Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 85

Include and position
Whether Rushton or anyone else, please feel free to provide constructive suggestions on how to represent viewpoints and where to place them in the wider spectrum of contentions about race and intelligence. Civil discussion does not require agreement, only civility. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing SAT images
These images are unsourced (wikipedia is not a source) and do not represent any research or source related to the study of race and intelligence. Unless a source which links them to race and intelligence research can be found, they will be removed. Please refer to for prior discussion and general consensus for removal. aprock (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Victor's remark that they are sourced. If you click on the image, it clearly states the source as "Own work".  aprock (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are based on raw statistical data and is as such OR - also its relevance to the article is dubious - the data has not been corrected for SES so the low results of blacks and other minorities could be a simple SES bias.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I discovered for myself a day or two ago, the SAT plot images on the article point back to a United States government website, which in turn points to the College Board as the SAT score data source. But the federal government presentation in each case is a data table, not a plot, so the plot is (methinks) WP:OR in a way that is dubious. I see that the plot images (not part of the article on the moment) each omit a data category from the underlying table and otherwise engage in adaptation of the source in a manner that appears to constitute original research, so I think the deletion from the article is a correct call both for upholding Wikipedia policy and for maintaining focus of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems silly to me that merely converting a small one page table of racial group test scores (published on a government websiste) to a line graph format is claimed to constitute "original research". Journalists at the WSJ, WaPo, NYTimes and other venues convert published tabulated numerical data to graphical format all the time, does this mean that journalists are original researchers? Also it is not valid to demand that the data be "corrected for SES" since hereditatians see SES differences as largely a result of IQ differences and they can back it up with plausible theory and convincing research results (of course conversely, the environmentalists assert that IQ differences are a result of SES differences but they can not actually back up this "nurture assumption" with any convincing research).Rafrye (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The original research is not the compilation of the table. The OR is the selection of the data to compile.  The OR is the suggestion the selected data relates in any reliable way to the topic of the article.  It's not up to us to say that SAT scores from college bound seniors are in any way representative of the racial gap in intelligence.  This is a clear case of misuse of a primary source.  As you're "new" here, you might review WP:PST. aprock (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, the graphs are not "own work", rather their source is. However, it's a valid criticism that they lack context, as the National Center for Education Statistics just reports them and does not analyse them in any way, so perhaps it's better to not include them at this point. I'll check if there are similar tables in, say, some peer-reviewed article (although I fear that someone will then come up with a new set of reasons as to why such data should not be included in the article...).--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "IQ differences outside of the USA"
There are multiple issues with this section: Including the content in articles about the books or Lynn seems fine, but including it here is not appropriate. Are there any significant studies besides the methodologically flawed surveys by Lynn et al? If not, I suggest this section be removed, or possibly replaced by a pointer to a discussion of some of the challenges of using IQ tests across cultures.aprock (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is primarily based on the work of Lynn, and does not represent mainstream research
 * Lynn's methodology has come under heavy fire, and is generally not considered conclusive
 * much of it is based on IQ and Global Inequality, which is not about national IQs, not racial intelligence
 * the content reads like a he said, she said between Lynn and his critic


 * i agree. the whole section should be moved to the "iq and global inequality" - page.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Lynn is the pioneer in this field. Whether or not his views are "mainstream" is not relevant as long as they are notable. His data concern IQ differences between nations, but his theoretical framework for explaining the data is explicitly racial. Lynn's conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals, they have been much discussed, and his data sets have been used in further studies by many other reseachers. Heiner Rindermann has shown that Lynn's global IQ data are highly correlated with the results of international student assessments, giving them convergent validity.

Lynn's methods and conclusions have been criticized, and we can include those criticisms in the article. In particular, Jelte Wicherts has written many papers contesting Lynn's findings. For example, he conducted, with some colleagues, an independent review of sub-Saharan African IQ data, and, based on it, argued that Lynn's estimate that the average IQ there is between 60 and 70 is too low (Wicherts's research suggests it's about 80, and he believes the Flynn effect has not yet kicked in in Africa). To not discuss the massive amounts of data that exist on IQ differences between nations and the clear racial patterns in those data would amount to censorship.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The question isn't one of notability or censorship. As mentioned above, I don't see any reason to not include discussions of Lynn and his research in wikipedia in the appropriate places.  The question is how it relates to this article.  The problem with respect to this article is that the section is one of WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY.  Using Lynn's books as direct sources for his conclusions is a good example of how primary sources can be misused.  The heavy reliance on primary sources (including the one you mention above) is one of the biggest problems with this article aprock (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are asking how Lynn's research demonstrating racial differences in IQ around the world is related to this article titled Race and intelligence. I think it's obviously related to this article. I don't see how giving space to the much discussed views of one of the best known researchers in the field of race and IQ suggests WP:UNDUE, as long as we also give space to his critics. There's no need to use Lynn's books as sources, as his findings have been summarized by others, e.g. Rindermann in the article I linked to above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking what the relation is. I'm pointing out that using his personal view as the basis for a section is an example of WP:UNDUE and a misuse of WP:PRIMARY.  Just because he is well known doesn't mean that his conclusions represent current understanding.  That's why we need to use secondary sources.  The Rindermann source you provide does not discuss Lynn's conclusions with respect to race and intelligence. aprock (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * precisely. lynn has been given undue weight by allocating a whole section to his views. there are already articles ("iq and global inequality" and others) devoted to his views. this section should be moved to the "iq and global inequality"-page.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV does not mean that we must present only the "current understanding" (which is difficult to establishment anyway because there are so many disagreements in this area). Rather, the article must include all significant viewpoints, including Lynn's much discussed studies. This paper by Jensen & Rushton summarizes Lynn's research as follows:


