the record, I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then good luck to you in making it better.--Jagz (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced. This will continue to be the case while it contains the suggestion that, because certain scientifically unsupported views have been pushed in the popular arena, they are valid alternatives to scientific scholarship. There seem to have been continual attempts to make it look as if this fringe point of view has been accepted by the establishment, contrary to what can be gleaned from mainstream academic literature. I also do not understand why User:Jagz has started treating this talk page as a blog. Please could he stop this? He does not own the article. While practically every change he makes is being reverted, it does not seem reasonable to say that the process of editing is complete. Of course the article could be locked again if his edit warring continues ... and then we could all pretend that editing had finished. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Today for example an anonymous IP tried to remove an important phrase stating that the debate is in the popular arena and not among mainstream scientists. Again this seems to be an attempt to give the misleading impression that a certain point of view is taken seriously by the academic establishment. The public statement by the American Anthropological Association was not an opinion piece in a daily newspaper and was correctly cited. (BTW Tenniel's illustration is from Alice through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland :) ) Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase needs more citations than just one from the American Anthropological Association. It claims scholarly circles, that is plural. --Jagz (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And an association with over 10,000 scholarly members isn't plural enough?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A circle (singular) is a group of people who share a common interest, profession, activity, or social background. --Jagz (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reworded the sentence to take into account your objection.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as another indication that the article might not be complete, this report on ASPM and the evolution of the human brain together with one of its responses  might be relevant. It has been discussed in a fairly balanced way in the Independent.  Two of the scientists involved in the papers, Bruce Lahn and Pardis Sabeti, have WP profiles. This subject matter appears to be within the topic of Race and Intelligence, although the findings so far seem inconclusive. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagz you're contradicting yourself. In one sentence you claim it's "complete", and in the very next you're saying it's "as good as it'll get under the current circumstances". These are mutually exclusive statements. It can only ever be "complete" when it is as good as it is ever going to get under any circumstances. Alun (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "essentially" complete. Maybe it has a different meaning in UK. --Jagz (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Jagz, please try to express yourself more clearly. "Essentially" means the same either side of the Atlantic. You think it is complete, but have not said why. It seems to be a personal opinion not so far shared by anybody else. I don't think you can set the rhythm for editing in this article nor can you preclude the addition of new material, because of the very nature of WP. What exactly did you mean? Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [From what he says, User:Jagz is about to disappear from these pages ...] Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, stop being a Slrubenstein. --Jagz (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quit being yourself. --Jagz (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, please stop trolling. This doesn't work anymore.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

in re Caste-like minorities
Odd, but I happen to be in an uper-caste (according to the chart), yet I find this crap to be offensive. The presentation gives way too much weight to fringe bullshit. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment but think you could have worded it in a more civil manner. You have previously used the word bullshit on this Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:CIV - "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted... etc." That wasn't personally targeted, so the civility policy is inapplicable. On the other hand, the point raised by Jim62sch is probably worth responding to in some way. Antelan talk  18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then maybe my comment was just a truckload of dog turds. --Jagz (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not American, but I'll take the Fifth on this one!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe the Caste-like minorities table in the article to be offensive? --Jagz (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense to me to just summarize: the groups that the author of that book considers to be of "low caste" also tend to do worse than the "high caste" groups. The "castes" themselves need not be listed. Antelan talk  20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion. A few key example, such as examples that are often cited, could be listed in paragraph form. --Legalleft (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the 'Caste like Minorities" is simple: correlation is not causation. The authors argue that the higher caste has higher IQ scores.  However, what if the higher IQ scores made them the dominant caste?  There is no way to prove either way.  This should be mentioned int he text.  Am I seriously the only one who noticed this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Caste table
This can be handled with a footnote below the table instead of a change to the table, which was taken from a book. --Jagz (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be useful
Found this quote by Zack Cernovsky, himself a psychologist and a university professo (so properly qualified to judge this matter), about Rushton's work: Rushton's pseudoscientific writings perpetuate lay public's misconceptions and promote racism...Authoritarian statements "about the reality of racial differences," based on conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scientific contribution. 

Maybe we could work this into the article? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cernovsky's paper was published in the Journal of Black studies which does not qualify as a reputable source in the field of psychology. Khurshid85 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Black Studies is published by Sage and comes out of Temple University which makes it very respectable and it certainly is an authoritative source on racist science. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @Khurshid85. The Journal of Black Studies has a Wikipedia article, it is also an academic publication. Maybe it's not reputable for psychology, but this article is about "race and intelligence" and not about psychology. Since when were psychologists experts on "race"? The subjects covered by the journal are certainly relevant to this article. Alun (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This too might be useful: taken from (Race, racism and anthropology, G. Armelagos and  A. Goodman, University of Michigan Press, p.368) Although Rushton's work is both unscientific and racist, it is amazing that some highly respected physical anthropologists are fascianted by it.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The Journal of Black Studies seems to be a reliable source to cite for Cernovsky's opinion. Whether that opinion is worth noting is a separate issue. 2. Since when were psychologists experts on "race"? Well, they are the experts on the psychological issues related to race, such as intelligence. You can imagine that individual in a number of disciplines would have expertise at that intersection. I don't know whether Cernovsky is an expert on race re: psychology/intelligence, but that would be a point worth finding out. --Legalleft (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A site on Iq and its environmental factors
heres a good site about the environmental factors of IQ. http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ We should a section to the article about environmental factors.

http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.215 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the article, and it looks good so far. One thing is, though, is that I don't see a point of having this quote. "Eugenicists have argued that immigration from countries with low national IQ is undesirable. According to Cattell, "when a country is opening its doors to immigration from diverse countries, it is like a farmer who buys his seeds from different sources by the sack, with sacks of different average quality of contents."" That quote seems oddly out of place and sort of random. I dont' see the purpose of some weird off hand statement that somebody made about his views of immigration. That quote serves no real purpose. Also I don't really see any other quotes in this article of a similar nature.

Also, under Caste-like minorities, I don't think its really necessary to have that chart labeled "Group Differences Around the World" on the race and intelligence page. I don't see any reason the chart needs to be in this article. The chart is just extraneous information that should be moved to the other page below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design:_Cracking_the_Bell_Curve_Myth

Thats all for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.85.248 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the section about genetic explanation
Hello, I added the following information:

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. The Inuit, who live above the Arctic Circle and have higher average IQs than do either American or Jamaican Blacks even though their socioeconomic conditions are extremely poor.[89][90] [91]

Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators.[92] [93][94] Rubidium37 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, in a number of archives. Your additions promote Rushton and Lynn's theories as if they were gospel, which they aren't. There has been grave doubt cast on the accuracy of much of the "IQ by nationality" type of research, mostly due to the poor sampling methods used. Also, while Rushton disputes that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study actually backs his genetic hypothesis, the very authors of the study interpret the results as saying just the opposite. Therefore, this presents a misleading, rather one-sided view of some of the data and represents undue weight.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add anything new about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ by nationality". The information is about the the impact of socioeconomic status on IQ differentials between races. The fact that the children of poor whites outperform the children of wealthy blacks is very important and should be mentioned in the article. Both genetic and culture-only explanations should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jagz, you're not being funny by trying to be someone else.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not me. I'm done with editing this article for the year as I mentioned. --Jagz (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for input Jagz, we will see you in a year.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What if the genetic hypothesis is mentioned in other online wiki encyclopedias? Don't fall into complacency. --Jagz (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm quite sure we don't want to follow Conservapedia's lead...--Ramdrake (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add the information now. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works. Please discuss on the talk page and gain consensus there prior to reintroducing.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it is not accurate please provide an alternative viewpoint and an appropriate citation. I suggest as a compromise that both viewpoints should be included. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurate for the following reason: it presents IQ differences by nationality as a proven fact, when in fact it is at least highly disputed, and for the most part the methodology used to obtain these results has been discredited. Then, it presents on Rushton's viewpoint on the MTAS, totally oblivious to the fact that the very authors of the study say that this goes counter to the conclusions they reach. Lastly, by increasing the importance of the opinions of a very small minority of researchers (scientists who are fundees of the Pioneer Fund), it give undue weight to the opinion of a very small but very vocal minority.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not even mention the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study or "IQ differences by nationality". Because your argument is a strawman I will restore the material. Rubidium37 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the studies you are mentioning (even though you don't mention them by name) are the studies of Rushton and Lynn on IQ by nationality for the first part, and that of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. If you are refering to other studies, please kindly link them here, but please do not restore against consensus, as this will be your 4th revert, and will get you blocked per WP:3RR.


 * I cited "Berry, 1966" and "MacArthur, 1968" for the first part. My edit included complete citations. The source for the school performance of the children of the wealthy blacks was "Jensen, A. R.. The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998." Rubidium37 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of Africans south of the Sahara, where Blacks are in the majority. -Please note that this is taken directly from Rushton, one of the main researchers to claim that IQ varies racially and by nationality worldwide.

''Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean. Regression toward the mean is seen, on average, when individuals with high IQ scores mate and their children show lower scores than their parents. The children of Black parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black IQ average of 85, whereas children of White parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the White IQ average of 100. Black children from the best areas and schools still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators.'' The basis for this claim is Rushton's reinterpretation of the MTAS.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You make silly claims which have no basis in fact. I won't even address them because they are just your misinformed personal opinions which are not supported by any reliable sources. If you provide a peer-reviewed article disputing the information we may include another viewpoint. Please don't delete sourced information as per WP:EP. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is your sources which are challenged. The onus is on the editor wishing for inclusion to get consensus for his edits. Therefore, you must address these objections to the satisfaction of other editors. Your sources are mostly Rushton's work, which has been discussed at length and deemed WP:FRINGE therefore not a reliable source. Also, an you please quote the exact excerpt from WP:EP which you allege allows you to make WP:UNDUE edits against consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law which qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:VERIFY.
 * WP:EP states:
 * Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:


 * rephrase
 * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
 * move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
 * add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
 * request a citation by adding the fact tag

Please don't delete sourced information in the future. Rubidium37 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake is the current self-appointed article sentinel, backed by the like-minded Slrubenstein. The only time I was able to make good progress with the article was when Ramdrake was out of action with health issues. Suggest you go to WP:RfC if you feel strongly about your edit. --Jagz (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein serves as the article's ad hoc chief of propaganda. Anyone who does not come around to his way of thinking is a troll and/or a racist. --Jagz (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you done yet with the repeated personal attacks? You've already been warned multiple times against making them.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, that year went by fast!! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He does not have any authority to censor the article. The section about the genetic hypothesis is currently not good. It is too short and uninformative. Would you agree that the information I added belongs to the article? Rubidium37 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Black children born to wealthy Black parents with high IQs have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.''
 * How does this make sense? from a genetic point of view the children of intelligent parents should be intelligent because they have inherited their intelligence genes. Any trait under genetic control will obviously be inherited by their children. Or to put it another way, the children of blue eyed people do not have brown eyes due to a "regression to the mean", they have blue eyes because they inherit them from their parents, their parents do not possess the genes for brown eyes. If the children do not inherit this trait then the obvious conclusion is that the trait is under environmental control. To claim that the observation that children of intelligent people are stupid supports a "genetic model" for intelligence is plain daft. It's basically claiming that these children are inheriting genes their parents do not possess. Indeed under this model we should expect the children of intelligent "white" people to regress to the "white" mean as well, which rather contradicts eugenics because we would never be able to stop this regression to the mean however many times intelligent people reproduced with other intelligent people. If intelligent people only procreate with other intelligent people, and intelligence is mainly due to genetics, then the children of intelligent people will always be intelligent. To claim that "genetic theory" explains the opposite effect is to show a complete lack of any biological nous whatsoever. If intelligent people have stupid children then this supports an environmental cause and not a genetic one. These wingnuts don't even seem to have a fundamental understanding of what genetics is. They seem to be implying here that genes are not transmitted from parent to offspring. It's frankly hilarious. Either Jensen is talking from his posterior orifice, or someone here is citing work they simply do not understand. I suspect the latter. Alun (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although parents pass on a random half of their genes to their offspring, they cannot pass on the particular combinations of genes that cause their own exceptionality. This is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6s or two 1s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low). Physical and psychological traits involving dominant and recessive genes show some regression effect. Tall people have shorter children on average and intelligent people have less intelligent children on average. http://www.scc.ms.unimelb.edu.au/whatisstatistics/faso.html Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to believe that two random gifted parents would be unlikely to have a gifted child but more likely to have a gifted child than two random non-gifted parents. --Jagz (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

--Jagz (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: What this article is discussing is a genetic hypothesis and not a genetic theory. A genetic viewpoint is not the same as the genetic hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We heard you the first time. Doesn't change the fact that it is WP:FRINGE stuff.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Material published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot be fringe by definition. Rubidium37 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, be more specific, what exactly are you saying is WP:FRINGE? --Jagz (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, this is about the twelfth time you're asking the same question, and you've been given an answer several times already. Therefore, I must conclude you're either repeating yourself on purpose or you're just plain unable to understand. I'm just trying to figure out if you're trolling or merely dense. --Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is: When you say it is "WP:FRINGE stuff", are you referring to the genetic viewpoint or the genetic hypothesis? If you want people to know what you are talking about, try not to use the word "stuff". --Jagz (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Ramdrake, I'll give you the quote directly from WP:FRINGE: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. Now please explain precisely what in this article applies to WP:FRINGE. Try to explain it without including personal attacks. Additionally, if you feel I have ever been given a precise answer to this then please provide the diff-link. --Jagz (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, after you have posted your explanation, here is a quiz you can take: --Jagz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whomever Rubidium37 was, I'm pretty certain he wasn't JagZ and I know he wasn't me. But somebody blocked the guy. That's not very gentlemanly. How does one go about undoing that? Also, on the topic just above, he was right and Alun was wrong. It's called regression to the mean, the history of which highlights the interesting way that statistics and genetics share a recent common ancestor, so to speak. --Legalleft (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Legalleft you don't even appear to have read what I wrote, or what Rubidium37 wrote. The Regression towards the mean article states that Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested.. That is not what what Rubidium37 said. What he said was that the children of high achieving "black" people will be less intelligent than their parents. The regression towards the mean article is discussing outlier performances that are not consistently repeatable by an individual, over the course of a series of tests an individual will produce a mean score, but on individual tests they will produce a few significantly higher or lower scores, but on the whole they will tend towards their mean test score. This is simple probability theory, throw a die a single time and get a six, this is not evidence that the die is biased, over a series of throws the die will tend towards the mean score, this will be true whatever the probability distribution. The same is clearly true of populations, a few people in any population will clearly produce extremely high average scores, but the population will always tend towards the mean, this says nothing about the children of consistent high performers, it only tells us that the population as a whole will tend towards the mean. This is a simple concept and I find it strange that you appear to be unable to grasp it. In a population with complete random mating we will expect the existence of any outlier highly intelligent people to be no more than the actions of chance. Because the population is randomly mating the descendants of the highly intelligent will tend towards the mean over several generations. But human populations mate assortatively, i.e. intelligent people tend to mate with other intelligent people. If we assume that intelligence has a high genetic component (i.e. not it's variance but it's cause has a high genetic contribution), then we must conclude that because intelligent people mate with other intelligent people their children are also likely to be highly intelligent whatever their "race". What Rubidium37 and you appear to be saying is that "black" people mate randomly, while non-"black" people mate assortatively, a spurious assertion. Alun (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... no. The mid-parent v. child and the sibling correlations for blacks and whites aren't thought to be different because of differences in assortative mating (maybe assortative mating differences contribute if such differences even exist, but that's not what the researchers talking about regression are getting at). They are different foremost because the populations have different mean IQs. For any trait with a narrow-sense heritability less than 100%, there will be mid-parent -> child regression to the mean. The populations have different means and different regression equations. This finding is replicated many times, so the basic observation is not in doubt. The causal interpretation of that observation is quite interesting. I suggest reading sources and reporting what they say rather than making incorrect leaps of inference such as the one you made here. --Legalleft (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't you even spot sarcasm? That was what my comment about assortative mating was, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given your stated racist views. The plain fact is that to claim that the children of people with a high IQ always "regress" to a "mean" IQ for the population is effectively claiming that IQ is not under genetic control. If IQ is under genetic control, and intelligent people mostly reproduce with other intelligent people, then the children of intelligent people will be above average intelligence. Thats simple genetics, if you claim that a trait is under genetic control, but that offspring can't inherit the trait from their parents, then you clearly know fuck all about genetics. You might as well claim that the children of blue eyed parents will "regress" to having brown eyes, it's just bollocks legalleft, and not even very convincing bollocks. Or to put it another way, if intelligent people are intelligent because they have more "intelligence genes", than the population average, then the children of intelligent people will also have a greater than average amount of "intelligence genes" than the population. If then we see that these children are of only average intelligence (ie have regressed to the mean), then we must ask the question "Given they are the children of intelligent people (with an above average number of intelligence genes) and therefore have an above average number of intelligence genes themselves, why are they displaying only average intelligence for the population?" The children of intelligent people will have their parents genes, including their "intelligence genes", if they are only of average intelligence then it implies that they have not inherited their intellectual abilities from their parents i.e. they are more stupid than their parents even though they share the genes of their overacheiveing parents. To claim that this observation supports a genetic hypothesis is ludicrous and could only be made by someone with no interest in science, only by someone interested in pushing racist ideology, which brings us back to  your hero, the fascist Jensen. I suggest you stop talking shite about genetics, a subject you appear to know nothing at all about. I wonder how you will manage to avoid actually talking about the subject at hand this time. I can't remember you addressing a single point directly ever, it's all evasion and changing the subject. Alun (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I am no longer active, I may report uncivil posts, personal attacks, provocation, unreasonable edit warring, etc. --Jagz (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have reported yourself on a number of occasions then, as one of the most tendentious, trollish and incivil individuals ever to have edited here. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Alun (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent. It's simple Legalleft. Imagine two loci each of which has two alleles. Locus A' has alleles A and a, and locus B' has alleles B and b. let's assume that an average (mean) intelligence has a genotype of aabb (the wild type genotype which is very prevalent in the population), while alleles A and B each give a +2 IQ point advantage to any person who has them. Consider two parents, each of which has a genotype of AaBb, and therefore each has an IQ of 4 points above average. Assuming independent assortment, their gametes will segregate thus Thus for two parents who both have genes that give them a +4 IQ advantage, their children will have genotypes of: AABB = +8 AABb = +6 AaBB = +6 AAbb = +4 AaBb = +4 aaBB = +4 Aabb = +2 aaBb = +2 aabb = +0

