Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 77

The history section
This section has been moved to article talk from the mediation page, as a still-open discussion. The original debate was left in mediation, but archived with a link back to this page -- Ludwigs 2 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I have written extra material for the first segment of the history section, using as the initial secondary source the section on "Race Differences in Intelligence" in this textbook:



Ludy Benjamin is one of the foremost historians of psychology. A second segment will follow. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You're misrepresenting the fact that current consensus is agnosticism, and that, if anything an approximately 50% genetic etiology probably has more support among experts than 100% environmental. I prefer David's history, without your changes. mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, this is just a summary of what the source says. It does not say at all what you claim it says. It is additional material, not an alternative. It is just the first part of the additional history. The rest is more complicated to write and will use further sources. Unless you can find fault with this source, which is written by a distinguished historian of psychology, what point is there in you simply writing WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Unfortunately your way is not the way wikipedia articles are edited. If you have a problem with either Ludy Benjamin or Graham Richards, or their publsihers, please say so. The book by Benjamin has had excellent reviews from what I can tell. Since this is additional material and properly sourced, might it possible for you to find a more constructive way of discussing content in future? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant to show that the race intelligence debate has its roots in scientific racism and the eugenics theories of the early twentieth century - that is an important part of why the debate is so contentious. It is also relevant to mention that race intelligence research is almost entirely based in the US. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The race intelligence debate has been going on since time immemorial. Take a look at Historical definitions of race. Researchers are not just from the US (Rushton, probably the most prominent current researcher, is Canadian/British) and they use data from all over the world. mikemikev (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused as to how describing empirical data that passed peer review can be scientific racism. Stating that a group mean difference exists on IQ test scores is empirical fact-- not racism. Stating that RT differences exist across races and that these differences map on to IQ differences is empirical fact-- not racism. Data are neutral; only the explanation for the data can be racist. If I claim these differences are real but due to massive test bias and poorer environments for minorities, is that racist? If one claimed the difference is due to the inherent inferiority of the minority as part of god's great plan-- well, that's probably racist. But, just describing empirical peer-reviewed data cannot be racist. Whether claiming part of the difference is genetic may or may not be racist (i.e., what if it's true?).Bpesta22 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing that modern peer reviewed studies of correlations between race and intelligence is scientific racism (or that describing those studies is racism)- I am saying that it is relevant to contextualise this research into the tradition of eugenics and pseudo scientific staments of inherent inferiority of certain racial groups from which it originated - because this context is exactly the reason that it is so controversial today.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus once again puts his finger on the key point: putting views in context. BPesta says, "I'm a bit confused as to how describing empirical data that passed peer review can be scientific racism." Bryan, - and I am speaking to you editor to editor - there is no need for confusion. We are not saying that these studies are scientific racism. We are saying that one view holds that these studies are valid scientific research and another view holds that they are scientific racism." We are notsaying anything as such about the research.  We are providing the views that are out there.  Now, if one of us personally disagrees with one viee, or even does not understand one view, well, what can I say?  Everyone has their own opinion.  We do have to strive to present each view accurately and as clearly as possible, so if you do not understand that view maybe you can point out places where more information would make our account clearer.  But whether any of us personally understands a view or likes it, well, that just is not relevant.  Using that as a standard for what we include in this article will only ensure that the article violates WP:NPOV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still mulling this over and happy to comply with whatever rules wiki uses. But-- perhaps I am biased-- reading this history section gives one the impression that it's a foregone conclusion that Jensen et al. are raving loons motivated by racism. At the very least, it makes it seem like the whole area is junk science, even if the environmental hypothesis is completely true.


 * I'm guessing one could easily find books / articles, etc. claiming the very worst about people who do research in this area (again this reminds me of the Gottfredson article I linked to somewhere here). I'm trying to strike a balance in my mind between giving these guys too much credit versus letting them be dismissed outright as cranks, since there is now about 100 years of data on this gap. For example, I much prefer the Hunt criticisms to the Nisbett ones. I've seen two examples here of Nisbett's arguments and have not been impressed (understood that my opinion doesn't matter for what the final draft is; just expressing my opinion).


 * Slru-- sorry for shortening your name as Slu, and thanks for your comment re my editing question. Bpesta22 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * eta, don't know if this is consistent with Wiki rules, but in my mind, the historysection should help clarify for the reader why the questions researchers are asking today are what they are (versus other questions). Examples: no one's really debating whether g can be measured from an IQ score; or whether IQ tests are culturally biased (in the psychometric sense). Instead, researchers are using IQ scores as proxies for g and then via statistics seeing what covaries with g and the race gap.


 * So, mentioning the Fergusen study-- never heard of it-- doesn't seem like a helpful addition. Things that I think influenced where we are now: Binet starting this whole IQ testing thing. The army discovering the utility of iq (and perhaps mention any racist uses here). The whole immigration controversy; Spearman of course; the intractability of the gap, as revealed by things like head start. Jensen's 1969? article; Griggs v. Duke Power, and the data college profs have amassed at least indirectly in response to that ruling.


 * All jmo. At this point, feel free to yell at me if I keep screwing up my editing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh; forgot to sign;) Bpesta22 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several Wikipedia articles dealing with the various aspects of IQ, g, etc. It is certainly a good idea to summarize and link to some of them here, but covering the entire history of IQ research here is beyond the scope of this article. A.Prock (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very nice to see wikipedians expressing their personal views, but that's not how wikipedia articles are written. I am continuing to prepare a version of the rest of the history as I've said above. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is like criticizing modern medicine because back in the day, doctors used leaches to treat disease. How very Gouldian. Bpesta22 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BPesta, I do not mind your abbreviating my name. On a purely editorial matter, I do have one request - polease be more attentive to how you out-dent your comments, so that they are clearly set apart from other people's comments. e.g. I just refactored this section so that you are always one space out from me, as your comment followed mine (then AProck is two spaces out etc. Also, could you sign imediately after your last words - just to take up less space ... if you do not mindSlrubenstein   |  Talk 23:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, I have three comment in response to your comments and also MathSci's edits. Math Sci, would you consider these specific suggestions to consider in your current editing, please? (1) I think your suggestion "eta, don't know if this is consistent with Wiki rules, but in my mind, the historysection should help clarify for the reader why the questions researchers are asking today are what they are (versus other questions)." is very constructive. MathSci, if you could organize your history so that at last a good portion of it is a history of changing research questions, with explicit markers (i.e. subsections highlighting new research questions) I think that this would make the section much much easier for lay-people to read, and would also make it very clear how the history relates to the topic and finally, organizing it this way clarifies ho and why your approach resolves some NPOV concerns

(2) Second, I agree that we need to be careful about the relevance of earlier racism. Is the point that scientists are biased by their own culture, and that if a culture is biased scientisats will share that bias? Or is the point an irony, that scientists why thought that IQ testing would lead to a meritocracy (and thus end racism) ironically had the opposite effect? The point I want to make right here is this: the question facing any historian is, how far back do you go? Attitudes towards race that dominate world culture today have their origins in the 16th century, do we start there? No. I think in addition to a link to the article on racism we need to have very clear criteria for when we begin the history. Here is my advice, to try to resolve the difference of opinion between MathSci and BPesta: discus the criteria for deciding when to begin. That is, do not debate when actually to start the history, do not argue over how far back. Instead discuss what principles can help us decide how far back to go. I bet if you discuss it at this more abstract/methodological level, you can reach an agreement, and then it will be easier to write the section without controversy.

(3a) finally, I think it is very important in this section to distinguish between accusations of junk science and racist science. My understanding is this: for many, the real problem with Rushton and Lynn is that they are bad scientists; they are conceptualizing the question inappropriately and using the wrong methods. "Racism" becomes a way either to explain why they would be so sloppy, or to explain why some people fund sloppy science. But "bad science" is the real criticism, and racism is a secondary matter. Am I wrong?

(3b) I admit I can imagine another view, that after the revelation of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and other stuff (like the Union of Concerned Scientists, who were concerned with the ethical responsibilities of physcists who hlped design the atomic bomb) and the formation of legally mandated "Institutional Review Boards" at US universities (and Ethics Committies in the UK), there is this belief that science cannot be ethically disinterested and scientists must consider the ethics of their research, including the consequences and potential for harm to the research subjects. This can lead to a whole other way of telling this story. In short, I am still not clear on which of these two main narratives applies in this case and I would ask MathSci to clarify: is it one, the other, both together, or one at one point, and the other at another point? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mikemikev's concerns about Mathsci's proposal. It seems to be written with the specific intention of describing the hereditarian position as unfavorably as possible, particularly the last two paragraphs of it.  Although the current history section isn't perfect, it's considerably more neutral than the revision that Mathsci is suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are at least 5 editors with serious concerns about this new section. But do note that this mediation will probably end soon, with this discussion being frozen. We will probably continue the discussion here: . Just an FYI for all concerned. David.Kane (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problems with Mathsci's version can be mended by simply changing a few wordings (I agree that much of it is not neutrally framed) and adding mention of some other studies on the other side of the fence. ·Maunus· ƛ · 09:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * David, I am not expressing serious conmcerns aout the new section. I am trying to give Mikemikev and Captain Occam and others a constructive way for them to help MathSci do a better job.  If they do not like my suggestions, fine (though I would welcome an explanation as to why).  Otherwise I am glad to see Matchsci continue adding his relevant and sourced content. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * E.g. I think Maunus's contributions are real improvements and show just how effective collaborative editing can work, building on and improving the work of MathSci. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section II (Shockley and Jensen)
This is the second segment of what the summary of the history. The third will probably and its aftermath treat the Bell Curve and the fourth the work of Rushton and Lynn. The last paragraph above would probably be merged into the following account of the revival of hereditarianism (1965-1980). The two sources, already mentioned on this page, are:


 * William Tucker, The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund
 * Adrian Wooldridge, Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990

Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to who made the criticisms, and provide actual citations? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, each point gets a fairly long paragraph in Wooldridge. In fact I was just going to add something to point 2 above about Burt's twin experiments. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This summary looks good to me, except for one thing: the five criticisms of hereditarianism listed at the end of it aren’t neutrally worded.  For example, saying “Bane and Jenks showed that there was not much correlation between IQ and income” implies that the truth is that there is not much correlation between the two, while according to the APA report (which we’ve agreed should be the basis for this article’s perspective) IQ correlates with income pretty significantly.  If you’re going to use this summary, I have two expectations about it:


 * 1: These five criticisms should be more neutrally worded.


 * 2: It should be made clear that some of these criticisms are no longer considered valid by the psychometric community. (Particularly the criticisms that IQ is not strongly heritable, that it is not a good measure of mental ability, and that it doesn’t correlate significantly with income.)  Since we’ve agreed to base our article on the APA statement, and the APA regards these three criticisms as unfounded, our article should also.