 * "The data base became truly international when Richard Lynn collated national IQ scores from 192 countries [11-14]. Going beyond the traditional three macro-races of Africans, Europeans, and East Asians, Lynn organized the data according to the ten “genetic clusters” (population groups) identified by Cavalli-Sforza et al. [15] in their 1994 History and Geography of Human Genes. Lynn tabulated 620 studies from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present (N = 813,778) and found the world average IQ to be 90 (Fig. 1). The East Asian cluster  (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtained the highest mean IQ at 105, followed by Europeans (100), Inuit-Eskimos (91), South East Asians (87), Native American Indians (87), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians & North Africans (84), sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), and Kalahari Bushmen & Congo Pygmies (IQ 54)."


 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree. The problem is that all significant view points are not presented with equal weight, and the very problem you mention that the current understanding is difficult to establishment anyway because there are so many disagreements is belied by the presentation of Lynn's work as if it were the current understanding.  It's not clear that a review summary of data qualifies as secondary sourcing, but certainly other aspects of their review do.  I think it's pretty clear that using the review paper by Rushton and Jenson does not address the problem of undue weight, but rather potential exacerbates the problem.  Replacing the direct sourcing Lynn to the secondary sourcing found in Rushton/Jenson would be an improvement, with the caveat that both of those researchers are not truly secondary sources independent of the controversy.  aprock (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this section needs to be removed, but I agree that it should rely more on secondary sources. How about citing Hunt and Wicherts? . -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Hunt article is similar to some of Lynn's work in that it's about nations, not races. Whicherts is fine for criticism of Lynn, but it's not really a secondary source as it's parallel to Lynn's work, not at a higher level.  Likewise, similar to Rushton and Jenson, Wicherts is not an independent observer in this debate, but rather a contributing researcher. aprock (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be right about the Hunt article, not sure. I'd consider the Wicherts article a decent secondary source though, because the data he's using has all been published before in other sources. A source can still be secondary even if one one of the researchers is involved in the debate. It's an ok article and balances out some of the weight on Lynn, which I think makes more sense than deleting the section altogether. Any other article like this would do the job just as well. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that citing Wicherts or R/J as secondary sources are a significant problem. My point was that it would serve the section better to find sources further from the debate than they.  Using primary sources, or secondary sources which are directly involved in research, isn't a problem per se, it's just that they suffer from the potential of being misused. aprock (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Victor, when you write, "Lynn's conclusions have been published in peer-reviewed journals," what you are really saying is that they have been published as primary sources that are to be the basis of Wikipedia article text only if those conclusions are agreed with by reliable secondary sources. What such secondary sources are there? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Above, I quoted a passage from a paper by Jensen and Rushton which succintly summarizes Lynn's research on this topic. Aprock and Slrubenstein claim that it is not a secondary source, because J & R are not "independent of the controversy". This is silly, because you could say that about anyone who has published papers on the race & IQ question. The purpose of the use of secondary sources is to establish that the primary source in question has been discussed by other researchers and to prevent users from making interpretative or synthetic claims about primary sources. J & R's article reviews the research on race and IQ by Lynn and many others, and is quite clearly a secondary source with regard to Lynn's works. I don't think anyone can claim that J & R misrepresent Lynn's arguments or results, so I don't understand what you are arguing.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect your "silly" comment is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As I noted above, using J/R's review article is definitely preferred to quoting Lynn's results directly.  It still remains that J/R are directly involved in the debate, and generally are in concordance with Lynn.  Using them as a secondary source does not help the POV issue at all. aprock (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to understand what the neutral point of view means. We must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Thus, Lynn's views must be presented in this article, just like those of his critics. What you are trying to do is to excise entirely the sizable literature on worldwide variation in IQ from this article. It does not matter if Rushton and Jensen have similar views as Lynn. There is no Wikipedia policy stipulating that only those secondary sources that disagree with the conclusions of the primary source can be used. No one thinks Jensen and Rushton misrepresent Lynn's research, so what's the problem? If Lynn's research was described with the exact same words that Jensen and Rushton use by some anti-hereditarian scholar, it would make no difference. The fact that Jensen and Rushton agree with Lynn is completely irrelevant. Their article is an excellent source because they concisely summarize Lynn's work published over many years.