Clearly the average IQ of the children is the same as that of the parents, +4 above the average for the population, but the overwhelming majority (15/16) of the children will still have an IQ above that of the average for the population because they have inherited the high IQ genes of their parents. The children will have probabilities of IQs of +8 (1/16), +6 (1/4), +4 (3/8), +2 (1/4) and +0 (1/16). The offspring can only have genes they inherit from their parents, if these genes confer an IQ that is higher than that of the mean of the population, then it makes no sense to claim that these children will tend to have an IQ that has "regressed" to the mean of the population, this is akin to claiming either that these children have miraculously not inherited their parents "intelligence genes", or that the cause of intelligence is not genetic. It's simple genetics. Alun (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Alun, that's not what 'regression to the mean' refers to. Sure, the offspring of the mating you describe above will have genotypes in the ratios you give; I am sure that even Jensen doesn't dispute this.  His argument is that these offspring will mate with the general population, which means that their mates are statistically more likely to have 'lower case letter' genotypes (following your example), and so over the generations it is likely that that line of descent will have an increasing number of 'lower case letter'/'average intelligence' alleles in its genome.
 * To put it another way, if intelligence is genetic and does indeed follow some sort of normal distribution, then 'capital letter' alleles are statistically less common than 'lower case' ones in the general population. Thus, matings which feature two parents with 'high IQ genes' would, in general, be less likely than 'mismatched' pairings of high IQ/average IQ, and so the number of homozygous combinations would become 'diluted' over time to heterozygous combinations with no phenotypic effect (crucially, you have also assumed that high IQ is the dominant combination, when it is surely more likely to be the recessive).
 * This of course raises what might be a valid criticism against the 'regression to the mean' argument, namely that those of a high IQ are, for social reasons, probably more likely to mate with others with high IQs (including this argument in the article without citation would be `original research', I'd guess), but your own explanation here is certainly not valid. --Plusdown (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Humans mate assortatively, high IQ people tend to mate with other high IQ people, this is no less true for African-Americans than for European Americans. Likewise highly intelligent people are likely to meet other highly intelligent people, for examply attending University together, or working in the same challenging environment. Unless there is some evidence that African American people mate randomly and European American people mate assortitavely, then it's just plain wrong. Alun (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the one hand IQ is meaningless, on the other it can have a real influence on the choice of mates? That's a bit of a contradiction.  No-one is claiming that African people don't mate assortatively while Europeans do.
 * Nevertheless, while there is -- I couldn't agree more -- a correlation between the IQs of mating partners, unless this correlation is 1, there will be a net regression effect, which would be larger the smaller the correlation. That's a fairly simple statistical principle.  While brighter people are definitely more likely to mate with other bright people, their intelligence will probably not be equal, and there will be other pairings besides (similarly with the lower end of the spectrum).
 * P.S. Thanks for changing that section heading, it was getting on my nerves as well. --Plusdown (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the article. It looks much better than it did in December for example. Perhaps this would have been impossible without Wobble/Alun's contributions to the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rubidium37 was only reacting to the disruptiveness of another editor. --Jagz (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rubidium37 was being disruptive in his own right, so that's why he got indef-blocked.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, didn't a particular troll say he was going away for a year? I've been busy the past few days but it looks like Mr. Toll-a-lot just cannot stay away. Please, folks, can we stop feeding it? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be a troll than the north end of a southbound mule. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SL, I think that you've been denigrated to a step below a horse’s ass, but since you see J as a troll, then how could you be harmed by his opinion. Cease fire guys, you are both better than that.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have a suggestion for the article which may help with its immense structural problems. Would it not work to try to dissect out all the information on the media portrayal of the debate, and put it in its own section, so that one has the scientific evidence on the one hand, and the media debate on the other? This would help keep things coherent, while also avoiding potential confusion.

I'm proposing it here because it is probably a much bigger overhaul than the few tweaks I have been doing on the article so far. Do let me know what you think. --Plusdown (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new attempt at the article on a user subpage, User:Plusdown/RaceIQ. Anyone who wants to contribute should feel free to do so, or to make suggestions on its discussion page (already I have a general plan laid out there). --Plusdown (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A hard data/interpretation distinction could be very helpful. One question that I've struggled with is how to present the issue of the factor structure of between-group differences -- i.e., the contribution of g versus second-tier factors. Its not clear to me whether this is important to bring out or not, but it does get to a main topic of Gould's book, so it has added importance in that sense.
 * There's certainly room for creative restructuring. A stronger firewall between the controversy regarding causal hypotheses and other social/political controversies might help to bring out some nuance. --Legalleft (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Blacks More Intelligent?
http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting but the article is not really comparing races, it is comparing immigrants and non-immigrants. The two sampls are chosen because of geographic reasons. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * there's no way that site could be used as a source, it's pretty blatantly biased. not to mention they claim the Egyptians were black. If this website counts as a source we'd better start citing niggermania.com 76.25.115.99 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's about as unbiased as any other source claiming "racial" differences in "intelligence". All of these claims about so called "races" are made by people with a biased racist view of the world, indeed they can only be made by people who have zero understanding about human genetics, i.e. stupid racist bigots who's gibberish should be treated with the contempt it deserves. This is no worse than Jensen's racist gibberings. Alun (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's worth noting that James Watson, who received a nobel prize for assembling the "double helix" structure of DNA in the 60's said this about race: "He says that he is 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours-–whereas all the testing says not really,' and I know that this 'hot potato' is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that 'people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.' He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because 'there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level.' He writes that 'there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
 * I would say he has a pretty good understanding of human genetics. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And by doing so you would reveal your own ignorance. Watson was a molecular biologist and not a geneticist. Molecular biology overlaps with genetics at the molecular level, e.g. Molecular genetics, but few molecular biologists would claim to be experts in Population genetics or Molecular anthropology, which are the relevant disciplines for studying genetic variation at the population level. Watson also stated: "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins shared their Nobel Prize "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material" and not for their model for the structure of DNA, which wasn't actually a proof, but a very good and robust model. Wilkins part in the prize was for his comprehensive work after the publication of the Crick-Watson model, which went a long way to validating the model. Watson also spent a lot of time studying RNA (he had been working on Tobacco mosaic virus, an RNA virus when he and Crick proposed their structure for DNA), and so he went on to work on RNA during the rest of the fifties, this work is recognised in his Nobel Prize as well, hence the reference to "Nucleic acids" and not deoxyribonucleic acid. I know something about this, I've spent a lot of time and effort on the Rosalind Franklin article in the past. Even very clever people can talk crap when they talk about things that they are not experts in, as Watson proved beyond any doubt. Alun (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course he apologized, he had to in order to save his professional life. Anyway, I'm not going to bother fighting with you about all that because there's really no point in starting an argument about this. I think we can agree that this "are blacks more intelligent?" essay has no place in this article, and let's leave it at that. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