 * If you change these two things, I’ll be satisfied with your summary as far as content is concerned. I also think it might be longer than necessary, but since we’ll probably be adding more content to the rest of the article also, I don’t have as strong of an opinion about whether it needs to be made shorter. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * quick comment: If we're going to mention Lewontin, we should also mention that some think his argument is a fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy Bpesta22 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this - as long as we also provide a summary of Witherspoon DJ, Wooding S, Rogers AR, et al. 2007 "Genetic similarities within and between human populations," Genetics 176(1): 351-359 - which raise questions about Edward's argument based on a more detailed analysis. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Each of the five points was expanded at Slrubenstein's request to include all he names in the source. There's no problem changing the wording which was an attempt to summarise several sentences. However, any alternative wording should be chosen so that there is no need to cite research from 2007 or for that matter to suggest that Lewontin were correct, just that he had raised objections and thers were in agreement. After all I don't think an account of the history should enter into any detailed technical discussion of scientific matters. These are best left to elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section III
Here is a brief version of this material - there should be "main article" links to Flynn effect and The Bell Curve. All that needs adding now is a short section on Rushton-Jensen and Lynn.

Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section IV
Here is the final section for the history.

Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is reasonable, but is Rushton from England? -Bpesta22 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Born in England. Spent his teens in Canada.  Went back to England for his university education. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

moved discussions from mediation
I've moved open discussions from the mediation page to here, and archived them in mediation. They may duplicate ongoing discussions on this page - In that case we can either merge the sections or leave these separate as references. If I have missed anything that needs to be moved, please mention it here and I'll take care of it. -- Ludwigs 2 18:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

reintroduction of the nutrition section
the ulric neisser quote in the physiology section clearly necessitates a section about nutrition and its effects on iq-scores. the old "health and nutrition"-section should be reintroduced.mustihussain 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A fair point. Why don't you add the health and nutrition stuff into the section (which I realize is quite rough) that is labeled Environment (on the theory that health and nutrition are part of one's environment). If it gets bid, we can always split it up into new sections. David.Kane (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * done.mustihussain 21:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

edits to the lede
What is the point in removing a quite readable summary by meaningless mumbo jumbo? Is this an attempt to keep readers uninformed by pulling the wool over their eyes? Why for example was the specific mention of biology, psychology, anthropology and sociology removed? Is that considered helpful? Please just leave the lede alone. As the paper by Gray & Thompson explains, very few people do research in race and intelligence and the article should not suggest otherwise. There was a group of researchers, mainly psychologists, who in 1969, 1994, and 2005 revived hereditarian claims and as a consequence precipated a reaction from scientists in other disciplines who countered those claims, sometimes in the popular literature or in public debate. There also seems to be no point in introducing undefined technical terms into a lede intended for ordinary readers. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I offered this up for discussion in the mediation, stated my reasons there, and tried to accommodate the objections that got raised (one of which that it was unnecessary to list out all the fields that work on this). sorry you missed that, and I'm happy to discuss these points now  if you like.  I don't, however, know what you're referring to by 'mumbo jumbo' - I did my best to fix some writing flaws and remove some excessive wording.  do you have specific objections to what I did?  If so, please list them out and I'll address them; if not, I'll try to address the concerns that you've raised here and re-insert the compromise version.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It just simply didn't make any sense at all - history turned upside down, meaningless technical terms, etc. Did you actually write it yourself? Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was extension discussion of Ludwig's lead during mediation. None of us love all aspects of it. But, instead of a willy-knilly revert, please tackle the topic item by item. I will revert back to Ludwig's version. Which specific sentences do you object to? Again, I am always happy to improve the article, and I have some complaints about Ludwig's lead myself, but we need to discuss these things. David.Kane (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it was totally unreadable, no matter what was discussed elsewhere. It was not a willy nilly revert. Ludwigs2 made a poor edit and so I did not allow it to stand. The confusion between the Bell Curve and Jensen et al was an example of how upside down things were. Almost every line had a problem. My own feeling is that the lede should be left for a while and the rest of the article improved. Certainly there's very little to be gained from interminable discussions on a few simple lines, which should be intelligible to an average schoolchild. That means we don't say cohorts or aggregates unless we explain it. And if the terms Causcasoid and Mongoloid are being used, then so presumably is the old term Negroid ... But what's the point of that? Mathsci (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually offered it as a compromise (and one that heavily favors your version of the lead). most of it was integration, a few bits were extrapolation, and I reorganized a bit.  I was expecting it to be discussed and revised.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been dipping in and out of this article improvement process, and now there seems to be a surprising amount of commonality between the two lede candidates, given the stridency of the arguments. It would be helpful to me if Mathsci (who seems to be also sitting partially outside the mediation process) could bullet the main differences between the two lede candidates, and explain why, on each difference, his idea is preferable. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea. Again, my purpose here is not to defend Ludwig's lead. My purpose is to defend a collaborative process of editing the more controversial portions of this article. I also think that there are specific places where Ludwig's lead could be improved. After MathSci provides his comments, I will add my own. Perhaps we will be in agreement! David.Kane (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. - Stephen, the mediation is over, otherwise I wouldn't be acting as an editor. As they say in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "We have normality; We have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem."   -- Ludwigs 2  21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy-pasting of History section
(In a good faith effort to keep discussion organized, I have separated out MathSci's complaint about my edits of the History section from the above discussion about the lead. I hope this is helpful.) David.Kane (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane copy-pasting the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy directly into the main text of Race and intelligence without checking or adding sources is against wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which specific Wikipedia policy are you talking about? As best I can tell incorporating a sub-article is often (not always) done by copy/pasting the lead. But I could easily be wrong. David.Kane (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When you include material in the main text WP:RS and WP:V apply. I've told you this now about ten times. Ledes do not usually require citations, because they are summaries of the main text. However citation for other readers to check assertions are needed for the main text. It's rarely the case that editors are allowed to do copy-pasting like this, which is deprecated, but if they do, they must provided citations and check all the new material afresh. That is standard wikipedia policy. WP:RS and WP:V apply to the main text. As simple as that. Mathsci (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the specific Wikipedia policy here. Allow me to quote:

There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

When adding material to a section in the summary style, however, it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference. This also imposes additional burden in maintaining Wikipedia articles, as it is important to ensure that the broad article and its sub-articles remain consistent.

In other words, there was no requirement for me to paste in references, as long as I was satisfied that they were correct in the sub-article. Care to apologize? David.Kane (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could the rest of you please take a look at the talk page for the new "history" article? Mathsci is being kind of difficult there, and I don't want this to turn into an edit war with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Minnessota Twin Study
I find the table cryptic, as it specifies the race of the parents but not children. Can the table add these details without becoming unweldy?

I would be grateful if we added a summary of the Minnesotta Twin Study's conclusions. As i have sais before, the way to maintain NPOV is to specify that these conclusions are not the truth but the conclusions of the researchers and name them. But this kind of contextual information is important. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Completely agreed! Again, my apologies for leaving so many of these sections in a pathetic state. Perhaps I should have budgeted my time better? In any event, both Nisbett and Rushton/Jensen provide discussion. By the way, I am hopeful might be able to cite specific articles but still describe certain views to, say, "hereditarians" in general, without getting obsessed with listing each individual by name(s) in every other sentence. David.Kane (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey you did a good job juggling a lot of balls. Now is the time to fill in gaps and smooth out wrinkles.  Since you agree, if you do not mind dealing with this when you have time I'd be grateful, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein: I owe you some favors so I will give this a shot tomorrow. David.Kane (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

regression to the mean
I just reoved some meaningless nonesense Mikemikev added about this. Let's make sure our articles adhere to the most basic standard of 10th grade science literacy, shall we? (genes become more average? Huh?)  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your failure to understand is not a good enough reason to revert. mikemikev (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * mikemikev, to be fair, I can kind of see what you were after (basically a more detailed explanation of the statistical effect in genetic terms). but good intentions aside, I think this edit did miss the mark pretty thoroughly.  it sounded more like that old saw about dumb, beautiful women and smart, ugly men being mutually attracted to each other (which of course doesn't bode well for all the smart handsome men like us - probably why we spend so much time on wikipedia). Maybe if you talk out what you want in more detail we can get a better rendition of it?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I put it badly. The effect is most noticeable when both parents have high IQ, or both parents have low IQ. After recombination genes which were previously recessive or not exerting an effect for whatever reason may become active, and they will tend to be more average. The effect is well known in animal breeding. mikemikev (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, you're actually referring to two different processes there. regression towards the mean (as a statistical concept) means that subsequent iterations of an otherwise unconstrained normally distributed variable are likely to be closer to the mean than the original. Breeding for recessive traits is a matter of selection (e.g. the intentional or unintentional selection of individuals with recessive traits for breeding purposes) which implies that subsequent iterations will tend to be more extreme than the original (since the mean will by definition locate along dominant genes, not recessives).  Scientists breed white lab rats for important recessive traits - mix them with normal rats, though, and in two generations none of the white lab rat traits will be expressing themselves.  or am I misunderstanding you?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at this little piece of anti-science fraud: No, it is a statistical effect found in any random distribution No, it is observed for simple traits too This is utter and total bullshit that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article The combination of genes do not become more "average" in the individual. Rather the distribution of the genes becomes more random within the population.
 * Regression towards the mean is a genetic effect
 * observed for complex traits, such as IQ, as a result of polygenic inheritance.
 * The combination of genes causing high or low IQ's for an individual will tend to be more 'average' after sexual recombination.