 * You seem to be worried that by discussing Lynn's research in the article we would give it undue weight. But this would happen only if we did not include the views of his many critics. This is what WP:NPOV is all about. The fact is that there are differences in average IQ scores between regions of the world (even people like Wicherts agree with that), and no one thinks that the average IQ is the same across the globe. This is due to some environmental or hereditary causes, probably both, and also due to methodological problems. Many critics have countered Lynn by saying that low IQ is caused by underdevelopment, and not the other way round, and not even Lynn thinks that genes explain all the differences between races. All this could be discussed in the article, so that Lynn's views would not receive undue weight.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be quite mistaken about what I do and don't understand. Suffice it to say, I do not think that discussing Lynn's research gives it undue weight.  As noted above, this article is about race and intelligence, not regions and intelligence.  As noted above, using the R/J review does nothing towards addressing NPOV, particularly from the perspective of representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views.  You are free to disagree with me.  aprock (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So you finally agree that we should discuss IQ differences outside of the US in the article? Lynn writes explicitly about race differences, so it's not just about regions.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said it should not be discussed, and I've said several times that the section could be improved. As it currently stands, the section is a mess and shouldn't be in the article in it's present form as it presents something which is very muddied as settled science. aprock (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think aprock's 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) statement says it all. Jensen and Rushton are not independent of the controversy which makes them not the most reliable source on the matter, and the book is so largely speculative and not addressing the issues of this article I fail to see why we spend time on it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the view that Lynn and Vanhanen is being overrepresented and that we should include a lot of information about how academia has reacted to their view before writing up a section about it. Support from others in their own camp does not suggest general acceptance by a long shot. We should look at Flynn, Nisbett and reviews of the book in order to be able to write up a neutral section. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, at the very least, checking for reviews of the book is a crucial first step to deciding what the major secondary sources say the underlying issue, which helps show what is undue weight and what is not in addressing the issue in this article. Does someone have a convenient link to a list of reviews of the book? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

...and what's it about?
Once again I think we're jumping down the sources first, content second, rabbit (or is it rat?) hole. As with everything else, what is it that we're trying to say about IQ differences outside the U.S.? How many studies are there that we can cite? Shouldn't we cite all studies of significant scope? (Along with observations by scholars/other researchers?) You address undue weight concerns by being inclusive of more material and positioning it along the spectrum of reliability/ believability/ consensus et al. (including timeline, usually newer is more reliable but not always)—not by paring down. I see a lot of jostling about with grunting and the occasional head butt above, but not a whole lot in terms of stepping back and discussing what the section should actually say. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All good questions. Part of the problem is that IQ research is generally US centric, so while there are a smattering of IQ studies outside the US, there are very few peer reviewed race related IQ studies.  The generally murkiness of our understanding about this question is generally not at all described in the section.  In fact, given the general murkiness, I'm not sure such a section is very useful.  aprock (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is tons of peer-reviewed IQ research from all over the world. Check out the bibliographies in Lynn's books. The significance of Lynn's work is that he has compiled and synthesized data from disparate sources, many of them peer-reviewed articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the bibliography. With respect to race based intelligence studies done for the purposes of measuring the difference in intelligence, there is very little there. aprock (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Slrubenstein's above: It's very clear who is aligned with supporting whose study, IMHO that's all part of the narrative. It's up to us as editors to represent the quality of these studies (including support along party lines, for the lack of a better term). It's our role to represent the studies and areas of debate and dispute in the article, not to debate and dispute here and just the winner makes it into the article. There is a difference between the most informative article and the article that's whittled down to what are currently considered the "correct" bits. We need to focus on the former, not the latter. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies I have to catch up on other things, here is a summary approximation of the studies Lynn references, from this review of Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. I can't speak for Malloy (the reviewer) or the review's content. A short web hunt did turn up Malloy doing various bits of math on IQs to explain certain observations, discrepancies in the tested IQs of groups of Hawaiians for example.
 * @Victor and Aprock: Since you (i.e., "we") appear to not have much of a consensus, perhaps the best place to start for this section is to present some sort of inventory and summary of studies outside the U.S., chronologically if possible. We can then worry about next steps. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 02:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect the conflict is a manufactured one. Victor and I generally agree.  Or rather, I agree with much of what Victor has said, and he's disagreed with a lot of stuff I haven't said.  Specifically, I think nearly everyone here has said that redoing the section in an NPOV manner is a reasonable tack to take.  With respect to the presentation of Lynn's review, it's a fine summary of his work.  aprock (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, you started this current debate by arguing that Lynn's research on IQ differences around the world should not be discussed in this article. You said so quite explicitly here. If this conflict is manufactured, you were the manufacturer. But perhaps we can now move on to discussing what the section about IQ differences outside of the US should look like, instead of trying to remove the section.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec with Victor's below) I thought I saw a little olive branch sprig, movement, whatever you'd like to call it. IMHO (especially) here and elsewhere it does not do well to dwell on what someone said earlier, that stymies progress by moving us back to where we were before after we've ostensibly taken a step forward. (The corollary is to never ask if someone has "changed" their mind!) It's pretty clear to me at least that there will be no great epiphanic leaps forward, we must bear our burden of being editorial inchworms. :-)
 * It would seem to me that:
 * we need some sort of chronological/locality/subjects inventory of major studies as I've mentioned
 * we need secondary sources on those studies, other researchers commenting included (outside the Lynn issue)
 * hopefully we have others who have trodden the same path, but specifically with regard to Lynn, his is a notable source and needs to be treated accordingly whether we editorially agree or not; some thoughts/questions on that, the answer to be based on secondary sources and comments of other researchers—arguing whether they are primary or secondary is, IMHO, a huge waste of energy, that is why I'm indicating them as a different category of source:
 * to what degree does Lynn cover the landscape as represented by #1?
 * to what degree is Lynn's a fair and accurate representation of #1? irrespective of Lynn's subsequent conclusions to the degree possible, of course, some of those are by definition the output of Lynn's aggregation process
 * What the next step or question is I can't say, it depends on the above. We don't need to know how the story finishes yet, debating that point is premature because we simply don't have a critical mass of good content. Does this seem like a reasonable approach? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Very quick read of the below, my initial reaction is that before we start out by stating something is questionable, we need to spend a bit more time on what that is: quantify before qualify, otherwise there's no context. I think the section will wind up being longer... Also, discussions about reliability need to be in the middle; whatever is written needs to come to some fair representation summing up the current state of research and scholarship independent of any individual source. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft
Here's a draft of how the section could read:

Note that this a quick and dirty draft, and I have not, for example, checked if all the sources are used properly there. What I want to know if others agree that this is how the section should roughly be like.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a significant improvement over what's in the article, and I would support replacing what is there with this, as well as suggest some changes. The first paragraph could probably do to be expanded, since it is one of the main reasons why extensive research into cross-cultural IQ has not been done.  The second paragraph mentions "some researchers", but only quotes data from Lynn. Wicherts has also done extensive survey work parallel to Lynn, and come up with significantly different conclusions.  Including results from he and other active researchers is vital to address the POV issues of the section.  While the prose is improved, it still has too much of a Lynn vs. Critics feel.  I also think there should be a preference to using the peer reviewed work of the various researchers to the unreviewed work.  Finally, including the graphic and the raw data from Lynn's unreviewed book puts undue weight on that review. aprock (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two quick points. First, is there any other IQ map other than Lynn's? Second, Lynn's map would rather have to stay while the section is Lynn-heavy; if we wish for the map to go away—and this can be handled by including a Wiki-link to the article—then we need to address the fixation on Lynn. There's also the problem if Lynn's is the only such map, as we're then eliminating the only such source; I'm glad to leave that for future resolution based on what we come up with.
 * If Lynn says "X", then "balance" for the section as a whole is not lining up an equal number of admirers and critics ending with critics as the last word and chucking his graph—as to do otherwise would provoke charges of favoritism. "Balance" is including additional sources so that the proportion of content devoted to Lynn is more appropriate—which we hopefully can all agree on as a reasonable editorial goal for this section. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an enormous amount of undue weight on a problematic and severely criticized study. Lynn and Vanhanen are not authoritative enough on this issue to merit a full illustrated section dedicated uncritically to their data and conclusions (albeit with a small disclaimer on the top). Much work to be done on that prior to inclusion.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No evaluations of any position in R&I are all positive or all negative. As I said, but perhaps not as succinctly, the solution is to add a good deal more content which does not depend on Lynn. It shouldn't be about who supports and who criticizes Lynn. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it shouldn't be he said she said, but finding out about the reception would enable us to write a neutral section about the topic of international Iq differences - that can't be done without reading other studies of international IQ and reading the opinions of those who criticize Lynns study. I believe that Lynn's study is not sufficiently influential or hold sufficient general credence as to be alotted this amount of attention - I think I can back this view point up with sources if I get time but Flynn and Nisbett comes to mind immediately.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the draft Victor describes as "quick and dirty" is an improvement over the current condition of the article. But I'm still dubious about the graphic being in the article at all. I have the Borsboom source at hand, and it makes an important point that confirms something I mentioned (but didn't cite to the other source I had seen, which was a blog) about a foundational point in all these studies of group IQ differences that seems to be neglected by almost all authors, but which can be established by multiple reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Lynn was the first to collect and synthesize IQ data from all around the world, and his data are still the only ones to cover all continents. After Lynn, Wicherts et al. and Malloy have independently reviewed sub-Saharan African IQ studies (why is it that these R&I debates are always almost solely about black people?), but I'm not aware of any other systematic reviews of worldwide IQ variation than Lynn's, although Rindermann and others have established that Lynn's data are highly correlated with results obtained in international student assessment studies. Other participants in the debate have either conducted their own analyses using Lynn's data (e.g. Jones et al. and Eppig et al.), or commented on Lynn's methods, assumptions, or putative errors, often suggesting alternative explanations for the patterns in Lynn's data.

So, Lynn is the primus motor of this debate, and it's quite natural that he has a central role in the section. However, the section should not be just about him and his critics, and it could be useful to cite other sources using different theoretical assumptions -- perhaps the work of some non-psychometricians (even if their opinions about intelligence testing were just hand-waving, as they often are). In general, the first and third paragraphs of the draft above could be extended. I started the draft section with a general discussion about problems in international IQ comparisons so as to not give Lynn's research undue weight. However, Vecrumba has a point when he says that "before we start out by stating something is questionable, we need to spend a bit more time on what that is: quantify before qualify, otherwise there's no context." Finally, I have no strong opinion about the inclusion of Lynn's world map.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor, taking up your point of agreement with Peters, I suggest taking a look at the latest practitioner's manual on the WAIS-IV, in which the WAIS-IV developers discuss several limitations in cross-cultural comparisons of IQ, a subject on which they have done much research. You can hardly find a more mainstream source than the developers of the WAIS-IV, and their comments would add a lot of balance and perspective to any article section on cross-national, cross-cultural, cross-racial, or cross-whatever studies on IQ. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WBB, I have that book on pdf. Which chapters in it do you think would be useful here? BTW, in the WAIS-IV standardization sample, full-scale scores were 103.21 (SD 13.77) for whites, 88.67 (SD 13.68) for African-Americans, 91.63 (SD 14.29) for Hispanics, and 106.07 (SD 15.01) for Asians (p. 118 in the manual), which contradicts Flynn and Dickens' claims of B-W score convergence. If Lynn's research should not be discussed in this article, as some suggest, then that is doubly true for Flynn and Dickens' claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has suggested that the research of Lynn not be discussed, so you can put away that straw man. aprock (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from two book reviews of Richard Lynn's books that were published in the journal Intelligence, they were written by John Loehlin and Wendy Johnson (they are both highly respected scholars in the field of human intelligence and are not generally seen to be linked with the Jensen/Rushton/Lynn camp). I could email the pdfs of the complete reviews if needed. The quotes presented here are from the opening and closing paragraphs of their two reviews:

"Richard Lynn, with various colleagues, has published more than 30 empirical papers reporting IQ measurements in many populations worldwide. In addition, he has written on important theoretical issues, including the evolution of intelligence, IQ changes over time (“Flynn effects”), sex differences, the role of nutrition, and so on. (.....) Is this book the final word on race differences in intelligence? Of course not. But Richard Lynn is a major player, and it is good to have his extensive work on this topic together in one place. Future workers who address these matters under this or any other label will find that Lynn has done a lot of spadework for them. And they will also find that there is plenty to ponder over within these pages." From book review of: Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis John C. Loehlin Psychology Department, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA (published in the journal INTELLIGENCE in 2006)

"This book is well organized and easily accessible to the generally educated reader. Like most of Richard Lynn's work,it reflects a relatively thorough and careful compilation of the relevant extant literature. The book begins where Herrnstein and Murray (1994) left off in The Bell Curve, with the observation that there is a socioeconomic hierarchy of race in the United States that can be attributed to intelligence test scores. It examines the degree to which this observation can be extended to other multiracial societies throughout the world that also show racial inequalities in earnings and socioeconomic status. (.....) To emphasize, despite many possible statistical and psychometric quibbles, the data Lynn presents in this book are essentially correct. At the same time, despite Lynn's protestations to the contrary, these data do little or nothing to address the questions of why this is the case or whether the situation is inevitable or permanent. Like the other theorists he criticizes, Lynn confuses correlation with causation. Read this book if you want to shore up your own pre-existing ideas about the appropriateness of socioeconomic hierarchies correlated with race. Read this book if you want a glimpse into the intellectual process of rationalizing pre-existing ideas through data collection. Don't waste your time with this book if you want to learn something about either intelligence or the evolution of social structures." From book review of: Richard Lynn's The global bell curve: Race, IQ, and inequality worldwide Wendy Johnson MRC Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK (published in the journal INTELLIGENCE in 2008) Rafrye (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that! I'd be very interested in the full reviews. My sense from your two excerpts is that the former leaves off as Lynn being a reliable representation of existing data which give us something to think about; the latter appears to agree but then also leaps forward to alleging confusion of causation and correlation, Lynn's work being open to being interpreted for intellectually nefarious purposes, etc., etc.
 * I think we need to separate out data and its representation from representations and their interpretations—particularly interpretations by third parties. We need to be careful about and differentiate:
 * general acceptance of someone's work as valid; the subsequent "controversy" is among those that read and interpret the work for their various personal agenda, support of their scholarly or socio-political conclusions, etc.;
 * "controversy" over whether someone's work is even valid in the first place; the subsequent arguing is merely symptomatic of the root controversy
 * I realize this may seem like splitting hairs to some, but I believe if we keep these distinctions in mind it may be easier to create balanced content. Simply stating something is "controversial" is insufficient. Does this make sense? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now replaced the section in the article with my rewrite of it, so let's work to improve it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section should give Lynn's estimated average IQ's for each group just broadly sketch the hierarchy. In my opinion it is giving undue weight and inciting credence in numbers the validity of which is contested by experts. The map has the same effect.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Lynn's estimates for each group are reported in reliable secondary sources, and they should stay. If you fear that undue weight is being given to Lynn, go ahead and add more material from his critics, instead of removing anything.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I've removed the image as undue. The main information is already in the body of the article, with some of the appropriate context and caveats. aprock (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on now, I don't think it's really consistent for you to remove this image without consensus, especially while you and Maunus are requiring consensus for Victor's edits before they can stay in the article. For instance, it seems that everyone agreed that Victor's draft was an improvement over the original, so why are we continuing to keep the version that we agree isn't as good?


 * There seems to be an underlying problem here: that it's okay for anyone to remove anything they want from the article, and then require "consensus" for adding it back. Consensus should go both ways. This editing philosophy essentially means that anyone can blank anything they want and never have to add it back if they can't get consensus for it. I know this isn't an actual policy, but I think that the status quo should reign until an alternate consensus is reached. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * At the risk of resurrecting a previous refrain, please stick to content issues. If you have something to say about the images, then say so.  If you think two images plus text data from a single non-peer reviewed source does not constitute undue weight, then please explain why. aprock (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of Victor's other draft-changes are still in the article, minus the graphs. I do think this data is best represented visually also, though, and others have agreed, which is why I don't think it's the best course of action for you to have removed them. Lynn's book might not be peer-reviewed, but the same data is supported in plenty of other sources that are. Why don't we find one of these sources and apply it to the images, rather than can them altogether? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think suggestions of specific sources would be a great place to start. Figures can be a tough thing, as constructing new ones from raw data tends to open the door to OR/synth and abuse of primary sources.  Modelling a figure based on one in a source seems like a much more safe path to take. aprock (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

victor, why did you leave out wicherts' quote? it should be reinserted. in order to get more balance i also suggest we use the mackintosh-quote about the bushmen iq from the footnotes.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the quote, because there are already far too many quotes in this article. I think the essential content of the Wicherts quote is included in the current version, but if you think there should be more, use a paraphrase, not a quote. The Bushmen IQ thing is a meaningless detail.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We must mention the new book of richard lynn in this article "the global bell curve", 2008, Lynn.
The book shows that across the world, where several races coexist, the hierarchy of a large number of social parameters is dictated by the IQ. The races with the with the highest IQ (East Asians and Europeans) show the highest salaries, the highest rate academic achievement, the lowest rate of crimes, the lowest unemployment rate or the lowest fertility rates.