genetics section
The genetics section previously contained no empirical details. Discussion of the science is meaningless without the crucial empirical details. Fix the section if there are NPOV issues, but don't delete cited and notable data. --Legalleft (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed at length: the papers and theories you are quoting are fringe, therefore we should not give them undue weight. The mainstream theories to explain the B-W achievement gap are all environmental. Only a few researchers are championing hereditarian theories, and those have been widely criticized, if not utterly dismissed by the majority of mainstream scientists.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong that a consensus was reached as several of us clearly disagreed. You're wrong about the facts at two levels. (1) The claim that these view are fringe is inconsistent with the Wall Street Journal consensus statement, the Snyderman and Rothman statement, and the persistence of researchers in examining the genetic hypothesis (pro and con) for decades. (2) You're wrong that a theory has to be in the majority to be notable. I don't know what the precise breakdown of expert belief is, but I know the distribution of discussion of these theories and empirical data in the literature. The level of discussion of empirical data for a genetic hypothesis is high and needs to be reflected in a summary of the topic (i.e., this article). --Legalleft (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Put another way (re: 2) if something is discussed in the NY Times and other MSM sources, you should be able to go to WP to get a summary. Saying that only one view is correct and thus only one view should be presented is prejudging a live scientific debate. --Legalleft (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not using the best examples: Gottfredson's statement in the WSJ represents only a relative handful (50 or so) signatories; the sample from the Snyderman and Rothman study was hand-pciked and therefore not representative. The APA statement and the AAA statement, both representative of memberships in the tens of thousands, are much stronger statements. Also, please note that consensus does not require unanimity, at least not on Wikipedia. Taken tgether that the hereditarian theory is championed by a very few researchers, that it is widely disputed and that it fails to make any readily falsifiable claims, all these are earmarks of fringe science, if not downright pseudoscience. There are very few followers of the hereditarian hypothesis, and this article should reflect that in its treatment of the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're a very reasonable person, but I disagree with you. the sample from the Snyderman and Rothman study was hand-pciked and therefore not representative -- more than 1000 hand picked individuals? Lets stick to what's published, not innuendo. The APA statement had how many authors? And the AAA statement had how many authors? The authors and signatories count, but its impossible to attribute the views expressed in those publications to anyone put their authors. Many publications from professional organizations that I'm a member of have written things I disagree with. Hopefully its generally understood that membership in an organization doesn't entail support for all its products.
 * Your latter claims about fringe and pseudoscience are similarly just made up. Even if could present examples of published opinions to that effect, there's no way that that opinion can be taken as representative of a scientific consensus. Even if you are an expert on this topic, your opinion doesn't matter in your role as an editor. The reason that WP limits editorial bias with NPOV and NOR is for this very reason -- editors don't get to pick sides -- which you undeniably are doing, no? Stick to what's published and we'll be fine. --Legalleft (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sheer size of a sample doesn't make it reprsentative. I can poll 1000 people on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and it will not be representative of the opinion of the NYC residents,much less of the residents of the State of New York, and even less of all Americans. The fact that they were "hand-picked" means nothing for the representativity of the sample. The APA statement has 11 authors, and had 11 responses published in the American Psychologist. The only response that disagreed with the report was that of Rushton and Lynn. Also, the number of authors of the AAA statement is unknown. The "Mainstream statement on intelligence" has only one author: Linda Gottfredson. Sticking to what's published means that each opinion is represented commensurately to its weight in the "real world". The hereditarian hypothesis is supported by a handful of researchers; the environmental hypothesis is supported by the vast majority of researchers.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What you're doing is called confirmation bias -- disregarding negative data and giving undue weight to positive data (i.e., making up reasons to ignore WSJ [52 signatories] and S&R [1020 subjects] in favor of APA [11 authors + 11 responses] and AAA [?]). Proper implementation of NPOV and NOR should guard against this -- all relevant positions would be cited and attributed, not the OR products of editorial opinions about which scholars count and which don't. The people hurt by it are the readers. --Legalleft (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: an op-ed piece in a newspaper, written by one person and endorsed by another 50 scientists should be considered to have at least as much if not more weight than the official position of a large body of professionals, written by a panel of 11 experts, published in a peer-reviewed science journal, and representative of an association with over 100,000 members, right?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because (1) the signatories were themselves experts and in fact a number of them were authors of the APA statement as well and (2) the WSJ statement was also published in a peer reviewed journal -- the two differ in detail (clearly), but not in importance in setting out the range of views. --Legalleft (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks, I stand corrected on one thing: somebody here is definitely doing confirmation bias; however, that's not me.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to get distracted, but have you read the replies to the APA report (American Psychologist 1997 Volume 52, Issue 1). The get hit from all sides on their presentation of the issue of causal hypotheses in race differences ... ignoring criticisms of behavioral genetics, ignoring conflicting data on lead, ignoring problems with blood group data, ignoring brain size data, ignoring direct tests, ignoring SES effects, ignoring MTRAS, etc. The take away you should get from this is that it is a mistake to ignore lines of data that have aroused debate. --Legalleft (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The WSJ statement was a paid advertisement. It has no standing compared to a peer-reviewed journal article or a statement by a professional organization.  Just because it uses the word consensus does not mean that it actually reflects a consensus.  How many signatories have done primary research in genetics, published in established peer-reviewed genetics journals? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The WSJ statement was a paid advertisement. Citation needed!! I know for a fact it was not -- it was an invited piece by the op-ed page editor, who requested a statement signed by several experts saying what the current state of knowledge is. I'll leave the rest of your comment to speak for itself in term of irrelevance. --Legalleft (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the level of bias you have added, and continue to add, to the article Legalleft you will understand when I say that I am sceptical of any claims you make regarding fringe science. As someone clearly trying to push a racist pov, you can't expect that your claims are accepted as fair and unbiased. You have added significant amounts of hyperbole in support of the so called "genetic hypothesis", but have also consistently attempted to remove fully cited and relevant critisisms of heritability, while at the same time attempting to conflate heritability with heredity. Your attitude is to dismiss as ignorant those on the talk page who do not agree with you, and proceed with the edits you want to make anyway. This is not how Wikipedia works. If you want to invoke the NYTimes then here's Nisbett . Last December there was a discussion on the radio about just this subject, oddly no one mentioned this "genetic hypothesis" at all, so if it's so well established and enjoys the sort of support you claim, why does it not even get mentioned when people are discussing IQ and "race" on the radio? Or do we get the usual "conspiracy theory" claptrap? This "genetic hypothesis" gets attention from the media (due to it's shock value), and support from the political right (it justifies their tax cuts to the wealthy and leaving the poor to rot) but not much from geneticists or very many social scientists. You seem to be claiming that this theory has a great deal of support, but it's only within a small sub-section of the psychology community that really believes IQ testing is great, but I can't see that you have provided any sort of support for it from geneticists, who should be quite important in a debate about genetics. What about anthropologists, after all this is about human groups isn't it? It's clear that because this group of psychologists believe it you think that we should accept it as mainstream. That's just daft. This article is much more than just psychology and you don't even seem to understand that. Likewise you made a similar comment at Talk:Dysgenics "pubmed is not a suitable citation source for psychology", but dysgenics is not part of psychology, it is part of biology. You should accept that other people who are not psychologists, but who actually do know what they are talking about, have an equal part to play in these articles. Alun (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the level of bias you have added, and continue to add, to the article Legalleft you will understand when I say that I am sceptical of any claims you make regarding fringe science. -- I don't mind if you treat everything I say with rational skepticism, but please treat your own beliefs with the same skepticism. I think we'd all be fine if we stuck to what's actually published rather than what we think we might know to be true, and especially what we infer to be true from variegated sources. I know it makes for more difficult and boring writing, but it has the advantage of increasing factual accuracy.
 * Your attitude is to dismiss as ignorant those on the talk page who do not agree with you, and proceed with the edits you want to make anyway.  -- Actually, I tried to make a different edit in hopes that it would satisfy previous complaints. Can I assume that you didn't bother to read what I actually added and instead treated any addition as unwarranted?
 * Re: psychology -- not to get Watsoned by revealing personal data, but I actually know a lot more about transcription factors than IQ -- I just try to stay well read. --Legalleft (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So well read that you appear to be ignorant of the fact that this fallacy has been dispensed with decades ago, and that only a tiny minority of far right wing idealogues promote this gibberish any longer? That doesn't sound well informed, it sounds like someone who wants to promote only literature that supports their own bias, and then promoting that bias as if it were somehow academically rigorous, when in reality it's just propaganda. This article needs only to say a few simple things. There is a between group achievement gap between certain sections of society (let's call them "blue" and "green", for the sake of argument). One group (blue) has been disenfranchised for centuries, the other (green) has enjoyed a privileged lifestyle for centuries. This between group difference cannot be explained easily, though within the privileged high achieving "green" group heritabilities are high. Because analysis of variance can tell us nothing about between group differences (or we fall into the "within-group/between group heritability fallacy") we cannot draw conclusions about the heritability of "intelligence" within the "blue" group unless we measure it independently, when it is measured in a low SES environment (typical of the blue group), it comes out much lower than for the "green" group, indicating a more heterogeneous environmental effect on "intelligence" within this group. Likewise the cause of the gap between the green and blue groups cannot be explained by heritability estimates, indicating that although genetics and family background have a strong influence on intelligence, heritabilities (analysis of variance) tell us nothing about between group differences. The "partial genetic hypothesis" is based on conclusions drawn from the falling into the "within/between group heritability fallacy", this is a citable fact and we should say it clearly and explicitly, without all the hedging in the article. This is not to say that there are not genetic differences between the groups, it is simply to say that there is no real evidence for claiming that the gap has any genetic aetiology whatsoever.As Nesbit clearly and explicitly states In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic ... The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. Let's say it how it is, this fallacy keeps raising it's head every few years, but the arguments against it now are the same as they always have been, the fallacy can't overcome it's own systemic flaws, that it is the product of a fundamentally "racist" view of the world that has precious little evidence to support it, as Stephen Rose states it's a classic example of GIGO Heritability estimates become a way of applying a useless quantity to a socially constructed phenotype and thus apparently scientizing it—a clear-cut case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. And even if the estimate did indeed refer to a material reality rather than a statistical artefact one might question its utility.. One thing I will say, I do recognise people talking bollocks when I see it, and Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen and Rushton do talk an awful lot of bollocks. Alun (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not get this thread of talk. Legalleft seems to be making one substantive point: Alun, Ramdrake, and others (I assume me too) are ignoring certain lines of evidence. I was not aware of this. Legalleft, can you either summarize or just give two or three concise examples of the lines of evidence to which you are referring, that we are discounting/ignoring/rejecting/ whatever word you wish? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your directed and helpful question. I mean, as plainly as I can be, that in addition to describing the theoretical framework that Jensen initiated in the 1969 paper, it is important to point out especially widely-discussed empirical evidence that has been debated since then, such as that which I added to the genetics section. Given that I tried to work on it quickly and was piecing together a number of sources, I cannot vouch for the absolute necessity of every data point, but I think its a starting point. Please evaluate each claim therein per NPOV, rather than judging the entire topic irrelevant and reverting. Perhaps you'll find that some parts really are important. Indeed, I'm quite certain that a fair number of the points I added come up in various descriptions of the debate, and so should be described here. --Legalleft (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you massively expanded a section in an article that is already very long. This massive expansion added no more value, it didn't say anything that was not already said, it just said it a bit differently. You just want to give huge undue weight to tiny minority racist idealogues. You are not interestied in neutrality, only in promoting this far right ideology for apparently political reasons. Alun (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm a liberal Democrat, and given our locales, I'm sure I have more black friends than you do (and probably have had more black girlfriends) -- which is to say, I resent your comments. But I'm also a scientist, so I respect reasoning and evidence. Find something else to do instead throwing around ad hominem. --Legalleft (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a scientist as well, which is why I understand that what Jensen and his ilk are producing represents neither evidence nor lucid reasoning. Any impartial reading of the available texts illustrates the clear lack of any evidence and the blatant flaws in their analysis. As I said earlier, only the terminally ignorant or those with a fundamentalist belief in white supremacy could fall for this blatant nonsense. I didn't make any ad hominem comments, I just said that your edit added no value to the article, that's a comment on the edit and not on you. Your edit history clearly shows a propensity to expanding the sections advancing the racist point of view of the likes of Jensen, while removing criticism of this fallacy, so the comment about pushing the pov of the racists is simply an example of WP:SPADE. Still I appologise for any offence, Wikipedia talk pages on subjects like this do attract people with strong opinions, and of course we wouldn't be here if we did not intend to express these opinions. This subject is fundamentally a political one and not a scientific one. The fact that any of us are here is not based on "science", an interest in this subject is inextricably about our political views and anyone who claims they are only interested in the "science" is probably deluding themselves. Alun (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lest you be surprised by that, I know that Watson and Jensen are also vanilla liberal Dems like myself. Flynn is a self described socialist, so maybe the debate is between liberals and socialists. However, Snyderman and Rothman surveyed political views, and found that they explained less than 10% of the variance in science responses. --Legalleft (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a "vanilla Dem" is, someone who votes for the Democratic Party I suppose. But if Jensen describes himself as a liberal I can only assume it's in the same way that members of the NSDAP were "socialists"? Let's remember that Pim Fortuyn claimed not to be a racist, but clearly actions speak louder than words. It is what one does and says that defines one as a liberal or a socialist and not what one claims. Alun (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Defamation. --Jagz (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TROLL. You might also like to read Defamation yourself, I have made no "false claims", but have simply drawn an analogy. Maybe you'd like to read Freedom of speech. Alun (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NAM and WP:DBF. --Jagz (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Alun (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more with Alun that this article is (or should be) primarily about politics, or that people's reasons for editing it must be primarily political. Some people prefer to draw political conclusions from science, rather than let their political views dictate what science should be taken seriously and what science avoided.
 * Moreover, the issue of whether or not there is a link between race and intelligence is not really politically meaningful, unless one is to ascribe more worth to humans who are more intelligent. As to whether or not that is a viable idea, well that has nothing to do with this article.  Social policy considerations should, of course, be formed based on what scientific knowledge we have about the issue, but this article isn't about that, either.
 * Finally, while I acknowledge it is difficult, and that everyone does have political opinions which will dictate what facts they are comfortable accepting, that should not get in the way of editing this article, because it is not a platform for the advocacy of the editors' private political opinions, whether they be white male eugenicists, or Marxist social justice activists. Dismissing scientific results because they are 'racist' is just as idiotic as dismissing Gould's arguments because they are 'left-wing'.  It is fallacious, and does no credit to the seriousness of the discussion.  Scientific results cannot, by definition (unless we are to go down the very slippery slope of postmodern scepticism), be political opinion: they are dispassionate statements about the real world, which can be either true or false.  If it can be shown, without ad hominem arguments, that the results of Rushton etc. are not scientific, then so be it.  But it is doubtful that that can be done, given their publishing histories (yes, they may include Mankind Quarterly, but they also include some of the most respected journals in their field).  The most that can be said is that in some people's opinion (not the 'majority opinion', the 'consensus opinion' -- there is no consensus on this issue at the moment, in any field -- or any other grouping), the results have racist implications or undertones.
 * I don't mean to be confrontational, but I do think we need to focus on the facts and not get bogged down in silly arguments about politics and who's a racist and who's a liberal.--Plusdown (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts are simple. There is a measurable test score gap between African-Americans and European-Americans. Some people claim that these tests measure "intelligence", others claim that these tests are culturally biased. Some people claim that the difference is due to innate "biological" differences between "races", but experts on "race" (biologists and anthropologists are experts on "race" but psychologists clearly are not) claim that this is fallacious, "race" is known to be a social concept. Assuming that the test score gap is "real", there are several theories to explain it. One collection of theories can be collectively termed "environmental", although they do not occur as mutually exclusive environments. One can be exposed to several environments, all of which tend to reduce one's score on any given "intelligence test", there is no mysterious "factor X" as Jensen calls it, there are a multiplicity of factors that act in concert. The other, much less well accepted theory is sometimes called the "genetic hypothesis". This theory is essentially based on the fallacy that within group estimates of heritability can tell us something about the differences in achievement between groups. The fact that this "theory" is based on a fallacious interpretation of the data is not in doubt. This is an encyclopaedia article, it is not a review article. As such we do not need to give a tedious presentation of the results of every single study ever produced that merely shows that the test score gap exists, indeed we should not reproduce all of these results that essentially say the same thing. All we need to do is explain that the test score gap is reproducible, we can cite as many sources as you like to support this claim, but we definitely shouldn't go into detail explaining all of the papers published in the field, this is an encyclopaedia and not a review of the research. This ariticle could well be about 25% of it's current size, except that supporters of Jensen and his pseudoscientific henchmen seem to be under the impression that we need to give equal weight to their dingbat ideas. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The analogy with ID is correct, the claim that within group heritability can tell us anything useful whatsoever about between group differences is about as scientific as ID, and should be treated as such. This is the essence of the so called "genetic hypothesis", and as Richard Lewontin points out Is it not likely then that the difference is genetic? No. it is neither likely nor unlikely. There is no evidence. The fundamental error of Jensen's argument is to confuse heritability of a character within a population with heritability of the difference between two populations. Indeed, between two populations, the concept of heritability of their difference is meaningless. All else the supporters of the "genetic hypothesis" say is meaningless, all they are doing is saying the same thing over and again, but they are still pushing a fallacy. Now let's get this straight, this does not mean that the genetic hypothesis is wrong, but it does mean that their statistical analysis does not represent evidence in favour of the hypothesis, it says nothing about the hypothesis at all. Alun (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's Lewontin's view, yes. Lewontin is certainly a renowned and respectable population geneticist; he is also a noted critic of sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and similar fields.  His position, while certainly worthy of serious attention, cannot be taken to be representative of everyone in his field.  He is not the be-all and end-all on questions of race etc. (while certainly an authority, he is not the authority; nor is his position that of a consensus, AAA statement notwithstanding, given that there are many notable dissenters from that position).  Other scholars, as respected as Lewontin within their field (if not as well known publicly, or as idolised, perhaps) would vehemently disagree that the issue is one of science vs. pseudoscience; they would say it is one of one scientific hypothesis versus another.  Not even everyone who disagrees with the genetic theory believes that that theory is pseudoscience.  That stance is primarily polemic - no matter how mistaken the genetic hypothesis may be, that doesn't make it pseudoscience, any more than twistor theory is pseudoscientific because it isn't as likely to be true as string theory.  But just as we do not need to give a tedious presentation of every study that shows a racial IQ difference, we don't need to give a tedious presentation of every study that shows that those differences might be attributable to environmental factors; yet the article does just that (well, not every study, of course, but there is a sizeable number of them compared to the weighting given to the genetic hypothesis).  Most of the new material under discussion here is not repetitious, but refutations (valid or not) of the very sorts of points you made above, such as the perceived cultural bias of IQ tests (the chronometric testing), of socioeconomic/environmental explanations, etc.  While many people dispute the accuracy of IQ tests, most psychologists -- specifically psychometricians, hence experts in the area -- do seem to think they tell us something useful about something interesting.  Your argument about psychologists not being experts on race could equally well be applied to geneticists/anthropologists and intelligence.
 * What you wrote above is essentially the creed of one point of view, interspersed with a few needless ad hominems, arguments to authority, and assorted other fallacies. That point of view is important and notable.  But it is not the final say on the matter, you have to accept that.