But hold on, we are not talking about genes. no one has identified any gene for intelligence. Or Mike, did you think you were talkking about wrinkly peas versus smooth peas? The real issue here is the regression towards the norm in IQ scores. Remember the "data centric approach?" Let's start with the data. The data is not genetic, it is the results of different people's IQ scores. And they show a regression to the mean. But you know what? Even if all variation in IQ were caused by the environment ''you'd still have regression to the mean" That regression to the mean occurs tells us nothing about causes. Yippee!  Mikemikev finally writes something that is correct! Redundant, if the means of populations are different, individuals will of course regress to different means. No.  What do you mean by a "magnitude" of regresson to the mean?  This is not predicted by genetic theory, but by mathematical theory in statistics. A flat out lie.
 * Thus children of high or low IQ parents will tend towards the population mean.
 * Rushton and Jensen noted that black children regress towards the population mean IQ of 85, while white children regress to IQ 100,
 * according to the magnitude predicted by genetic theory.
 * Environment only theory makes no regression prediction

All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you both may be confusing simple traits (which this is not about) and polygenic traits. For a polygenic trait, for example height, there are many, probably thousands, of genes which affect it. Some will be active in an individual and some inactive. When they recombine, different genes will be activated. For individuals at the extreme end of the scale, the offspring will be more likely to end up with a less extreme combination of genes. For purely environmental effects this is not the case, the offspring can go in any direction. If a horse breeder breeds two great running horses, the offspring won't tend to be so good. This is regression to the mean. mikemikev (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly prefer Slrubenstein's version. But it needs a little more glue to warrant this "Thus". It works if the outliers with low and high measured IQ have recessive genes which are not expressed and these have values which are more average than those which are expressed - ie their genotype is more average than their phenotype. Typically, the expression of these hidden genes in children will cause an averaging effect. (I'm assuming the heredity model here, which predicts this effect.) Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Slrubenstein you risk falling below many Wikipedia standards for etiquette, which I can list if you wish. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And although I like the brevity of Slrubentein's version, Mikemikev seems to be correct. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that this regression to the mean is exactly what we would expect if the genes are randomly distributed, but we select high and low IQ groups only on the basis of a subset of those genes - namely the dominant ones - with all genes being inherited equally. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a nice theory, I suppose, but there's no research in the literature that defines what the genetic components are (we went over that a good bit in the mediation). they've identified a a few candidates, but have reached no real, solid conclusions.  That would put your edit squarely in the wp:synthesis range, where you are taking an undeveloped theory that intelligence might be a polygenic trait, and combining it with a statistical theory that has not yet been applied to the genetics of intelligence, and drawing a new, novel conclusion about it.  do you see what I'm saying?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I need to tidy up my edit, I did type it off the top of my head. But the basic idea is straight out of Rushton and Jensen. I should have made that more clear. Let me rewrite it, I'll put it up here for comment. I really didn't think this would be contentious. mikemikev (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see it. In the mean time, I may remove the "Thus", which requires quite a lot of prior knowledge to see. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the point that Mikemikev is introducing ought to be covered by the article. It’s something that’s discussed by proponents of both the hereditarian and environmental perspective about the cause of the IQ difference, and it’s one of the main things that’s analyzed by structural equation models of between-group differences.  When we were first discussing Varoon Arya’s proposed outline for the article, this line of data was actually something we agreed ought to be covered if we were going to use a data-centric approach, but it didn’t make it into the actual outline, so it hasn’t been added to the article itself yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: can we add a little more information about why this line of data is relevant? The point that Jensen and Rushton are making about it is that the degree of regression for both blacks and whites is very close to what would be predicted by Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity if there were a genetic contribution of the IQ difference.  And proponents of the environmental perspective such as Nisbett offer their own explanations for how environmental factors could influence IQ in a way that mimics a genetic effect. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, let's make sure that it's tightly sourced - I have some serious SYNTH doubts about this material, and I want to make sure that it says what sources are saying, and is not an extrapolation of material in sources that says something novel. -- Ludwigs 2  22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two basic problems with Mikemikev's edit. The first is SYNTH. Mikemikev is extrapolating from his understanding of animal husbandry something about human intelligence. That simply does not fly. The second is that it is simple fiction. Yes, it is true that regression to the mean occurs when breading horses. But this is a very, very specific subset of a much more general phenomenon. You are making a logical error, that because you find regression to the mean in breeding horses, regression to the mean has something to do with genes.

Regression to the mean occurs any time you have a linear regression most commonly any time you find a bell curve distribution. If you have a thousand people take a true-false answer test, and have then answer each question based on a coin toss, the distribution of scores should form a bell curve (with a few people geting every answer wrong, and a few people getting every answer right). If a person at either extreme takes the test again, using the same method (flip a coin to decide whether to answer true or false) most likely their score will be closer to the mean. Now I have just given a texbook example to illustrate the principle, and it has NOTHING to do with genetics. Do you get it now? Sorry, Mike, I will slow down. D...O Y...O...U G...E...T I...T N...O...W?

Now, I am sure that Rushton and Lynn would like to imply that regression to the mean somehow supports their view - but by any standard this use of "regression to the mean" is a fringe view in that it simply contradicts any high school or college statistics text book. Fringe views have no place in this article

Newcomers to this discussion may think I am being harsh on Mike, even harsher than one should be, to editors who are basically SPA POV pushers, which we should all frown upon. The thing is, we discussed this during the mediation, it was all explained to Mike.

Stephen Streater is kind to me but misinformed. The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.

I have one final comment: regression to the mean just is not a big issue in race and IQ research. In the "30 years" essay Mike uses as a source, one page is devoted to it. Even if it were not fringe it is trivial. People have been nagging MathSci to cut down his well-researched history of race and IQ research, as if we are short on space. Well, if space is an issue, I suggest we junk this entire section. Or if we must have it, let's keep it as brief as possible. It is not a major part of the debate. It explains trends in IQ score that are unrelated to race, heredity or environment, trends that you will find in ANY data set with a linear regression or bivariate distribution. We have more important things to work on. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't get it. If you tossed coins the result would be any random point on the distribution. Obviously it would probably be closer to the mean than the extremes. Do IQ scores between related individuals fall on random points on the distribution? No. Do they tend to fall on points consistent with a genetic reshuffling? Yes. Is this effect observed regardless of environment. Yes. But who cares what you or I think, a point you hypocritically level at others all the time. mikemikev (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think David Kean's most recent edit (which i acknowledge involves the works of others including Stephen Streater) is a major improvement - I just reiterate that this is not "my" version but something quite close to what David kane originally wrote following mediation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: 1) I am a fan of MikeM and Slrubenstein. Surely, we can all work together to make this article better instead of fighting on the talk page. 2) WP:SYNTH problems are easy to avoid by using Nisbett and Rushton/Jensen (both of which are available on-line to all). Just describe their debate. 3) This has its own section because Nisbett gave it one in his Appendix B. 4) In terms of deleting section and/or adding sections, I would wait for a few weeks. If someone expands this usefully (as is being done with the Reaction Time material and the History material (excellent job MathSci!), then that is good. Any section that still looks like an orphan could probably go. But no need to make that call now. David.Kane (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it all right if I expand this section a little in order to provide a more detailed explanation of Nisbett's and Jensen/Rushton's viewpoints about this? There are a lot of sections in this article that I think ought to be filled out in order to more fully explain the data they involve, but it's probably best to handle this one section at a time, and this is the one that's being discussed currently. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Go at it! And I think that that applies to all the orphan sections. (Debate of things like the lead are different.) What we desperately need is lots of content of the Nisbett says X, Rushton/Jensen say Y type. All WP:NPOV of course. And the great thing about having these key sources on-line is that we can all check to see that the summary is a fair one. David.Kane (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, I’ve expanded this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the data. I hope nobody else continues to claim that this data is synth and/or irrelevant, since I think it’s clear from the citations I’ve used that this topic is discussed by Nisbett as well as two of Jensen’s books.


 * The one topic I’m having a little trouble figuring out how to handle is structural equation modeling. This is discussed in depth by Jensen also, but as far as I can tell, Nisbett doesn’t discuss it at all.  I also can’t find any other proponents of the 100%-environmental explanation who discuss it.  In the interest of presenting all of the major lines of data about this topic, I think structural equation modeling needs to be mentioned in the article, but I’m a little uncomfortable about the fact that the only sources I can find about it are from hereditarians.


 * Everyone else, please don’t construe this as POV-pushing; the reason I’m not mentioning any environmental perspectives about structural equation modeling is just because I can’t find any. If anyone else can find an advocate of the environmental perspective who provides their own perspective about this line of data, by all means add it to the article in order to balance what I’ve put there about this already. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see part of the problem here. looking at Occam's last edit, it seems as though the issue is being approached from the wrong direction. In fact, what we have is this: Jenson is making an argument in which he tries to reaffirm the genetic origin of the IQ gap by pointing out that not only do we observe the gap itself, but we also observe regression-towards-the-mean effects towards the values predicted for the gap. Jenson seems to think this can only be caused by genetic contributions (that is the thrust of his argument); Nesbitt disagrees, and thinks that regression effects can be caused by environmental causes. The 'regression towards the mean' thing is part of an argument used in a primary source to support a position in a scholarly debate; that means we can't present it as an established fact without violating synth. really, what we should be saying is something like this: "Arthur Jensen has used Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity to argue for the theory that genetic factors contribute to the difference in average IQ between races. Jensen's study matched black and white children for IQ and compared the IQs of their siblings, and found that siblings of black children had on average lower IQ scores than siblings of white children, suggesting that the two populations were regressing towards the different population means shown by the IQ gap Jensen holds that it is difficult to explain why environmental factors would cause IQ variance within families to differ in this way between races. Richard Nisbett recognizes the existence of this effect, but believes that it could be produced by environmental factors alone, such as parenting practices and subculture pressures. Further research by Jensen using structural equation modeling concluded that a model in which genetic and environmental contributions to the IQ gap are in roughly equal proportions best fit the data." The difference here is that I've turned it around (appropriately, I think) so that the RTTM becomes part of Jensen's argument which Nesbitt reinterprets, rather than an important piece of information in its own right. see what I mean? -- Ludwigs 2 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam, this study by Turkenheimer pushes the environmental angle and uses a structural model: At least two more recent studies, however, failed to replicate it. I can dig for those links, if you need them. BTW, I am impressed with the recent edits made to the whole article. Someone writes very well, and I was surprised by how accurate I personally think most of it reads now. Good work to whoever did that. -Bpesta22 (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, I’m not sure if I understand your point. Is it that since the literature about race and intelligence only discusses Galton’s Law in the context of the cause of the IQ gap, for us to explain what it is independently of this topic would be synth?  If that’s what you mean, then I understand your point, but I also think it’s beheficial for the article to explain what Galton’s Law is in general because it doesn’t have its own article here, and a lot of people seem to be unfamiliar with it.  Making the article understandable matters also.


 * I also think that in keeping with our data-centric approach, we ought to regard the data itself as separate from the conclusions that are drawn from it. Jensen’s 1973 book from which this data is cited is just presenting the results of his study, while his argument for how this study supports the hereditarian model is presented 25 years later in The g Factor.


 * One other thing worth mentioning about this is that Jensen is only one of several people who have reached the conclusion mentioned here using structural equation models, so I don’t think this should be described as “Further research by Jensen”. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point is that the 'regression' argument is not in and of itself a 'fact' or 'conclusion' about race and intelligence - it is an argument used by scholars advocating the genetic hypothesis, and it should be presented as such. Think of it this way, from a scientific perspective:
 * There is a highly replicable effect (the IQ gap) that calls for explanation.
 * Some scholars have asserted that the best explanatory theory is that intelligence has a genetic component
 * other scholars disagree, of course
 * Some scholars point out that IQ in different races regress to different means, and interpret that as an argument in support of the genetic component theory
 * other scientists disagree with the interpretation that the regression effect necessarily supports the genetic hypothesis
 * The regression effect verifies the IQ gap itself (which is not unexpected), but saying that it supports one theory over another requires an argument that goes beyond the simple facts. For an analogy, suppose you have a (admittedly stupid) theory that red cars are always faster than other cars, and I disagree with it. You point to the (statistically replicable) fact that red cars get more speeding tickets than other cars, and use that to argue that red cars must be faster.  The speeding ticket thing is itself a fact, but the interpretation that it supports the theory that red cars are faster is not a fact. I could easily argue that other factors might be more important with respect to getting a ticket getting a ticket than actual speed (e.g. noticeability, or personality characteristics of people who buy red cars...).  In other words, saying that the regression effect exists is NPOV (scholars on both sides agree it exists); saying the regression effect supports one conclusion or the other is POV (scholars on different sides interpret the data differently).  If we want to use a data-centric approach, it becomes very important to distinguish between data and the conclusions drawn from data to support particular theories.