The book shows that in North America, Brazil, England, Holland or Australia, the hierarchy remains the same:
 * The East Asian (Chinese, Japanese. Average IQ of 105) have the largest cranial capacity, higher wages, higher school completion rates, the lowest rate of crimes and the lowest fertility rates. This is also tracking well in America than in Europe, Australia or Latin America.
 * Europeans come second in this hierarchy, just below regarding the cranial capacity and IQ (100) but also the average wage rate of crime and crime (slightly above the East Asian) or yet fertility rates or unemployment. This is true both in North America and Latin America, Europe or Australia.
 * This was followed the south-east Asia (average IQ 87)
 * The north African (average I.Q of 84)
 * The African (Average I.Q of 67-80)
 * The Aborigines of Australia (Average I.Q of 62)

Africans and Australian aborigines are characterized by the smallest cranial capacity, the lowest level of intelligence, the highest rate of crimes, the highest rate of unemployment, lower educational attainment rates and lower wages.

"The Global Bell Curve" is the work which follows "Race differences in intelligence, Lynn, 2006. Like the latter, it focuses on the genetic causation of this hierarchy.

Lynn's book was to show that contrary to what many sociologists say, this is not the position of minority causing the problems: Some of the country around the world, the hierarchy is proportional to the intellectual level. In southeast Asia, the Chinese are a minority, but over-represented in all the universities so that the Indonesian government established quottas maximum input for Chinese.

In Europe, the Chinese have an average salary higher than the European majority, this is also true in North America and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.61.1 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lynn's research is discussed in the section called "International comparisons". What that section should include has been debated on this talk page recently, see above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: article name change to Group differences in IQ by race
There has been discussion of this issue since the ArbCom case wrapped up. I'm now formally requesting a move of this article (titled Race and intelligence as I type this) to  The former article title, of course, will live on as a redirect. --
 * This should not be proposed as an edit request but as a rename discussion. There needs to be consensus to rename the article. I personally am favourably inclined towards the proposal, but requesting an admin to move is not enough, discussion among all the involved editors is necessary. I have taken the liberty of opening a page move discussion. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Deferred to rename discussion below. -Atmoz (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Two good sources for this article and related articles.
Getting to know the other articles in the related category to this article during the ArbCom case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject.





I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for this article and for most of the articles in the related categories here on Wikipedia. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic bans from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These are also relevant to the article on the history of th controversy; I will post the refs there, but if you have read them you might wish to spend some time seeing how you can improve that article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting WBB's arbitrary title changes
WBB recently changed the titles of several intelligence-related articles, including Height and intelligence, Sex and intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence, Health and intelligence, and Fertility and intelligence, and has also tried to change the title of this article. As he very well knew from discussions on R&I talk pages, there was no consensus for doing so. WP:MOVE says that "if you believe the move might be controversial (consider using the movenotice template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page", yet WBB did not use the template and failed to start a single discussion about this. As pointed out by Ferahgo above, WBB's stated reasons for these changes in edit summaries were disingenuous and circular -- he justified changing the titles by referring to his own on-going attempt to change them! The fact that he changed the names of related articles before attempting to change Race and intelligence is also peculiar, because when there was discussion about changing the name of this article, it was pointed out to WBB that Race and intelligence is similar to titles of related articles -- as instructed in WP:TITLE. Did he change the names of other articles to circumvent this guideline?

Moreover, the problem here is not only that WBB failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines, but also that the new titles are very clumsy and misleading. The associations between IQ and height, health, fertility, religion etc. are rarely if ever talked about in terms of group differences. This research generally deals with correlations between IQ and various criterion variables within populations, and to talk about these differences as group differences is misleading.

The old names of these articles satisfy WP:TITLE very nicely, and in fact I don't there had been any discussion about changing their names. There has been discussion only about the name of Race and intelligence, and based on the discussion in the section above, this article will not be renamed Group differences in IQ by race, either.