--Plusdown (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a statistical fact, go and check it, Heritability: In genetics, Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals. Read Montagu's "Race and IQ" where this point is made again and again by numerous psychologists, geneticists and anthropologists. Even Legalleft doesn't deny that within group heritability cannot be used to explain the gap, though he has tried to downplay the significance of what Stephen Gould has called the central fallacy of the "race and intelligence" argument. If one does not even understand this significant fact then one cannot claim to have any sort of grasp of this subject. Furthermore heritability does not measure the contribution of genes to a trait, it measure their contribution to the variance of a trait within a group, though pseudoscientists always try to conflate heritability with heredity, two very different concepts. There is also a great debate about the validity of heritability estimates, with many geneticists/biologists doubting their utility, Stephen Rose has called heritability as a "useless quantity". Lewontin also states "The fallacy is that a knowledge of the heritability of some trait in a population provides an index of the efficacy of environmental or clinical intervention in altering the trait either in individuals or in the population as a whole. This fallacy, sometimes propagated even by geneticists, who should know better, arises from the confusion between the technical meaning of heritablility and the everyday meaning of the word." (i.e. we should not confuse heritability with heredity). As Peter Taylor confirms "High heritability of a trait does not imply that it is hard to change through environmental changes. Lewontin invokes the case of curable ‘inborn errors of metabolism’, referring presumably to the dietary amelioration of the effects of homozygosity for the gene for phenylketonuria (PKU)." As for the claim that this is a "single point of view", it depends what you mean. There are several problems with racialist arguments for the test score gap. One is that "races" do not represent biologically discrete populations, this is not disputed by biologists or by anthropologists, but it is apparently by a small sub-section psychologists. There is a consensus in biology and anthropology that "races" are social constructs and not biological entities, but people who promote the "genetic hypothesis" cannot accept this because it shows the fallaciousness of their argument. Another is the idea that IQ measures something called "general intelligence", there is no consensus regarding the existence of such a thing as "general intelligence" as far as I can see, and without it the "genetic hypothesis" is also in serious trouble. Thirdly the claim that heritability accurately measures the contribution of genes to a trait is not correct, and this is not in doubt, it is a fact. Indeed Lewontin and Layzer show clearly that not only does it not measure the contribution of genes to a trait, but that it does not accurately measure the contribution of genes to the variance of a trait. As Jeremy Freese points out "The lucidity of Lewontin's arguments has historically proven no match for the allure of overly simple characterizations of outcomes as being x% due to genes and (1 – x)% not due to genes.2 Moreover, Lewontin's main points speak beyond questions about genetics and could even be said to prefigure the best parts of more recent complaints about regression analysis as a tool for causal inference in observational studies" As Lewontin points out, the claim that we can accurately measure the contribution of genes to the variance of a trait is based on the assumption that when genes and the environment interact they do so independently, but the evidence indicates that this interaction is not independent, "The reason why the partitioning of variance does not partition causes is that changing the distribution of genotypes will also change the environmental variance, while changes in the distribution of environments will also change the genetic variance. Moreover, neither the magnitude nor the direction of these changes can be predicted from the analysis." Thus even the claim that heritability measures anything useful is questioned by experts in genetics. Finally the fallacious claim that within group heritability is a measure of between group difference has been addressed above. So in actual fact Lewontin is speaking from the point of view of statistical and genetic orthodoxy and has the support of biologists and geneticists. There is no support for the "genetic hypothesis" from actual geneticists, biologists or anthropologists. I repeat, the point is not that the "hereditarian hypothesis" is necessarily wrong, the point is that there is no evidence for it. I am not asking that this hypothesis not be included in the article, I am saying that we need to have a balanced article that does not give undue weight to a theory that moat geneticists, biologists, psychologists and anthropologists say is not supported by any evidence. I can't see any ad hominem remarks about other editors in my above post, the closest is "pseudoscientific henchmen", but this is just a claim that the work is pseudoscience (and can be cited as such), it is a comment on the work, take a look at WP:SPADE. Alun (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. More straw men.  No-one (at least no-one who knows what they are talking about) has said that there is not a complex interaction between a heritable trait and the environment.  No-one.  That's why, generally, those who assert a genetic basis to IQ generally prefer to have their position described as 'interactionist' and not 'hereditarian' -- and there is also a general consenus that this interaction is complex and non-linear...not a stupid caricature like 'the heritability of IQ is 0.6 thus 60% of my IQ comes from my parents and 40% from my environment'.  That's absolute rubbish.
 * However, look, for example, here . Now this paper is outdated (1979), but it shows that already then attempts to understand the interaction between heredity (i.e. a polygenic trait which is inherited from parents), socio-cultural transmission (parental care, etc.), other environmental concerns, and even the phenomenon of assortative mating, were meeting with success.  With remarkable accuracy (they're out on their estimate for monozygotic twins, but that is attributable to the small sample available at the time).  So you needn't bother coming with Lewontin's straw men like 'x% due to genes and (1 – x)% not due to genes'.
 * As for Rushton, he doesn't use the concept of heritability (as a measure of what is attributable to genetic variation within delineated populations) to explain differences between those populations. He uses it to show that a significant amount of phenotypic variance is attributable to genetic variation, which is what the statistic is for.  His argument about between-group differences is based on other things.  Heritability statistics for IQ simply go to show that much variation is probably attributable to genetic variation within the populations being measured.
 * And that is a 'consensus position' among psychometricians: that IQ has a high heritability, and even that IQ is a good measure of 'general intelligence'. There are, of course, dissenters -- Gardner's rather unscientific multiple intelligence theory being the most prominent example -- just as there are dissenters from the 'consensus position' among anthropologists vis a vis race.  The issue of between-group differences is a bit more contentious, but it is important not to confuse the issues.  The only time that black/white differences enter Rushton's discussion on heritability is to show that the same pattern applies to both groups (which shouldn't even really be disputed by those who don't like the idea of race, since they would say that that much should be obvious).  Again, I point out that the arguments regarding between-group differences are different, and don't appeal to the heritability of IQ alone.
 * Right, next. Lewontin has a number of ideas about population genetics, statistics, etc., which are not universally accepted (far from it).  A comparable figure would be Chomsky in linguistics: both are giants in their field, but both are also advocates of some very bold ideas which are not really established as gospel truth.  So citing him on topics like that only go to show what his particular school of thought believes.  Moreover, he is a critic of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology in general: many of his arguments against the race/IQ issue are actually specific implementations of his complaints against those two fields.  Cogent as his arguments may be, they are not the final word on the matter.
 * And then, for example, we come to people like E.O. Wilson (just as venerable and respected a figure as Lewontin, except for in the eyes of the radical left, perhaps, but then they argue from politics not science), who say that they find Rushton's work to be 'solid evolutionary reasoning' and similar.
 * The point is that you are trying to claim here a sort of universal validity for everything that Lewontin and his collaborators, such as Rose, write, when if you are honest you will acknowledge that their opinions do not carry quite so much weight. Take, for example, the idea that heritability may not actually measure anything useful.  While it is necessary to take cognizance of Lewontin's critique of heritability, there have been many responses -- most of which come from the field of population genetics, not psychology or whatever, and are totally unrelated to this debate -- which argue that while heritability doesn't give us any information about individuals, it is still the best contender at the moment for what it is meant to do, Lewontin's 'norm of reaction' idea being totally unworkable in the light of the complexity of human beings.  His word is not the last one, and nor is it always the consensus position (in some cases it is, but often it is not).
 * Finally, about the (non-)existence of race as a meaningful category. That tells us nothing about the validity of applying heritability estimates.  For as long as we define our population and keep our workings to within that population, the statistics will come out right.  It may well be that in our definition of populations (African Americans, etc.) we are drawing lines in the wrong places; but that is only to do, then, with the importance (or not) of the results, not the validity of the analysis (for example, we could study the heritability of IQ within the population of people with detached ear lobes, and those without, and come to the same conclusion regarding its heritability: it would just be that that conclusion wouldn't be very interesting).
 * But this brings me to the final point. Lewontin is quite correct that if single human traits are considered, then drawing lines along the traditional 'racial boundaries' is quite silly.  But if groups of traits -- and not just the most contrived examples of such groups we can find, but traits of actual interest -- are considered, then we find that cluster analysis shows statistically significant groupings which correspond, roughly, to the traditional 'races'.  This is not a 'consensus position' either, but the results which show Lewontin's reasoning to be fallacious in this regard have been published, by respected population geneticists, in publications like Nature Genetics.
 * Thus you can stop trying to steamroller this discussion with relentless citation of Lewontin -- his view is definitely notable and needs to be taken seriously, but while he does, as you say, 'have the support of biologists and geneticists', he is not speaking for all of them, nor even all respected, mainstream biologists and geneticists (or probably even most, not that census statistics really matter -- as Pinker pointed out). You are giving his opinions undue weight.  It's that simple.  --Plusdown (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read what I wrote? Possibly you did but did not understand. You don't seem to be making any sort of argument as far as I can see. You claim my arguments are "straw men", indicating a lack of basic understanding on your part of the concepts under discussion. What do you mean by a "complex interaction"? I did not claim that anyone has made the claim that there is no complex interaction. I have stated that when environment and genes correlate dependently then one cannot sensibly partition variation. It's not a question of complex interactions, it's a question of non-independent correlated interactions. When this partition cannot be made, attempting it produces nonsense results, and this partitioning has bee attempted, and has produced nonsense results.
 * Yor comment about Rushton using heritability to "show that a significant amount of phenotypic variance is attributable to genetic variation" displays ignorance. The high heritability of within group IQ test scores only applies to "whites" and is not applicable to "blacks". Again the fallacy is to assume that high heritability in one group can be taken as evidence for high heritability in a different group. If Rushton really does make this claim, then he is making the same mistake. If a trait is estimated to be hghly heritable in one population, then it is not a statistically valid claim to say that the trait is therefore highly heritable in a different group. Indeed if you had read what I wrote earlier you would have understood this, read the heritability article, "In genetics, Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals." In this case the population measured is American "whites", the heritability of IQ scores has been shown to be much lower in other populations. "The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia." Don't breach the central tennet of what heritability means, heritability can only tell us something about the group in question.
 * Your claims for Lewontin are incorrect, he is expressing orthodoxy in population genetics and statistics, he's certainly no "rogue" scientist, it is the psychometricians and eugenicists who are the pseudoscientists here, your attempt to portray Lewontin as some sort of maveric is ludicrous.
 * More unfounded claims about Lewontin, what are these responses for population geneticists you write about? You seem to be merely giving your opinion of Lewontin and not anything concrete. Lewontin doesn't say anything controversial, yes population geneticists do still used heritability measurements, but they will all also agree that it is only used because it is convenient, molecular genetics is not yet mature enough for us to study the actual effects of genes on traits, when we can population geneticists will drop the concept of heritability like a hot potato. It's used because it's all we've got, but no geneticist would dispute it's limitations as expressed by Lewontin. Why do you call Stephen Rose a collaborator of Lewontin? Stephen Rose is a neurobiologist in the UK, Lewontin is a population geneticist in the US, they do not work in the same academic field, I doubt they have collaborated. Furthermore I haven't stated anywhere that there is a "universal validity to everything Lewontin has written". Indeed Lewontin's claims about human genetic variation in the 70s are not correct as Long and Kittles (2003) and Edwards (2003) have independently shown. Essentially Lewontin claims that 85% of human genetic variation is within group, but this is not the case, the amount of human genetic variation is "on average" 85% within group, in fact Africa contains 100% of human genetic variation while the further from Africa a human population lives, the less variation it has, for examplt Long and kittles estimate that Papua New Guineans only have about 60% of the variation that occurs in the human species. Of course this supports the RAO model, with variation decreasing with distance from Africa. With regards to heritability, Lewontin is correct in what he says and no one has disputed this.
 * "Finally, about the (non-)existence of race as a meaningful category. That tells us nothing about the validity of applying heritability estimates.  For as long as we define our population and keep our workings to within that population." Can you really not see the contradiction in what you write? The very fact that "races" don't represent biological entities means that our populations are not well defined biologically, we are not measuring biological differences, we are not measuring "racial" differences, because the "races" as defined by Jensen and Rushton do not represent robust biological entities. When geneticists study differences between groups, in say disease susceptibility, they are advised not to use "racial" categories, but when they do they are expected to justify it's use and advised to  use a rational rational system to identify their categories, socially defined "races" do not represent rational biological categories. So you are incorrect, using "race" as a proxy for measuring differentials in "intelligence" genes is a big problem for the psychometricians.