 * I don't think we should get into a detailed description of Galton’s Law in this article. let it be a redlink, and you (or someone else) can build a stub or short article on it later.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “In other words, saying that the regression effect exists is NPOV (scholars on both sides agree it exists); saying the regression effect supports one conclusion or the other is POV (scholars on different sides interpret the data differently).”


 * I’m still not seeing how the structure I used is different from this. I cited Jensen’s 1973 book about the existence of the regression effect, which you’ve agreed is a fact rather than an opinion—that’s what the data is.  Then in the next sentence, I explained Jensen’s argument in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint based on this fact, cited to a different book (The g Factor).  And in the sentence after that, I explained Nisbett’s own interpretation of this data.  The facts and the interpretations are in separate sentences, and cited to different books.  How is that different from what you’re saying we should do?


 * I don’t have a serious problem with the alternate wording that you’ve proposed (apart from what I mentioned about the structural equation modeling being from more than just Jensen), but I would still like to understand what you think is problematic about my own wording. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Occam, what I'm suggesting is that we don't need or want a specific section on the regression effect itself - this should probably be included as part of the Methodology section. a little later I will try an edit to that effect, so that you can see what I'm getting at.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this discussion last night. I've made some comments about the particular wording in the intro in the similarly named section below, as this section is getting quite cumbersome. If you would prefer to carry on here, I can copy them back here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephen: it would probably be better to move that entire section up here as a 'convenience break' subsection. -- Ludwigs 2  15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, you seem to have a fairly good understanding of what the data is that needs to be covered here, so if you can come up with a wording that will satisfy Slrubenstein and get him to stop edit warring over it, I'd appreciate that. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Regression to mean (cont.)
I have taken out this text for the moment: ''Since the parents, offspring and siblings of an individual will have 50% of its genes, for any such trait these relatives will be on average 50% of the distance between the individual and the rest of its population. This principle applies to any quantifiable genetic trait for sexually reproducing plants and animals, not just traits in humans.''

Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not true that parents, offspring and siblings have 50% of the genes. Even ignoring the small number of mutations, the sex chromosomes are very different in size, so females have significantly more genes than males
 * 2) This assumes independence, which is definitely false in the case of identical twins, and is not obviously true at all without knowing a lot about how genes are chosen
 * 3) It assumes traits are somehow linear in the number of genes, which is not true in general (though may be true for intelligence, but given that people don't universally accept the genetic basis for intelligence, I wouldn't assume this)
 * 4) Species such as bees are more closely related to their siblings than their children, so this last bit isn't right either. See Ploidy for more details on this.


 * There's nothing wrong with the quoted text. Just basic population genetics. See Coefficient of relationship. --DJ (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are these four things wrong. Your wikilink makes it clear, for example, that the 50% relationship applies with diploid species (including mammals) - but insects and plants are not mentioned there. The deleted text specifically mentions animals (which include bees), which is incorrect. It also assumes no consanguinity - in general not true in humans. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's further completely inaccurate to say that siblings share 50% of their genes - they share 99%+, as they are both humans. I'm not saying there isn't something there worth saying, just that all the actual statements are false, and I'd rather have true statements. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only is Stephen Streater correct; the removet text is not relevant to Race and IQ. Including it violates WP:SYNTH.  This is NOT the ploace for editors to forward their own novel theoris. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR, if you read the linked article from Nature, you'll see that this is not a "novel theory". As DJ pointed out, it's a well-established principle of population genetics.  I can provide several other sources which discuss this topic, both related and unrelated to the topic of race and intelligence, if you need additional convincing that Galton's Law of Ancestral Heredity is a well-established principle and that people who discuss it in the context of race and IQ are understanding it correctly. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention to what I have said. Regression to the mean occurs anytime there is a linear regression or bivariant distribution of data points.  ANY TIME.  Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.  Well, okay, I will repeat what I wrote yesterday.  Since regression to the mean occurs anytime you have bivariate distribution, of course it will occur in a breeding population.  Don't lecture me about population genetics and Galton's law.  Nowhere have I questioned the validity of that.  But you are making a disingenuous change.  You are saying that because regression to th mean occurs in breeding population, it occurs only n breeding populations.  Did you think we aare too stupid not to notice your slipping in that false twist on the principle?  Yes, it happens in breeding populations.  NO, that does not mean it happens only in breeding populations.  So regression to the mean in IQ tests cannot be taken of evidence of anything concerning genetics.


 * I never accused galton of violating NOR - among other things, Galton was supposed to be doing original research.


 * Captain Occam, it is you, like Mikemikev, who is violating NOR. Not by postulating that regression to the mean occurs in bredding populations - did you really think I believed that YOU came up with that?  No, I accused you of SYNTH.  Do you know what SYNTH is?  I suggest you read one of our core policies, WP:NOR.  There you will learn that SYNTH involves drawing a connection between one theory or set of information and another, that is not in the source.  So you posted an article on galton's law in Nature.  But that article says nothing about intelligence or IQ scores or race and IQ.


 * The "novel theory" is your belief that Galton's law explains variation in IQ scores. It does not.  Only someone who is ignorant of both statistics and population genetics would fall for that extraordinarily stupid assertion.


 * IQ scores in every population tested have a bivariate distribution. This means you will find regression to the mean regarless of the cause of the bivariate distribution.  What needs explanation is the bivariate distribution, not regression to the mean.  You are proposing that Galton's law explains it, without any evidence.  But that is just your POV-pushing circular reasoning.  Since you already believe that IQ is caused by genes, you know that the bivariate distribution is caused by genetics.  But what is the evidence?  What experiment has been carried out to demonstrate this?  You say that Galton's law shows that genetics can produce a bivariate distribution of gene frequencies.  But Galton's law says nothing about a bivariate distribution of I.Q. scores.  And MANY other things can cause bivariate distribution besides the Hardy Weinberg principle, for example. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who came up with this one: "genetic and environmental contributions to the IQ gap were approximately equal, with the difference in average IQ scores being due 50% to environmental and 50% to genetic factors?" What else are we going to say? "genetic and environmental contributions to the IQ gap were approximately equal, with the difference in average IQ scores being due 20% to environmental and 80% to genetic factors?" Or "genetic and environmental contributions to the IQ gap were approximately equal, with the difference in average IQ scores being due 80% to environmental and 20% to genetic factors?" Doesn't "equal" mean 50-50?

I rewrote the section. My edits have nothing to do with POV; Jensen and Nisbett's views are still there, and the passage favors neither. What I did do was (1) explain what we mean by regression toward the mean is, and (2) explained why Jensen's findings require some interpretation. I think that this introduction actually informs readers about why regression to the mean matters, whereas the previous version did not. Also, I trimmed the poorly written or redundant parts. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SLR, the question is not whether regression occurs, but the magnitude of regression, which appears consistent with genetic causes. This is Jensens point. You removed this important detail, based on your opinion. Reverting to Occams version. mikemikev (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the current version inaccurately describes RTTM, especially this sentence: This means that if one takes the test a second time, there is a high probability that the second score will be closer to the mean (in other words, if one scored lower than the mean the first time, their second score will be higher; if one scored higher than the mean the first time, their second score will be lower).

This is not true. The person won't regress to a population mean of 100 but to his or her true score mean (which can be any IQ score possible). So, if I take a test hung over, sick, in a hot room, and guess poorly, that's an extremely rare/large negative error score. Chances are, if I take the test again, the error score will be closer to zero and my observed score will increase.

But, say my true score was 110, and on the hung over day, I scored 105. My next test will likely be higher than that because it will likely regress up to 110 and not the population mean of 100. I think we need to be careful-- there's a distinction between groups regressing to a population mean and individuals regressing to their true score. -Bpesta22 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Even if it was true this paragraph misses the meaning of regression to the mean in this context. I removed it. mikemikev (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is easy to fix. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It now says, "This means that as the sample size of the population increases, the number of scores closer to the mean will increase." This statement is insufficient because as the sample size of the population increases, the number of scores further from the mean also increases. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR, repeating yourself doesn’t change anything if you refuse to look at the source material. You say “The 'novel theory' is your belief that Galton's law explains variation in IQ scores.”  Perhaps this was a novel theory when Jensen wrote about it in 1973, but it’s now described in books by both him and Nisbett.  In other words it’s what the source material says, and as such it needs to be described in the article, regardless of what any of us think about it.


 * The fact that you’re edit warring with multiple users about this should be enough to demonstrate that consensus opposes you about it. With that in mind, I’m reverting back to the last version by Mikemikev.  You’re welcome to try to influence consensus, but please don’t continue to revert as long as consensus disagrees with you. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on Regression to the Mean
Without taking "sides" in the current debate over regression to the mean and fully recognizing that the version I left in the article was unsatisfactory, I want to make two points. First, I want to thank everyone for being (somewhat) collaborative and demonstrating good faith in this discussion. Although words have run hot at times, the tenor of the debate is much better than what we saw 6 or 12 months ago. Second, my advice to all concerned is to follow MathSci's lead. The History section used to be very flawed. Instead of endless editing disputes and warring, MathSci sat down and, on the talk page, rewrote the whole thing, soliciting commentary along the way. He incorporated many of the suggestions of other editors. Do I think the result was/is perfect? No! But it is better than what we had before. And, to the extent that you want a better version of this section, your best bet is to do as MathSci (and Ludwig above) did. (And note that I am following this advice in my attempt to improve the Assumptions section.) Just my 2 cents. David.Kane (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