In light of the above, I will now restore the old article names to the extent it is possible. If you think some of these articles should be renamed, please discuss it with others to reach consensus before doing anything.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all fine and good, but perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves with renaming. I would suggest it might be a good spot to take an inventory of articles and have a clearer picture of what each covers out of the whole. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that we stay away from "disingenuous", "circumventing guidelines", et al. discussions. Visiting pre-arbitration past conflict upon post-arbitration activities will only put us right back where we were to begin with. If you can't assume good faith, take a break. Otherwise we'll just keep dragging ourselves back down into the morass. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. @Victor: I strongly suggest you go back and strike inflammatory, accusatory and unhelpful rhetoric like "Did he change the names of other articles to circumvent this guideline?" P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor is entitled to his opinion, and I am slow to take offense. I think that indeed now it is time to review broadly the issue of the subarticle structure of the various related articles and the issue of how each subarticle should be named. We have just come out of an arbitration case with active sanctions applicable to a whole category of articles and to articles closely related to this article. There are Wikipedia policies about article naming and neutral point of view, and there are  reliable secondary sources about the underlying professional literature on the related subjects, and those ought to provide a basis for reaching a reasoned consensus. I am reminded by a recent diff on this page that not all persons who surf by this page are willing to seek out sources and discuss what the sources mean calmly and without personal attacks, but I am happy to work with anyone who is willing to follow Wikipedia policy and what the sources say. P.S. Victor is incorrect when he says I didn't invite discussion of this issue. I did. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My point to Victor was that discussing motivations and tactics is not our purpose here. We've all seen where that discussion ends up. Meanwhile, I've had personal interchanges with everyone here (including Victor), who have unanimously professed to wish to advance content by sticking to the subject matter. I've been given no reason to question anyone's sincerity; that we are sincere means we must be vigilant to not backslide into the conflict of the past; we must resist the natural, involuntary, impetus to frame any disagreement as a continuation of past conflict. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WBB, yes, you did bring up the subject of changing article names several weeks ago, but you were rebuked by others then, so you should have known that changing the names of a half dozen articles a few weeks later without any warning beforehand would not go over smoothly. I will temper my comments, and I hope that from now on you will not make major changes to articles before they have been talked through.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's at it again, again with no discussion or proposal before renaming. Interesting that he would mark this as a "minor" edit... -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead
I don't know what was going on in the lead half of it was dedicated to very specific conclusions by Bouchard that weren't even mentioned in the article body. I removed those since the lead is not the place to present any particular research results (unless there is a strong consensus that they are of prime importance), but rather a place to describe and introduce the general topic. I think that maybe a good exercise in working towards a balanced article would be writing a balanced lead that briefly summarises the different points that we want to have in the article. I'll be working on a draft to present here. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

·Maunus· ƛ · 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first off, is it the heredity that is high, or the heritability? I think we need to be careful about what language we use.  I thought heredity was a principle and not a quantity.  heritability is a quantity, but it is a measure of the difference of within-group variation that is caused by heritable factors.  it is not a meaure of between-group difference.  I think you want to say that some people think that most of the differences between groups are caused by genetic or inherited factors.


 * This is not just semantics: all sociologists and anthropologists will agree that the kind of intelligence human beings have is different from the kind of intelligence sharks have for entirely genetic reasons. In this context, no one denies the great importance of heredity to intelligence.


 * I think hereditarians and social constructionists are equally concerned with group variance, they just propose different explanations for it, no?


 * Also, bio-medicine is the application of biological knowledge to medical practice. I am not aware of any medical practice concerning cognitive deficits that take a race-based approach.


 * Finally, I do not think anyone ever demonstrated that geneticists take a "hereditarian" approach to the racial gap in IQ.


 * I appreciate the work you put into this but I think these are big issues.


 * Reading over this I am again struck that while the debate today is between psychologists and anthropologists (largely), Jensen was really responding to the civil rights movement. In 1954 the NAACP legal team had to convince the Supreme Court that blacks suffered intellectually because of separate schooling.  Jensen is writing at the height of the affirmative action experiment, suggesting that genetics could be an important cause of the difference.  My point is that before Jensen arguments - by anthropologists, but by MANY others - about racial equality of intelligence between blacks and whites was in the context of segregated schooling, and Jensen is suggesting a reason why affirmative action might fail.  I am not suggesting this be raised in the lead but I think this context needs to be in the body of the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hjave changed heredity to heritability as you are of course right in that observation, I have also changed the passaged about group variance to show that it is the causality proposed that differs. I agree with the view you have of the importance of putting Jensen into the right context. I am unsure myself about whether to mention genetics and biomedicine as loci of hereditarian support - I mostly have this view from the likes of RAFrye and Mikemikev who seem very adamant that this is the dominant view in their disciplines - I find less support for this when reading genetical literature - although there does seem to be more of a tendency to accept the possibility of genetical bases for race in genetics and biomedicinal research (e.g. in text books such as vogel and motulskys human genetics). I wouldn't mind removing mentions genetics and biomedicine in that paragraph, but I would await further evidence that it either is or isn't a dominant view in the disciplines before making a decision.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A few observations:
 * Should Rushton's "life history" theory be devoted a full half paragraph in the lead? My concern is notability as a scientific hypothesis (the theory is much decried and has little support outside of hereditarians, and is criticized even within this circle.) However, I can certainly be convinced either way. I'm just trying to see where editor consensus lies on this.


 * this school of thought often rejects the notion of racial groups as having any objective validity I believe should rather read: this school of thought often rejects the notion of racial groups as having any biological validity. A social construct is perfectly valid and absolutely real in its own field (anthropology), it just doesn't necessarily have biological validity.