 * Maybe Rushton's work is solid evolutionary reasoning, but there is no evidence to support it. Theories can be rational and still be unsupported by any evidence. Indeed the use of r/K selection is not used in biology any more because it is though to represent a flawed concept. See Joseph L. Graves "The Race Myth" for en more detailed account of why r/K selection is no longer considered of any value.
 * Clustering analysis is interesting, but it does not support the concept of "races". Clusters are relative groups, their existence depends as much on the genes used, the populations sampled, the number of loci studied and finally the algorithm used to do the analysis. The work of Rosenberg clearly shows this, where using the same algorith he has produced five, six and seven different clusters for humans depending on the sites sampled and the number of alleles used in the analysis. Furthermore a recent paper produced different clusters again when it used SNPs instead of STR's and used a different algorithm. A better representation of the distribution of human genetic variation can be understtod from the paper of Witherspoon et al. 2007 then by studying clustering analyses. This si because Witerspoon et al. studied the misclassification rate between pairs of individuals rather than relying only on genes that are known to vary geographicall. That is that use the concept of the disimilarity fraction: "the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different populations is genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single population.". They conclude "... even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
 * I don't really know what your problem with Lewontin is, but his observations are in line with many publications. As I said if you read "Race and IQ" edited by Ashley Montagu you will discover that Lewonton's comments regarding heritability are common. The claims that heritability cannot be used to infer between group differences, or that high heritability of a trait in one environment does not indicate high heritability of the same trait in a different environment is absolutely incontrovertible, even though you have tried to imply that it is not. Indeed this point is made in the article as it currently stands, and no one who knows what they are talking about would contest it. Alun (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep this short.
 * The heritability of IQ is significant in all population groups...Rushton does not say that because it is true for whites (i.e. in one population) it must be true for blacks (i.e. in another population). Nor did I, if you bothered reading what I wrote above.  The measured statistics are remarkably similar for both populations.  So once again, a straw man, as you try to characterise me as saying that because it is heritable in one group 'therefore' it is heritable in another (heritability is slightly lower, according to some analyses -- Turkheimer's being one of the more extreme results -- in low SES environments; this, too, is common ground, however: no-one has said that heritability is the same across all possible environments; and IQ is more heritable in black middle-class groups, just as it is in white middle-class groups).
 * Quoting the New York Times is not really the best way to settle a dispute like this. Journalists are not renowned for their subtle understanding of science.  It is not the case that heritability of 60-80% is an assumption, it is a result.  Big difference.  The article you link to also caricatures the sampling methodology; whenever possible, groups are delineated according to SES etc.; and white middle-class people are not the only ones who have been studied, and nor have the other groups -- even prior to Turkheimer -- been studied in such abysmal detail that the statistics are not adequate.
 * Yet another straw man re my characterisation of Lewontin. Nowhere did I say he was a maverick or a 'rogue scientist'.  On the contrary, I was very careful to point out that his opinions are respected and important.  However, what I was saying was that while some of what he says represents the orthodoxy, some of what he says also does not: this does not mean that he is a 'rogue scientist'; it means that he is adherent to one school of thought, while other people -- equally respected and eminent -- adhere to another.  That's part of how science works.
 * I call Steven Rose a collaborator of Lewontin simply because he has collaborated with Lewontin on some important work, e.g. Not in Our Genes, in which they laid out some of their opinions which are not representative of a consensus or orthodox position (someone just as eminent as Lewontin called the book a 'bizarre conspiracy theory of science'). I can't imagine what your problem with my incidental mention of Rose as a collaborator would be; it goes to show their particular common viewpoint, and how it is not universally accepted.  You have not explicitly said that you consider Lewontin the 'final authority', but your constant citation of him and appeals to his authority do seem to suggest that you have that opinion.  Maybe I'm wrong.
 * I, too, acknowledged that in many respects Lewontin's critique of the naive use of heritability is quite correct, but that it is the most workable concept based on current understanding. At least we agree on that.
 * Re the well-definedness of races in heritability analyses. Of course, simply grouping people into 'African-American', 'white', etc., is a little 'rough-around-the-edges'.  Nonetheless, there is a sufficient degree of commonality within these populations to treat them, in the interim, as entities: see the continuum fallacy.  A complete analysis would no doubt be much, much more subtle, but this a viable basis for working on in the interim, as long as results are contextualised properly.  This is probably the nub of the matter, I think.
 * You say: 'The claims that heritability cannot be used to infer between group differences, or that high heritability of a trait in one environment does not indicate high heritability of the same trait in a different environment is absolutely incontrovertible, even though you have tried to imply that it is not.' I have never tried to imply that.  I wouldn't.  I repeatedly said above that heritability cannot be used to infer between-group differences, and I never even discussed the issue of heritability varying over environments.  Please stop misrepresenting my position (or, read what I write more carefully).
 * OK, I'm not going to get bogged down in trying to combat any more sophistry. I am beginning to think that this article is a hopeless cause.  I just wish, however, that you would try to stop bringing in strawmen, and mischaracterising what I am saying.  It is important, however, if this article is to have any semblance of neutrality or scholarly integrity, that authorities are given their due --nothing more and nothing less; steamrolling one side or the other of the argument is a gross misrepresentation of the state of the field: while this isn't a review article, it is an encyclopaedia article, and hence should present a fair overview of the most salient aspects of the topic.  This means not caricaturing one side while presenting the other side's perspective as if the matter is settled.  It is not.  --Plusdown (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unindent
 * I really don't think you actually read what I write. But there is a central fallacy in your reasoning. The heritability of intelligence may well be significant in all populations, I wouldn't dispute this contention, but significant is not the same a large, significant just means that the heritability estimate, whether large or small, is not the product of chance. Heritability is a measurement for a population and not for a trait. Heritability of intelligence can be significant in black populations and still be as little as 10%, significance just means not due to chance in statistics. The fundamental fact is that high heritability does not mean that the trait is mostly under genetic control, as Jensen claims, and it does not mean that environmental intervention is pointless, as Jensen claims. Heritability is not a measure of the contribution of genes to a trait, it is a measure of the relative contributions of genes to the variance of a trait within a specific environment, in a different environment the heritability of the same trait will be different because heritability is a property of the population and not a property of the trait. As I pointed out above, heritabilities for IQ are high in white middle class environments, possibly 80%, but are low in low SES environments, possibly 10-20%. Their significance is not in doubt, that's just a measure of chance, but their magnitude is not a fixed quantity.
 * I didn't quote a journalist, I quoted a psychologist who was writing in a newspaper. Read the article, it states at the bottom of the page "Richard E. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, is the author of “The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why.”" I don't know where you get the word assumption from, Nisbett says the 60-80% figure is an assertion i.e. it is something hereditarians assert. It is not contested that this figure is based on the study of only "white" populations, except by you. You have a habit of making sweeping statements without providind sources to support these statements, I urge you to provide sources for your claims, and quotes if possible, it's the only way to support what you are saying, and your comments will carry more weight if you can back them up.
 * OK, provide evidence that other population geneticists and statisticians disagree with his analysis of heredity. Again a sweeping statement, that he is a proponent of a particular "school of thought", but that many disagree with his analysis of heredity measurements. Name the "school of thought" and name the people who have published explicit papers disagreeing with his treatment of heritability. If you read Dacid Layzer "Heritability Analyses of IQ Scores: Science or Numerology?" you will see the same reasoning, see also: Biesheuvel (1972) "An examination of Jensen'e theoriey concerning educability, heritability and population differences"; Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) "Genetic diversity and human equality"; Urie Bronfenbrenner (1975) "Nature with nurture: A reinterpretation of the evidence"; Peggy R. Sanday (1972) "On the causes of IQ differences between groups and implications for social policy", all make the same point, that for heritability to be accurately measured then there can be no correlation between environment and genetic contributions, but that this is not the case for complex human traits. As Layzer clearly states "..the contributions of interaction to phenotypic variances and covariances cannot, in general, be separated from the contributions of genotype and environment, and heritability analysis cannot, therefore, be applied meaningfully." What this means is that what heritability analysis is measuring for IQ in human populations is the effect of genes on variation and the effect of gene-environment interactions on variation, and that these cannot be sensibly partitioned. What if, in the white population the effect of genes alone is 20%, the effect on environment is 20% and the effect of gene-environment interactions is 60%? We just would not know, and no one does know, but hereditarians pretent that the effect of gene-environment interactions on the variance in intelligence in the "white" population can be sensibly included in the heritability estimate. All of the sources I cite expose this as a fallacy, as do Lweontin, Freese and Rose.
 * You are wrong, I cited his paper as a convenient example, there are a cornucopia of papers that support his contention, which is biological orthodoxy.
 * Incorrect, "races" are social constructs and not biological constructs. Any biologists that used such absurd constructs and then claimed that they represented "biologically defined populations" would not get their paper published. It speaks volumes that Jensen doesn't even understand that "race" has no biological validity. Biology as a science does not recognise the existence of human "races", we are all Homo sapiens sapiens for very good biological reasons. The criticism of the use of socially defined "racial" concepts and them pretending that these are meaningful biological distinctions his relevant and pertinent and has been made and can be cited. Whether you personally think this division is acceptable is irrelevant, Wikipedia does not publish work based on teh opinions of it's editors.
 * Please be consistent, i said that you implied it, not that you said it. All you have to do is clearly say that you did not mean to imply it and that I misunderstood. If I say that you have implied something then that is my perception, if you did not mean to make such an implication then just say so, I didn't misrepresent you, I misunderstood you, or rather I stated what I thought you had implied. There's no need to get so shirty.
 * Sophistry? All I've done is cite reliable sources. If these sources don't support white supremacy, then that's not really my problem. I might suggest that it is the fundamentalist beliefs that hereditarians hold that are at faulty and not the sources that overwhelmingly don't support them. As I said intelligent design is a good analogy for the "race" and "intelligence" debate, because those that believe in this guff really are "true believers" with total "faith" in this belief, even though the evidence is about as convincing as it is for ID. Alun (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the straw man argument of between-group/within group heritability, which arises again and again: 'Nor have I ever claimed that the well-established heritability of individual differences in IQ within races proves the heritability of differences between races.'; or 'Group racial and social class differences are first of all individual differences [i.e., they are the statistical averages of individual measurements], but the causes of the group differences may not be the same as of the individual differences'; and again 'I myself...have attempted in several publications from 1969 to 1982 to explicate the illogic of trying to prove the heritability of mean differences between groups from a knowledge of the heritability of individual differences within groups.' -- Jensen (1982) responding to Gould's caricatures .  From the horse's mouth.  We also find Jensen saying 'I have also attempted over the years to dispel the common, but unwarranted, assumption that heritability necessarily implies the inevitability or immutability of human differences.'  In other words, he is pointing out that a trait with high heritability isn't the same thing as a trait which is fixed in stone from the moment of conception; and by implication, environmental influences will have an impact on the expression of that trait.  You say 'The fundamental fact is that high heritability does not mean that the trait is mostly under genetic control, as Jensen claims, and it does not mean that environmental intervention is pointless, as Jensen claims'.  Evidently you don't actually know what Jensen claims (possily because you haven't bothered reading what Jensen has written).