David Kane's flurry of edits, problematic removals, and ground rules
I've made a small contribution to this page, but in what I consider to be a key area: balancing of the adoption studies by referencing some of the ones which Nisbett picks up on. However, this small, well-referenced contribution was deleted by in diff, which was followed by David Kane's deletion of another "Quality of education" section. I realize he added at least parts of the "Quality of education" section later (although he certainly didn't add back my contribution), but that method of editing is problematic. Despite David's huge flurry of edits, the page doesn't seem much more readable. The Adoption studies section now doesn't introduce Eyferth and Moore. David doesn't use edit comments and doesn't note when he's removing or adding references. Let's adopt a ground rule of noting when references are removed or added. Another ground rule should be that if you're going to move a section, do it in a single edit, not two edits. Articlespace is not a sandbox/userpage and should not be treated as such. II | (t - c) 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * that's actually three ground rules, I think:
 * Use descriptive edit summaries
 * Note in edit summaries when references are removed
 * try to move sections in a single edit
 * I'd personally agree with all of them, though I have to point out that the last is a pain in the ass. it's much easier to move a section in two edits (edit the section, cut the contents, save, edit the section before where you want to move it to, paste the contents, save), than to try to do it in one edit, which involves a full-page edit, a lot of hunting for text, and a much higher risk of edit conflicts.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * II: Excellent ideas! Much of the past is due to my inexperience as an editor. (And, keep in mind, no one else volunteered to do the work that I was asked to do.) I agree that the adoption section is, right now, pathetic and that your contributions could be added back there. In my defense, I cut about 1/2 of the article. I like to think/hope that many editors agree that, overall, the effort was a success, but there is no need to have that fight now. We all agree that the article should be better! I will certainly abide by your ground rules going forward. (By the way, do you have opinions on the issues I raise above: term to use for the anti-hereditarians and use of hrvb citations?) David.Kane (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt responses. As far as moving sections in two edits, I don't see this as a huge hassle. You should think about what you want to do before you edit. If you want to move sections around, edit the entire article. It's harder to see the section-moving in context otherwise, which allows people to slip things in and out. But at the very least, if sections are moved in two edits, the edit summary of each must note when a section is being deleted or re-added. As far as "anti-hereditarian", that's a much better term than environmentalist and works until we find something better. Hereditarian is an established term in the literature, but I'm not sure if there is an established term for the environmental determinism group. Jensen et al like to use "culture-only" to describe that camp, but's not good because the word culture doesn't encompass the nutrition/pollution aspects neatly. As far as the harvard citations, transforming this article into parenthetical citations sounds like more work than necessary. Have you looked into Template:Rp? II  | (t - c) 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful! 1) I will explore the use of Template:Rp, the existence of which I was unaware of. 2) I will start using "anti-hereditarian". (I will also make a note about that above.) 3) I will hold off on the Harvard citation stuff. Many thanks for these suggestions/pointers. I still have much to learn about Wikipedia. David.Kane (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight given to hereditarian hypothesis
The section on reaction time is quite long and is more of a description of what reaction time is. Since an article on reaction time exists, there is no need for excess detail in this article. I propose deleting the section, along with the other primary hereditarian arguments such as regression to the mean, and summarizing the hereditarian arguments in a single sub-section. The problem is if we devote full sections to hereditarian arguments, we end up giving WP:UNDUE weight to the hereditarian position. So far when I look at the 13 sub-sections listed in the debate overview section, 10 of them are based on arguments favored by hereditarians. As such the article is not balanced and clearly violates WP:NPOV. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The structure of the article largely follows Nisbett. (It does not follow him perfectly, but is fairly close.) Since Nisbett is an anti-hereditarian, in fact, he may be the most famous of the anti-hereditarians, organizing the topics consistent with his outlook is hardly WP:NPOV, at least from a hereditarian position. You may very well have a reasonable point about the length and repetitive nature of the reaction time section. I take no position on that. But, given that we just completed 6 (!) months of mediation, the most reasonable course is to allow at least a few weeks to see if this organizational structure is working. And, if anything, I think it clearly is! Surely, we can all agree that the History section is much better. (Of course, that is 99% due to MathSci's hard work. My claim is just that the current structure allows productive work like that to go on in a collegial fashion.) David.Kane (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nisbett is responding to hereditarian arguments, so these are all still hereditarian arguments. There are few proactive environmental arguments, there is no section on stereotype threat, health, caste-like minorities or the Flynn effect. It is clearly biased. But since you wrote the initial article, I wouldn't expect you to see anything wrong with it. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the article. You don't see a discussion of the Flynn effect? (Again, I am not saying it is a perfect discussion. In fact, I did not write it! But, by all means, you should feel free to expand that section.) Also, another editor just added several health/nutrition related references. These are listed in the Environment section. One of the goals of the rewrite was to group the various issues in some sensible way. We clearly don't want an article with 46 sections . . . David.Kane (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why we should compress some of the hereditarian arguments into a single section. Yes the Flynn effect is mentioned. but the Flynn effect is one of the most important arguments for an environmental influence on IQ. Surely if regression to the mean is given a subsection to itself, then so too must the Flynn effect. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add that this same thought had crossed my mind as well (though not in any detail - just the thought that some of the sections looked like they could use combining). it's certainly worth exploring the idea, at any rate.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Which is exactly why we should compress some of the hereditarian arguments into a single section."


 * Let's not rehash this argument again. One of the most important and time-consuming conclusions we reached in the mediation was that the article shouldn't be organized based on arguments for and against each position, but based on various lines of data.  Muntuwandi, I know you never approved of this idea, but almost everyone else did and it's definitely what consensus supported.


 * Occam, I didn't mean that; just that some of the sections could be reorganized and restructured a bit. -- Ludwigs 2 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I don't object to the article having sections about some of the possible environmental influences on IQ, if anyone wants to add those. Perhaps we could re-use some of the material about this from the version of the article that existed before David.Kane's revsions. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Wapondaponda makes some reasonable points. First, I just renamed the Test bias section as the Flynn effect section. Does that help matters? (I realize that the Flynn effect write up is currently pathetic, but I hope that we can improve it over time.) Second, in organizing the article, I tried to, as much as possible, follow the break down given by Nisbett. But, of course, we don't need to follow his breakdown exactly. Third, I hope that we can postpone discussions of WP:UNDUE for a few weeks. I completely agree that this is an important topic, but I would like to give this article a chance to jell, post-mediation. If, a few weeks from now, the Regression to the mean section is a worthless mess, then I won't have any problem deleting it or combining it. But I would like to provide all editors the opportunity to expand any sections that they deem appropriate. (And, of course, later discussions may cause us to cut that back.) I think that MathSci's great work on the History section demonstrates that this can work. David.Kane (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert to pre-mediation version?
This article has serious WP:UNDUE problems that cannot wait a few weeks. If these issues cannot be fixed, then I recommend reverting to the pre-mediation version, because the pre-mediation version handled weighting better was more inline with the mainstream position. The current article is quite hypocritical, because it states in the lead that the environmental models most likely explain IQ gaps, but then the body of the article is filled with hereditarian arguments. Add to that the fact that the article has been unstable since being rewritten, it's pretty clear that the current version does not have the support of many editors. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is night n day different from my take. I'm not a hereditarian but this article is one of the more balanced-- out of field-- that I've ever seen. The problem is the environmentalists can only say: x in the environment affects IQ, but they then never show the next step: then when controlling for x, the gap is explained. Perhaps the lack of balance corresponds to lack of data?


 * At least this article isn't dredging up tired straw men (like g doesn't exist; IQ tests are psychometrically biased; etc, etc).


 * I do think at this point regression to the mean is so tough to explain concisely that it's length now is not in proportion to the evidence it provides for the genetic view. Perhaps drop it.


 * ST is the current big-hug factor x explanation for the difference. I'm surprised no one here has wrote more about it (my opinion is it's utter crap, but it certainly is relevant).


 * Also, the cultural theories and caste like minorities stuff can be added, if one is looking for more balance.


 * Perhaps appeal to nutrition and pre-natal development as a factor affecting IQ scores (but who knows re the gap).


 * Beyond that, what other environmental evidence is missing from the article? -Bpesta22 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wapondaponda, unless I am mistaken, you are the only editor involved in the debate who has even suggested that the pre-mediation version is better on the whole than the one we have now. But I am happy to have a discussion about that topic, if you like. Why don't we proceed point-by-point? Just list the 3 or 10 or whatever number reasons why you think the pre-mediation version is better (recommend you start a new section) and then, after each one, I (or some other editor) can reply. Once we have a point-by-point overview, we can seek consensus. I don't recommend that you spend your time this way since, as best I can tell, editors from all sides like this version (flawed as it may be) better than the old one, but you are, obviously, free to make as detailed a case as you like. David.Kane (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * During the mediation, one of the things that we specifically determined was that the version of the article resulting from mediation (that is, the current version) would be the version of the article that we use from that point forward. We discussed this to length, and the consensus about it was around ten to two, with Muntuwandi and Mathsci being the only users who held the minority position about it.  In addition, something else with which was resolved there was to not stop raising this argument about reverting the article to its pre-mediation state.  If we are to abide by what was resolved in mediation, not only should we not revert the article to this state; we also should not be discussing this idea again at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Wapondaponda: I don't have a problem with your concerns about balance, but the normal editing practice is to build the article into a more balanced perspective. please feel free to contribute.


 * @ Bpesta: I've actually revised the 'regression' bit by rolling it into the 'Test Scores' section. I don't think we need it as a separate section.  do you think that works?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall being in the minority by ten to two. I think you are counting non-committals as for a new article. There may be some advantages of a new article, fresh start etc, but I can definitely state that the old article weighted the two hypotheses more appropriately. During one of the previous flare-ups, I believe there was an RFC or mediation. Anyway there was a flurry of activity and the article was chopped up into several sub-articles. After a few months the sub-articles were merged back into a single article, much like the one before the flare-up. It feels like Déjà vu but maybe times have changed. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda: can you link the version you thought was most balanced? I'd like to look at it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish IQ?
There are at least a few studies showing the mean Jewish IQ to be around 110. For balance, should that be included? If people think it's relevant, I can provide cites here, but I'd rather not muck up the writing style by me editing what's there now.-Bpesta22 (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is covered by the "Significance" section, which we'll probably be eventually adding in some form. The reason I haven't brought up this section again yet is just because we have so many other currently active discussions already, both here and in the separate "history" article. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already an article Ashkenazi intelligence, so an extensive discussion is not required in this article, but a brief mention and a wikilink to the article would suffice. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wapondaponda. In fact, I will go further. A link in See also is enough. (And, in fact, we have one of those.) This article is specifically about race and intelligence, not ethnic groups and intelligence. Now, reasonable editors may disagree about just what racial groups should be included, but no one, I think, would argue that Jews are a race, at least in this context. David.Kane (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that article could also be controversial. I'm tempted to have a quick look... Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the good doctor; it should be included.


 * 1) it's documented in academia


 * 2) it's true


 * 3) it's relevant


 * 4) Like Asians' scores, it gives more information than just black/white.


 * Also, the protestants and catholics in ireland are "ethnic groups". But genetic jews (as opposed to converts) are the same thing as a race.  Remember what Bryan said about hierarchy?  It's just a matter of how much detail you want to present.  His example was koreans/japanese.  The reason we don't distinguish between them here is because they have no IQ difference (that I'm aware of, anyway). But if koreans had 10 points on the japs, then it WOULD be relevant and should be included too.  Techno Faye Kane  04:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Genetic jews? Exactly how do we define Jews genetically? Can you say from a DNA analysis whether someone is a jew? I do not object to a small summary of the studies of Ashkenazi intelligence in the article. I would suggest that it should build on the summary in this excellent secondary source: Friedrich Vogel, Arno G. Motulsky 1997 Human genetics: problems and approaches .·Maunus· ƛ · 07:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this article is Race and Intelligence, not Ethnic Groups and Intelligence. Now, one could be in favor of a renaming and expanding of this article to include ethnic groupings. Or one might object. But, in the mean time, the article is about major human racial groups. I realize that reasonable editors will disagree about just how many of these there are, but just as, say, Irish intelligence is not a part of this article, neither is Ashkenazi intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate assumptions
I think the debate assumptions section has become so short as to be uninformative. Could someone explain the reasoning behind cutting it so short. Wouldn't it be possible to improve it without removing the well sourced information. ·Maunus· ƛ · 07:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will take a shot at this. Wish me luck! Obviously, the key is figuring out how long a section about debate assumptions should be relative to the coverage of the debate itself. Do you think that the Rose article is a good source? I think so, but before I bring more of it out into the article, it would be good to have consensus on that. I will also add a Sternberg article. Tell me what you think about that one as well. David.Kane (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * perhaps collapse debate assumptions and methodology into one section called assumptions and methodology? -Bpesta22 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion. I am working on this in my user space, for those interested in following along. I will paste in a new version when I am done. I don't expect any of these changes to be controversial. At the least, I hope to cause Maunus and Bpesta22 to think more highly about the article! David.Kane (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the sound of it I don't like the idea of merging the assumptions with the methodology. To me what is important is to explain to the reader that this is controverisla debate because of the connection to heated debates both about what race is and what intelligence is and because of many people's uneasiness about the possible ethical implications of this kind of research. (well founded in early 20th century eugenics practices and theories) I don't think this has anything to do with methodology really. As I see it most non-hereditarians don't generally take exception to the methodologies used in the research, but rather to the ethical issues and the issues of hereditarians failing to recognize and include in their argumentation and research design the non-biological parts of the concepts of "race" and "intelligence". That is, what non-hereditarians object to is how hereditarians often simply assume a general validity of their (primarily biologically based) concepts of racial groups and of intelligence. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My a priori preference is with Maunus on this one. As a reader, I would probably realise there was a debate and it was controversial. I would want to be told clearly what it was about without that being muddled up with the details. But, obviously, if the result turns out well, I'll be happy to reconsider. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is very helpful feedback. I have incorporated some of these concerns in my draft: . I will work on adding others. Comments welcome! I will let you know when I am done. David.Kane (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Methodology section
The methodology section is quite long and is currently unreferenced. At first glance this section appears to be a reasonable explanation of the methods used. However there is a strong undercurrent of bias. It seems like the section should have been named something like "Methods used to disprove the environmental hypothesis". The methods discussed are the ones primarily used by hereditarians when they argue that controlling for environmental variables does not eliminate the B/W gap. I believe there are several other methods that have been used in RI research that are not listed in the discussion, such as those used to study the effects of nutrition, health, caste-like minorities or the Flynn effect. So it would be preferable to have a more general discussion of methodologies rather than a specific subset of them. Specifically when referring to a racial gap, I would summarize current methodologies with the following points Wapondaponda (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Psychometricians use statistical methods to try to isolate environmental and genetic influences
 * Statistical methods are controversial because
 * Statistics can be used to predict environmental and genetic influences, if the study is designed appropriately.
 * Statistical methods are indirect and thus lack direct empirical support. IOW Jensen and Co. suggest, based on their statistical analysis, that the B/W gap is 50% genetic, whereas others have argued that the gap is 100% environmental. Molecular geneticists currently know next to nothing about the genes that contribute to the variation in IQ. This means that the results of Jensen's statistical analysis cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, and the same goes for those who argue that the gap is 100% environmental.


 * That section was written by Dr. Pesta, who’s not a hereditarian. His position about the cause of the IQ gap is agnosticisism, the same as what’s described by the APA in their 1995 report.  The methodology he’s described there also doesn’t appear to be any different from what the APA has used—for example, one of the ways they tested whether the IQ gap is caused by socio-economic status is by matching black and white people for SES, and observing whether the IQ gap goes away.  (It doesn’t.)  Since the APA does not take a pro-hereditiarian position, I don’t see how you can justifiably argue that this method is only a “hereditarian” idea.


 * Remember, the “mainstream” position about this topic is that there is no adequate explanation for the IQ gap, either genetic or environmental. (That is, the APA’s position.)  Since the methodology described in that section is one of the ways it’s determined that no explanation for the IQ gap is adequate, this methodology is an important part of the mainstream position.


 * I agree that this section would benefit from some citations, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it content-wise. If you do, could you please explain specifically what additional methods not mentioned there are used to study the effects of nutrition, health, and caste-like minorities?  As far as I’m aware, the methology currently described in that section is the methodology used by virtually everyone who studies this topic, including proponents of an environmental explanation for the IQ gap such as Neisser and Flynn. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest trend among users whose edits tend to be pro-hereditarian is to describe themselves as "agnostics". The section is POV because it reads like a leading question. This portion states
 * A simple study could be designed where the incomes for blacks and whites are measured, together with their IQs. Via statistics like multiple and partial regression, income can then be statistically equated across members of both groups. If the black/white difference on IQ test scores diminishes (or reduces to zero), income would be a parsimonious explanation for the gap. Conversely, if the gap remains, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that income explains the race difference on IQ test scores.
 * The problem here is that in Rushton and Jensen 2005, and in The Bell Curve, this precise argument is used to argue for the hereditarian argument. So at face value it may seem harmless, but you can tell where this seemingly innocuous statement is heading to. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that Jensen and Rushton use this as part of their argument, and that so do Herrnstein and Murray. But you’re missing my point.  In addition to hereditarians such as the people that you mentioned, this point is also mentioned by Neisser and Flynn; I’ve already given you one example of that.


 * The fact that something is mentioned by Jensen and Rushton or The Bell Curve is not enough, on its own, to show that it’s a “pro-hereditarian” idea. There are certain areas where people who favor hereditarian and environmental explanations for the IQ gap agree with one another, and this is an example of that.  The argument you’re using could also be applied to mentioning that the IQ gap exists at all:  that’s something else mentioned by Jensen, Rushton, Herrnstein and Murray in support of their argument, so if all of these authors mentioning something in that context makes it a “pro-hereditarian” idea, does that mean the existence of the IQ gap is a pro-hereditarian idea also?  Of course not, because the existence of the gap is something that supporters of an environmental explanation for the gap agree about also.  The same principle applies to the methodology section. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the norm whenever people discuss this topic is to mis-characterize the data so badly that the environmentalist explanation appears so obviously true that anyone claiming otherwise must be a raving racist and junk scientist. Any neutral read of the 100 years of data on this topic shows this is not true (even if the GH is false). You can gauge how likely one is to use this tactic by how highly he/she regards Mismeasure of Man.

I'm a realist not a hereditarian (the two are not mutually exclusive, though). I think the difference is biological, but I don't know whether E or G causes it. So, I am agnostic. I do think psycho-environmental explanations (e.g., soft stuff like stereotype threat) are very likely false. I also think the test bias argument, and the "g" doesn't exist / is not important argument, are patently false.

I do think it's quite possible that hard-environmental factors (nutrition; pre-natal development) explain most of the gap. WHEN we ever figure out the genetics of race, however, I see no possible way (mathematically) that SIRE will not correlate hugely with the genetic markers. I see GH, therefore, as not at all implausible, but so far only indirectly supported by the data (and lots of that support seems to be default via failures of the EH).

That's my take on it-- I'd rather you all describe the data accurately (and label me a passive agressive racist) then we spin it so that we can all hug over a feel good false explanation. Too much is at stake here.

It seems utterly appropriate to mention the mean IQ scores (at least black white in the USA) as that is what we're talking about. Leaving out the 70 estimate of Lynn would make the lede non-controversial (if people won't accept that a difference in scores even exists-- those at scienceblogs refussed to do this!-- there's no point reading further. -Bpesta22 (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, my examples used environmental variables in that section because there are a host of possible environmental variables that may explain the gap, but afaik, only one genetic factor.

The smoking gun study is to show that a reliable/valid "genetic profile" of races exists. No matter what box you check on the census form, we know that joe fits the "black profile" at 75%; sue is at 90% and bob is at 10%. When and if that happens, we can test if the profiles WITHIN races predict IQ score differences. So, the control here is genetic profile, and if the SIRE difference on IQ tests goes away, that would be pretty direct GH evidence. This study is not yet possible and may never be. We don't know right now. -Bpesta22 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regression III
My understanding of regression: It occurs in a couple of different ways-- one, though, is fairly specific to giving a test twice to the same person.

The general idea is that a rare event will likely be followed by a more common one. Having an IQ of 120 is rare. It's likely the next event (kid's or sibling's IQ) will not be as extreme, and will regress to the population mean. So, Jensen predicts black rare IQ scores will regress toward a mean of 85, whereas white rare IQ scores will regress to 100. And, he seems to have evidence for this.

I agree with someone above, however, that a purely environmental explanation could predict this as well. So, at best it's indirect evidence for the GH. But, if it's equally predicted by the EH, then it's not really evidence at all, in the sense of testing hypotheses.

My problem was the example used in the article featured an individual's IQ score (versus groups of people). Here, the regression effect is different. It was actually Spearman who figured this out (though more sophisticated versions exist today). No test is perfectly reliable; all tests have error. So, an observed IQ score is the sum of both his/her true score (which only God knows; we're trying to estimate it by the observed score) plus error.

Errors can be positive (a lucky guess; cheating) or negative (an unlucky guess; misreading the item) but the critical assumption is they wash out and sum to zero in any testing session.

That's probably true when testing groups of people but may not be the case when looking at any one person's IQ score. If that person experienced non-zero errors, then the next time he/she takes the test, it will regress toward the PERSON'S TRUE SCORE and not his/her population mean. So, it's quite possible a 105 will regress to a 110; or a 90 will regress to an 85. Those are regressions away from a population mean but to a person's true score. -Bpesta22 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An example where this can be a huge problem-- I'm pretty sure this happened with head start data, but don't have a cite. Does head start work? We need to compare IQs of kids before and after the program. But, we need a control group. It would be unethical to use low income kids who qualify for head start as guinea pigs for the control group, so we need to use middle class kids.

The problem is middle class kids score higher on IQ tests. So, let's test a whole bunch of middle class kids and pick the low scorers. Now, we have equated the control and treatment groups: We have

100 Lower class kids with a mean IQ of 85 and 100 middle class kids, selected so the group mean is 85.

The first group gets head start the second group does not. Here's what they found after head start:

Head start kids: 88 Middle class control: 90.