 * It is not just me who says that the 60-80% figure is based only on the study of 'white' populations -- see, e.g., Loehlin (1975) -- yes, already then a significant amount of research had been undertaken on other populations (the reference is a review article); or Osborne's Georgia twin study. Turkheimer's study may be one of the more recent, but by itself it does not invalidate all previous studies; it simply falls on one particular end of a spectrum of results.
 * I didn't quote the NYT as saying that the heritability estimate is an 'assumption': but that was certainly the implication of the article. To say that someone 'begins with the assertion that...' is essentially similar to saying that 'in their argument they assume that...'; Webster's (not my favourite dictionary, but at least available free online) tells us that 'assert implies stating confidently without need for proof or regard for evidence'.  Thus I was absolutely correct in taking the implication of the word 'assert' as it was used there to intimate that high heritability of IQ is an unjustified (or unjustifiable) assumption.  Words have connotations, and we would all do well to appreciate them.  I confess I was wrong in attributing the piece to a journalist, however.  I should have looked further.
 * You asked for this. The 'school of thought' to which Lewontin belongs is one of a paranoid, obscurantist left-wing clique who believe that using genes to explain human behaviours and abilities is part of the conspiracy of white males to oppress women and minorities, and who go about arguing this point by misrepresenting their opponents and being selective with the evidence.  That is citable, too .  It may sound crude, but since you aren't exactly pulling the punches when you call Jensen and Rushton 'racists', 'pseudoscientists' and 'fascists' (I'm not sure if you have called them fascists explicitly, but the 'fighting fascism' section on your links page certainly indicates that that is your view of them, aside from showing that you don't really understand what fascism is).  Therefore, any of Lewontin, and his comrades', critiques of genetic explanations of behavioural/psychological traits needs to be seen in this light: it is not epresentative of 'biological orthodoxy'.
 * I have not said that Lewontin's ideas on heredity (of all things) are disputed: I spoke of heritability. You yourself gave me such a pious lecture on the difference between heredity and heritability, therefore I would have thought that you wouldn't confuse the two.  If you're interested in seeing criticism of Lewontin's ideas of heritability, this would be a good place to start, in particular chapter 2 (it provides the main argument, and gives further references to chase).
 * You say: 'Incorrect, "races" are social constructs and not biological constructs. Any biologists that used such absurd constructs and then claimed that they represented "biologically defined populations" would not get their paper published.'  Bollocks. , for one, off the top of my head -- it speaks of 'self-identified' racial groupings, and how these correspond remarkably well to meaningful biological groupings -- indeed, they are more indicative of genetic makeup than analysis of random clusters (perhaps unsurprisingly, since racial groupings are based on easily observable features of populations, not nearly invisible components of their makeup).  Since in some respects IQ research is similar to epidemiological research, this even has bearing on that discussion (not that it needs to in order to refute your pathetically incorrect point that biologists who use biological definitions of race all fail peer-review).  Certainly the 'social constructionist' view of race is important, but it is not universally accepted.
 * Your reference to homo sapiens sapiens is another example of sophistry. 'Race', when used to refer to biological classification of human beings, does not mean the same as 'race' when used, say, to categorise cabbages (i.e. taxonomic subspecies).  Because of the social history of the term -- and no-one denies that it has a social history -- the same word is used in English to describe two different types of classification.  But just because we are all members of homo sapiens sapiens does not mean that there is no meaningful way of genetically partitioning our species' population along lines that correspond remarkably to the traditional racial categories -- and anyone who insists that the different human races represent different human subspecies (in the taxonomic sense) is, of course, wrong.
 * You say: 'Sophistry? All I've done is cite reliable sources. If these sources don't support white supremacy, then that's not really my problem.' How very ironic.  You claim not to be indulging in sophistry, but then offer in support of that claim a thinly-disguised ad hominem.  I have refrained from calling into question your own political beliefs -- which judging from your userpage appear to be pretty extreme -- and how they may affect your bias with regards to this article; yet you obliquely accuse me of being a  white supremacist (which is absolute nonsense, anyway -- if I were, I'd say so, this is the Internet, for God's sake).  What you have been doing is citing sources which do not actually address the concerns, except through straw-men; or where they do have real bearing, we seem to be either in agreement as to their validity, or to agree that the opinions contained in your sources merit conclusion.  Where we differ is in the weighting to be attributed to them: you seem to think that they are representative of some sort of 'orthodoxy'.  They are not (except in some, almost trivial cases).  That can clearly be realised by looking at the frequency with which dissenting opinions are published in the scholarly, peer-reviewed literature.
 * You say that this issue is similar to ID; that couldn't be further from the truth. How many  ID papers have appeared in the scholarly literature?  None - OK, one, if you count that anomalous Behe thing.  How many papers about race and IQ -- supporting genetic hypotheses -- have appeared in the literature?  Countless.  The furore around ID is an artificial controversy.  The controversy around this issue is genuine.
 * Now if you will excuse me, I have some workers to exploit and minorities to oppress. Your tone, and your refusal to actually look at the evidence, are beginning to fray my nerves not a little. I have tried to remain civil; I have acknowledged where I have made mistakes, been wrong, etc.; and I have tried to maintain a balance: i.e. not suggesting that just one POV is correct or worthy of inclusion, but always acknowledged the importance of the other side.  You have not done any of these things; indeed, I am seriously beginning to wonder whether there is not an element of wilful mendacity and tendentious editing going on here.  I hope, however, that the points I have raised here will be contribute to dispelling any notions that there is a 'consensus' among editors here as to what to include in the article...it is an empirical fact that there isn't.  --Plusdown (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun and Ramdrake, please see Straw man. Alun, please see Sophistry and Ad hominem. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagz, if the only contribution you can make to this discussion is playing la mouche du coche, may I respectfully suggest your refrain? It adds nothing to the discussion and is disruptive.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just try to stick to a civil conversation. Legalleft, you now say you are refering to empirical evidence you added to the Genetics section. Since there has been so much back and forth editing, I again ask that you just provide me here with two or three specific examples. What is the empirical evidence you are referring to? if it is a lotl, just a couple of examples would suffice to help me follow your point. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really wish we could stick to one thread at a time. I asked Legalleft to provide me with examples of empirical evidence he wished to add to the genetics section. Is the data from the Minnesota Twin Study it? Legalleft said "empirical evidence" and I really just want to know, from him, what precisely he is referring to. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A little over my head in work now, but I would like to answer your question. Let me get back to you later in detail. Briefly, three strands of evidence should be included. Evidence against the effectiveness of common environmental factors, evidence for the lack of factor X variables (maybe better described as lack of evidence for factor X variables), and evidence from non-psychometric measurements. (It goes without saying that none of these on their own is taken by anyone as proving anything.) At least one example of each should be given. For the latter two, I think I know exactly the right examples (structural equation modeling and elementary cognitive tasks). For the former, it's all a bit squishy, but MTRAS perhaps the most commonly cited so probably the one to mention, but the cross cultural stability of group differences also fits in that category. I avoided any details of Spearman's hypothesis in what I wrote because its so flipping technically complicated (correlations of vectors), but that is a big thing too. --Legalleft (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not think this would be over your head since we are referring to material you wrote and claim was removed from the article - I thought it would be very easy for you to summarize one or two examples of what you were referring to. Be that as it may what you mention aove is a little vague (no offense) - I was hoping for specific examples. But as far as i can tell, none of the types of evidence you mention are "genetic" so it seems to me they should go in another section. "The cultural stability of group differences" certainly is not genetic evidence. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean I have too much work to do in real life. -- Most evidence for a genetic explanation isn't "genetic" evidence, and molecular genetic evidence has essentially never been examined. -- plusdown took the time to summary what I wrote for me (cut and pasted below this entry). --Legalleft (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've gone and looked at the diffs (which are horrible to dissect, at least on my system, because they don't line up clearly). In essence, it looks like Legalleft has been wanting to introduce new material into the genetics section, including:
 * Arguments offered by 'pro-genetic' people as to why socioeconomic factors don't tell the whole story
 * Analyses which seek to establish/rule out causes based on differences in development across races
 * Rushton's explanation of 'regression to the mean' -- which has sparked most of the argument above; Alun is vehemently opposed to this one in particular, from what I can gather, because he considers it to be nonsense based on his personal understanding of genetics.
 * An expansion on the Minnessota Twin Study section, which is probably one of the more important empirical studies with bearing on this topic.
 * And finally a section on testing, e.g. chronometric testing, which is argued to be the most accurate cross-group approach, etc., etc.
 * I would argue that all of those points are worthy of inclusion (how they should be included is another matter). They are all important, notable aspects of the 'genetic' side of the argument, and so deserve inclusion.  None of them are the maunderings of a lone crackpot, nor are they sourced from Nazi party propaganda leaflets, so there shouldn't really be argument against them from that angle.  If Alun doesn't like the 'regression to the mean' argument, he is welcome, of course, to provide a citation to an article that criticises Rushton's research on those grounds.  But from what I can make out from his arguments above, he has the wrong end of the stick regarding what Rushton is saying (though the explanation in the article as Legalleft had it could probably do with improvement; yet that's the better way to work with a wiki, isn't it, to improve things rather than just delete them outright?); Alun is certainly right about genes not coming out of thin air, etc., but his analysis of the situation is something of a straw man, whether deliberate or otherwise (I'll assume not).
 * The 'environmental' section of the article is vast, with at least 7 sub-sections laying out that side of the argument. There is no good reason why the genetic section should be any different.  I understand that some people are of the opinion that a genetic explanation is a 'fringe theory', or that IQ is a discredited concept, but it is not quite as simple as that.  The WP:FRINGE idea was dreamt up originally as an attempt to stop the likes of intelligent design loonies and 'theory of everything' physics cranks littering otherwise uncontroversial articles with their nonsense.  This topic is not nearly as clearcut.  Simply trying to steamroller ideas which editors personally find objectionable is not an acceptable approach.  The truth of the matter is that the topic is not settled 100% one way or the other, and there are probably as many explanations/opinions of the empirical data as there are researchers.  Broad trends can be distinguished, but that is all.  Both sides here need to receive fair and ample coverage: there is no reason for the article to be weighted to one or the other.  --Plusdown (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just saw this. Yeah, this is correct. And I certainly accept the blame for any confusion introduced in what I wrote. --Legalleft (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone, may I suggest you familiarize yourselves with the WP:TLDR essay? This discussion is becoming increasingly hard to follow.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NVC and WP:ROWN. --Jagz (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)