It looks like head start hurt the lower class kids! Obviously, not true. The problem comes by selecting for extreme scores with the middle class kids. It's likely this group contained lots of kids whose error scores were large and negative the day they were tested. At post test, the error scores were closer to zero (i.e., random errors) which artificially bumped up their IQ scores and made it seem like head start hurt the lower class kids. -Bpesta22 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now the article makes it appear that Jensen is talking about regression to the population mean. Is he?  Is the debate between Jensen (or Rushton and Lynn) and Nesbitt over regression to the population mean, or regression to an individual's true score?  If the ormer, I think the section as is is pretty clear.  If the ltter, it needs fixing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bpesta22 is basically right here. Individuals chosen for their extreme scores are more likely to have got them by chance than those with average scores, so retests will revert to the mean, on average. Even if you are equally likely to score higher or lower by chance, Baysian probabilities show that the probability of having a random increase to a high score is higher than the probability of having a random decrease to the same high score. Interestingly, the second and subsequent retests will have the same mean as each other (assuming the subject doesn't get better at tests). The behaviour expected by the heredity model for reversion to the group mean as you move down generations or to siblings is similar. All siblings should be the same as each other (unless you move back to the original outlier of course) ie they don't revert to the mean each time you move to a new sibling, but revert once and then fluctuate. Fairly obvious when you consider you could have chosen the siblings in any order. But if you have 4 high IQ grandparents, the grandchildren will revert less than the children. After many generations, if all the original ancestors were high IQ, (say 50% high IQ genes expressed, 50% normal genes not expressed - but selected on phenotype), the descendents will on average have half the high IQ genes, both overall and expressed ie the same as the first generation children. So reversion to the mean stops and doesn't continue down the generations in this case. This is because, in all generations, people have 50% normal and 50% high IQ genes, and these are expressed like this except the first generation where they are selected on the basis of their expressed genes. Anyway, the point of this is to argue against (or at least insist on a reference for) experimental evidence for continued reversion to the mean, which I wouldn't expect, being a H person. In fact, I'd expect people in general as they go down generations (except the generation immediately below the generation selected for their extreme IQ) to have approximately the same average IQ as their parents. Put another way, I don't believe there is an intrinsic IQ 100 for people, which groups revert to. Rather, all people are different, and reflect the "average" IQ of their ancestors. An isolated group with IQ 120 will continue to have IQ 120, and not be "aware" that they are supposed to be reverting to 100 just because other people they've never interbred with have IQ of 100. I accept though that it is conceivable that all groups of humans are so similar genetically that genetic IQ is the same between all groups - but note that other traits such as height do show significant genetic differences. Stephen B Streater (talk)


 * Thank you very much for your long, fascinating pontification about what you "expect", what you "believe" and what you're "not aware of". Come back when it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.   Techno Faye Kane  04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Though I'd be happy as long as claims which contradict my world view are cited. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think this paragraph is redundant: ''This has become the basis for an important principle in statistics, mikemikev (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, I think you are raising a valid concern. I hope you and I can work together, in the proper spirit of Wikipedia collective editing, to fix this.  If you really do not understand my position I hope I can explain it to you clearly and in a civil way.


 * (1)I object to adding any material from a source that does not explicitly refer to race and intelligence, because that violates WP:SYNTH.


 * (2)I object to presenting any view as if it were a fact.


 * So if Jensen actually explicitly says he is applying Galton's law, fine, we can say so - but make it clear that it is Jensen who is arguing that Galton's law explains the IQ distribution. This would have to be properly sourced to the article and page where Jensen says this.  If Jensen or Rushton or Lynn do not exolicitly refer to Galton's law, adding it is a violation of SYNTH.


 * (3) I believe that it is important to give a concise explanation of a normal distribution, and explain what recgression towards the mean is, making it clear that it is a statistical phenomenon that always occurs when you have a bivariate distribution.


 * Your proposed version lacks this explanation. I have added it because some version of this is necessary.  But like you I accept Bryan Pesta's distinction between mean score for an andividual versus for a population.  So perhaps what I wrote is flawed.  But the solution is not to revert me, as you keep doing.  The solution is to edit what I wrote, to correct any error.  In fact I tried doing this - I consistently try to respond to people's comments by revising.  Why is it that you never edit to improve and instead simply revert?


 * For newcomers, let's keep the facts straight. We had a lengthy discussion concerning regression to the mean during the mediation, and arrived at a consensus.  When David Kane worked on the second major revision of the article, he put in the consensus version.  It was Mikemikev who started the edit war a couple of days ago by unilaterally changing the consensus version.  That day virtually all my reverts were not changing the passage to "my version," I was simply reverting to David kane's consensus version.  I also laid out my reasoning fully on the talk page.  Mikemikev has never provided an adequate justification for his change.


 * Since that time other editors have joined the discussion, and some of them pointed out flaws in the original (consensus) version. As i recall, Stephen Streater was one of them.  In subsequent edits I strived to incorporate improvements suggested by other editors - this is called consensus editing.  It is important to note that mikemikev never tried to incorporate constructive points made by myself or by others - he only revets to his version.  This is a pattern typical of disruptive editors.  I have never claimed that the original, consensus version was perfect.  The only things I ever deleted were (1) sentences that were redundant or otherwise unnecessary, for the sake of style, and (2) additions that violated WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV.  And I have added constructive suggestions.  Perhaps that is why Stephen Streater, who originally was critical of the consensus version, now seems to be supporting it.  We have a new consensus because we have incorporated ideas of others and corrected mistakes spotted by others.


 * I would be quite happy if Mikemikev decided to join this collaborative process by suggesting ways to improve what we have, rather than to compuslively revert any changes, back to his own personal version. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get it. Regression in the sense you're talking about happens when you measure the same variable twice for the same population. Genetic regression between related individuals is different. And you're simply lying about consensus supporting you and 'my version'. I was reverting to Occam's version, which everyone except you approved. Your new comrades weren't involved in the discussion, and are just taking sides. mikemikev (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * mikemikev, that's just not correct. 'genetic regression' is the statistical idea of regression towards the mean applied to genetics (considered as a random phenomenon).  the reason why siblings' scores are closer to the mean (according to Jensen) is that when taking a random sampling of genes from the same pair of parents, the second draw (e.g. second child) will on average be less extreme than the first child (given a list of assumptions too long to mention at this point).  -- Ludwigs 2  03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when you put it like that, I guess this is a case of the general statistical phenomenon. But I maintain that there is no need to explain regression to the mean generally, that's what wikilinks are for. The main point here is the magnitude of the regression, across varying degrees of relatedness, which appears consistent with genetic causes. Deemphasising this in favour of implying that regression here is just a general statistical artifact of no importance is misleading and strays in to synth territory as far as I'm concerned. I notice that BPesta has said that the whole section is of small value as a line of evidence relative to it's difficulty to explain, and that it may be best to drop the section. While I agree that it is weak and indirect evidence, I don't think it should be dropped. Occam's version was a good, short and neutral explanation. I think moving the section to test scores is out of place. But if consensus is to drop it, of course I will abide by that. mikemikev (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I've mentioned this a couple of times already but... Has no one noticed that I deleted this section and integrated its contents into 'Test Scores' section? IMO, it works much better this way, and satisfies most people's concerns.  it that change sticks, this conversation is moot.


 * That being said, mike, the phrase "the magnitude of the regression, across varying degrees of relatedness" isn't quite on the mark. What Jensen did was show that not only does the IQ gap exist in itself, but that the populations regress towards the same differentiated means as found in the IQ gap.  It basically reinforces the claim that the IQ gap is a real effect.  now, he and Nesbitt argue over whether that regression is better explained by genetic or environmental theories (and in fact Jensen's structural equation model suggests that both genetics and environment play a role), but that issue has not been decided yet.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you moved it to test scores. I don't support that, but it's no biggie for me, and I can live with it if there aren't many other objections. And I agree with your analysis of the interpretations of Jensen and Nisbett. I think Occam captured it well. mikemikev (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine in test scores given its current size. But, at some point, I hope to expand both the test scores section and the regressions section. Once that happens, they should be separate again. David.Kane (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David - I don't have a problem with that, so long as it's kept clear that the regression thing is an argument used to support one side of the debate, not a fact that proves the genetic view is true. -- Ludwigs 2  15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interest in working towards consensus, I’d like to mention that I also approve of Ludwig’s proposed compromise of putting this in the “test scores” section, at least for the time being. However, I think we still need to make it clear that Jensen is not the only researcher who’s conducted the structural equation model tests, which is what’s implied by referring to them as “Further research by Jensen”.


 * I hope this compromise will be satisfactory to Slrubenstein also. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Major edit to the lede
In this edit, TechnoFaye directs me to "SEE TALK PAGE before edit warring." I'm not sure where on the talk page this massive edit to the lede is being discussed, less where it has broad conesnsus. Can someone point me there? Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's HERE (I composed it offline): He reverted it, saying: Revision as of 02:52, April 14, 2010 (edit) (undo) Maunus (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 355923778 by TechnoFaye (talk) no - you cant put this in the lead without discussion)

'Fraid I can.

And THEN I must discuss it.

First of all, from DRNC:
 * Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

And this from arbcom:
 * 8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.
 * Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UT


 * If you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it.


 * Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Keep in mind that no one can own an article.

Then there's EWIS:
 * Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms, reverting rather than taking due consideration of the points made by others.

Delete it again, then you knowingly started an edit war that I'm not participating in, and I'm requesting formal arbitration and putting a notice on ANI about your violation of the above arbcom decision. Techno Faye Kane  12:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will continue to revert your change to the lede until you attempt to get consensus for it. Please report me to ANI and open up a formal arbcom case - I welcome it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Techno Faye Kane  17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Before we involve ANI, perhaps TechnoFaye can get the ball rolling by giving her reasons why her version is better here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, per wikip rules above. It's up to the REVERTER to explain the reversion of a sourced, relevant, neutral edit. See the crystal clear rules above. And it's not ANI that I'm going to, that was a typo. I meant to say ARBCOM and I'm going up the dispute resolution chain in proper order, starting with exiting this conversation in which you stonewall on your reason for reverting

...unless you want to tell me what's wrong with providing the IQ values in an article ABOUT those values, instead of deleting an obviously-okay edit because you don't happen to like the numbers, then I'll talk with you about it instead of going to formal dispute resolution. But note that "consensus" is NOT a legitimate reason to revert. Techno Faye Kane 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits provided excess detail to the lede and were not neutral in PoV - there are sourced objections to calling the average sub-s IQ "70" without any explanation of the problems in that calculation. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, but you have to say that BEFORE reverting a sourced edit. Adding the IQ numbers which this whole article is about is obviously not "excessive detail". I'll put it back yet again and you can add the objection (if any exists). I added the Ethiopian IQ as well because rushton did, and provided a caveat of the type you want to add,' then see if you violate 3RR on purpose. If not, then you came to your senses. If you revert a third time, I'll leave the lede alone, consider you an edit-warring troll being disruptive for entertainment, conclude that you have demonstrated manifestly bad faith, abandon this conversation, and take it to formal arbitration.


 * Note that I have to leave now for a few hours for an RL exigency. Techno Faye Kane  14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not reedit the lede without proposing your edit on the talk page and seeking consensus. You are way over the line, here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TechnoFaye Kane: Given the history of this article, I agree with Hipocrite and Streater. Although there is nothing wrong with bold editing in general, and in many parts of this article, the lead is particular important and controversial. So, you should make a case for the changes that you want to make here. May I suggest starting slowly? Propose a single sentence or phrase that you want to change, or a collection of them, organized so that people can comment on each one separately. David.Kane (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great Dave,and I have always liked your suggestions and you did a real ass-kick job on the rewrite. But the IQ numbers can't POSSIBLY be "excessive detail" in the lede when the whole article is about those specific numbers. And I already tried proposing stuff as single sentences organized so that people can comment on each one separately, and ludwig erased them all, even though the discussions were active. I even continued in mediation cabal until mathsci and rubenstein decided on a strategy of ordering people around, calling people 'racist", and making threats of banning anyone challenging them.


 * See, I'm doing this by the formal rules now, and that will include restoring my edit once more and going to arbcom. Techno Faye Kane  14:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * [later, after one of his friends reverted it to avoid 3RR] Okay, I'm done here. I'm taking this to formal arbitration, which I should have done long, long ago.  A legit edit that added nothing but the numeric values of the IQ scores which this article is about was immediately reverted twice, then to avoid the 3RR, reverted immediately again by someone else. (but later tonight; I MUST leave for a RL appointment now).


 * Will I prevail "in court"? My guess is "no", for a variety of reasons, all having to do with politics, none taking the written rules seriously, and certainly none objectively looking at verifiability, reliability, and neutrality of those three integers, the IQ scores.  I mean "politics" like  rubenstien's being buddy-buddy with those in power and mathsci's friend xanzibar (or whatever his name is) being the head of arbcom.


 * But that doesn't matter. Techno Faye Kane  14:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Faye: All that I am trying to do is to give you advice about how best to proceed. Feel free to ignore it! Exact IQ numbers in the lead is something that reasonable editors may disagree about, mainly because it is hard to find a widely-accepted source on the topic. David.Kane (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Not only did I give multiple sources, but the main source I cited, had anyone bothered to read what I wrote before deleting it because of their POV, is a meta-survey article of 105 IQ studies, which states that 1 S.D. (IQ 85) is the accepted "correct" value in the field. And Rushton didn't write it; a professor "Roth" did. And according to the wp rules, which I am trying exquisitely to follow to the letter, a survey meta-study in a peer-reviewed academic journal is the highest, most reliable source there can possibly be, and everything else must defer to it.


 * You CANNOT remove such information before discussing it, period. Now you COULD have challenged the African IQ data, and had you done so, I was prepared to concede by adding a "some people have a problem with this number" disclaimer, and would have omitted the even though it is wrong to do so.


 * But not now. It's too late. I've had my fill of bullying and threatening and rule-breaking by editors (not you) intent on making sure no one who reads Wikipedia will see the awful truth.


 * This is the reasonable conversation conversation we should have had BEFORE my neutral, verifiable, relevant addition was mindlessly reverted for purely political reasons, BEFORE I was reverted illegally three times with flippant justifications such as "I like the other version better" and BEFORE I began preparing materials for formal arbitration. I'll see you guys, as they say, in court. Techno Faye Kane

I do think that the lead could phrase the issue better (see my version of the lead) but you need to recognize that reasonable editors can disagree about this and that consensus should be sought. Advice: Pick out some sentences from my version of the lead that you think are better than the current version. How about "IQ tests have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation among the major racial groups, with a rough average rank ordering of East Asians > Whites > Amerindians > Blacks." I realize that this does not have specific numbers in it, but it makes the claim in a stronger, more global, more direct fashion then the current version


 * I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.


 * Then, let's have a discussion about that. I, at least, will agree with you, as will other editors. It will be hard to make major changes in the lead in a high-handed fashion, but small steps in a useful direction are possible.


 * So is following formal procedure, which includes deference for academic metasurveys, not reverting sourced relevant, verifiable edits without discussion, and having your friend do the third revert to bypass 3RR. And going to ARBCOM when you make a good-faith effort but all you get back is abuse and bullshit.


 * We don't get fooled again. when you've been fed more shit than you can eat and fight computers and receipts... you stop dancing. Techno Faye Kane  15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Faye, I suggest you have a look at some of the cases Arbcom handle. They are generally much more far reaching than a content dispute on a rapidly improving article. Techno Faye Kane  17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If they decide not to hear your case,


 * Then it shan't take much of my time! Techno Faye Kane  17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * you will always be welcome back here


 * Say, that's mighty white of you!  Techno Faye Kane  16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * as your independent line of thinking is a valuable contribution.


 * I don't eat bullshit anymore. Techno Faye Kane  16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the issue of the reliability of the figure 70, and whether putting it in the lede gives it undue weight, I look forward to hearing your reasoning.


 * If you had asked yesterday, I would have told you my reasoning. But you didn't ask, you TOLD  ...And quite rudely, too! I was willing to drop the 70 in exchange for a more robust presentation of the other three numbers.  Techno Faye Kane  16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could provide a link to this unsubstantiated claim that I "TOLD" you not to put 70 in the lede. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Stephen and David about taking to this to ArbCom. First of all, despite the way we may occasionally address each other progress is being made, sometimes in unexpected ways as common ground is found amongst editors. rSecondly, this would be dismissed immediately as an unnecessary escalation of a content dispute, which ArbCom never handles. Mathsci (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you don't mind me bringing it up with them. But arbcom is the END of the process.  I have to follow wikipedia rules.  God knows there's no one else to tell.  Even Bryan said "fuck it" and just goes along with it after your friends wanaponda and rubenstein browbeat him to death.  At scienceblogs.com he talked more like me, but was beaten down like a '68 Chicago longhair.  You may have noticed that he doesn't argue at all anymore, and passively allows you to do whatever you want, much like a sex slave.


 * And YOU'RE a mathematician, which makes you a priest in my religion. Shame on you!  We observe that even Jedi  priests abuse people. You know, it's stuff just like this that made me walk off a nuclear engineering job and go live in a cave.  Techno Faye Kane  17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How interesting. Have a nice day. 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology to Use? Hereditarians and ???
We seem to have agreed that the word "hereditarians" is a useful work when referring to the generic position of folks like Jensen, Lynn, Rushton, et al. Of course, these scientists disagree with each other and, when they do, we need to be clear about who says what. But it is still useful to have a single term for referring to them. So, what is the generic term for folks like Nesbitt, Flynn, et al? I am flexible about what we pick, I just want a term to use. It makes the writing much easier! Options include "anti-hereditarians" or "environmentalists". Jensen/Rushton is "culture-only proponents." What should we use? David.Kane (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do Nesbitt and Flynn describe their position? The convention should be (1) how do they describe themselves (2) how others describe them, but making it clear that this is how others describe them and not themselves. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked and can not find a single example of Nesbitt or Flynn using a generic term to describe their position, or the group of scientists who agree with them. I agree that, if we can find such a term, we should use it. In the meantime, II suggests using the term "anti-hereditarian". Until we come up with something better, that is what I will do. Again, I don't view this as a great choice and will happily change it to something else, if other editors like. David.Kane (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good news! Just got my copy of Race Differences in Intelligence, an excellent secondary source. They use the terms "environmentalist" and "hereditarian," so I think we can safely follow suit. David.Kane (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation: Use "IQ and Human Intelligence" by N. J. MacKintosh
One of the things that I have learned, primarily from MathSci, over the last few weeks is that it can be very helpful to use a secondary source for an article like this one. Instead of diving into the main scholarly citations for a topic like, say, heritability, we can just reword the textbook entry (and cite it). This avoids any taint of WP:OR and, assuming that the book is well-regarded, prevents complains about WP:NPOV. MathSci specifically recommended "IQ and Human Intelligence" by N. J. MacKintosh. I used this a bit in my edits, but am planning to rely on it even more in the future. Note that you can read most of it an Amazon, just Search Inside and put in the page number you want in the search box. Highly recommended! If anyone else had other suggestions for high quality textbooks, especially ones with significant on-line availability, so that all editors can see exactly what the textbooks say, I would be eager to know about them. David.Kane (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't use non-peer-reviewed material. If we go with books someone wrote, even textbooks, then we can add the crap they teach at Fallwell University because its accredited.   Techno Faye Kane  04:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These are generally considered neutral reviews:


 * "Considered" by WHO?? Techno Faye Kane  10:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Loehlin, J. C., Lindzey, G., & Spuhler, J. N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman
 * Flynn, James (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 59-60. ISBN 0710006519.
 * John Loehlin (2000). Robert Sternberg. ed. Handbook of Human Intelligence.
 * Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson (2007). "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science 2 (2): 194-213.

Both Rushton and Jensen (2005) and Nisbett (2009) are not written neutrally. I haven't read MacKintosh's book. --DJ (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you figure that their paper published by the APA isn't neutral? Did they use fake statistics, or do you just not like the facts? Did you actually read it, or have you just heard "oh, they're racists"?   I'm very disinclined to accept your favorite authors as "neutral".   The title of one of your "neutral" books is "Race, IQ and Jensen."  I rest my case.  This is exactly why Wikipedia requires peer-reviewed papers in controversial subjects.  Techno Faye Kane  04:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Peer review is no guarantee for being neutral (in fact most peer reviewed articles (except review articles) are expected to argue a specific point). APA publishes a lot of non-neutral controversial articles. The Peer review requirement has nothing to do with neutrality, and in fact there is no requirement that sources used should be neutral. The neutrality policy requires that encyclopedic articles be neutrally written which means that views should be attributed to those who espouse them through reliable sources and that all notable views should be given the due amount of attention in the articles. Using reputable textbooks that try to perspectivize and objectively summarise the debate as a source seems like a particularly good idea in this debate where there is no general consensus about most of the issues and any peer reviewed paper will hold some kind of bias.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's "biased" about running SPSS against public databases from NASA and the military, then reporting the results? That's basically all that Rushton's done.   Techno Faye Kane  10:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean he doesn't in anyway interpret that data and draw conclusions from it?·Maunus· ƛ · 11:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The distinction is merely that those articles I listed as being "neutral reviews" are written in what resembles an NPOV style whereas the others are not. That's not to say that the other sources aren't usable, but that they may not be as easy for editors to use without crafting to NPOV style. --DJ (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that were true, which it isn't, it would be irrelevant. As long as the facts are correct, the wiki editor can state them neutrally.  And "neutral" in an academic journal doesn't mean "agnostic" either. The scientist can believe that the research leads a particular conclusion. This is just more bullshit thrown out by environmentalists to suppress the R/I data.  Techno Faye Kane  10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the suggestion about Loehlin, J. C., Lindzey, G., & Spuhler, J. N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. It is excellent! And it only cost me 99 cents (plus shipping) from Amazon. David.Kane (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)