 * Assigning specific scientist groups to the hereditarian and environmentalist viewpoint, despite being a fair approximation, strikes me as OR in the context of this article, unless a source can be provided making the same rough classification. Could we abstain from including this paragraph until a source is found that makes the same conclusions?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Rushton's theory merits mention and it isn't half a paragraph but only a single sentence. I agree with your change to biological validity and with the idea that the assignation of disciplines to the views need more discussion. There are plenty of sources describing the environmentalist view as the dominant view in anthropology, and there is the Rothman & Snyderman study for psychologists - as I said in my response to Slrubensteing the other groups are mostly there because I take RAfryes and Mikemikev's word for what is the status in their fields - they would need sourcing to be included.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead that Maunus wrote is pretty good. I would change these two paragraphs to read:

The arguments presented in favor of the environmentalist hypothesis have met counter claims by hereditarian researchers who hold that while environmental factors do affect intelligence, genetic explanations are more plausible because the heritability of intelligence is quite high (about 60 to 80%). They also maintain that while genetic variance within racial groups is great there is a basis for associating specific populations with higher frequencies of specific genetic variants, and that there is no reason that some of these variants couldn't be related to intelligence. Hereditarian researchers generally see the Flynn effect as negligible in explaining racial differences in intelligence within modern industrialized nations and they argue that Spearman's g-factor is well supported in psychometrics.

The hereditarian hypothesis has most of its followers within the fields of psychometrics, genetics and evolutionary psychology, disciplines that often follow the research of Francis Galton stressing hereditary human trait variation, whereas the environmentalist hypothesis is supported by a majority of scholars within the fields of anthropology and sociology, disciplines that tend to rest on the research of Franz Boas stressing cultural relativism and the psychic unity of mankind. --- Many hereditarians are open to the view that the Flynn effect may well explain some of the cause for the low average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans. The current measured average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans (often measured at about 65 to 70) might increase to higher levels (perhaps 78 to 82 range) if these Blacks benefited from the Flynn effect (often attributed factors such as better nutrition, better schooling, and more varied cognitive stimulation). But many hereditarians feel that it is too much of a stretch to see the Flynn effect as explaining race differences WITHIN modern Western societies.Rafrye (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated your changes, except for the estimation of 60 - 80% which I think is not imporatnt to have in the lead - and which is probably challenged by the environmentalist side anyway.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with this draft:


 * It's too big. A lead section should not try to summarize all the relevant material, but rather just give a general outline. Moreover, the recommendation is that a lead section have no more than four paragraphs.


 * While I think the general "racial hierarchy" of mean IQ scores should be mentioned in the lead, I don't think the very first paragraph is the right place for that.


 * I don't think there's a need to mention any researchers by name, except perhaps Jensen.


 * Historically, we should go farther than the 1960s and Jensen. Early racial taxonomists speculated about intelligence differences, and Darwin thought that races "differ chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties". Galton was probably the first to try to quantify racial differences, but the first large-scale data sets of racial IQ differences were obtained only by the US military during WW1. This was followed by a backlash, with Boasians and behaviorists criticizing the Galtonian perspective, although I don't think their views really took over the universities until the 1960s. However, this history is currently not properly described in the history section, either.


 * Criticisms of IQ as a measure of intelligence and of race as a biological concept should be expressed more succintly.


 * No need to discuss Spearman and g in the lead; let's just say IQ.


 * I don't think we can say that certain academic disciplines support hereditarianism, while others don't, even if this was true to some extent.


 * The Flynn effect may play a part in explaining low IQ scores in the developing world, but it cannot explain them in, say, the US. Flynn himself put it this way in a recent article in Intelligence: "I never claimed that the Flynn Effect had causal relevance for the black/white IQ gap. I claimed that it had analytic relevance." In other words, whatever causes the Flynn effect is not related to the b-w gap; the b-w gap is qualitatively different from the Flynn differences between generations. However, because the Flynn effect demonstrates that large IQ gains are possible due to environmental/cultural change, it's possible to speculate, as Flynn does, that large improvements in environmental/cultural factors affecting blacks could close the b-w gap.


 * In general, I think the lead should be much more concise, with fewer details, than this draft.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not unwilling to try and condense it a bit -although I am afraid that it will be at the expense of accuracy. While Flynn hasn't claimed causality himself - others certainly have -anyway what I am saying isn't that whatever causes the Flynn effect also causes the gap but that the Flynn effect shows that envrionmental effects demonstrably influence IQ - also to the degree that the entire gap could be accounted for by environmental influences.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think we need to mention the hierarchy in the first paragraph - specifically if we condense the rest of the lead, because we'll be referring back to that - also it is the basic substance of the topic.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paragraph about the disciplines for now although I like it as I think it provides good perspectives on the two clashing paradigms at work, and I think it is both factual and verifiable.But we can argue about inclusion later, for now it is fine to take it out thereby shortening the lead to four paragraphs.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) A comment on "adding Slrubenstein's concerns "above (and this is with reference to already existing wording), I think "postulated" for suggested (as that verb is used again later) and "could be" instead of "were" might be better representations given Jensen's own description of his position, plus there's a bit of repetitive words and common, but not correct, use of due to...
 * ...century. A revival of the systematic investigation of intelligence differences and race was sparked by research done in the 1960's by Arthur Jensen who postulated that the consistent differences in IQ and academic achievements between children identified as belonging to "black" or "white" racial groups could be ascribed to genetic factors...
 * P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Revival" might not be the right word, but "paradigm" rather suggests a method of research that lit the way for everyone to follow, as pioneered by Jensen, which is not the case. "The current revival..." perhaps. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. If the proposed lead gets big enough, that can become our introduction section with only the briefest of actual leads. (!) P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe very strongly in the tenet of WP:LEAD that leads shosuld be full summaries of their articles.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion about the lead - anyone remember how during arbitration mathsci brought up the version from April? It was an outcome of the mediation. It was agreed upon by him as well as the people who usually opposed him on everything. Most of the people who liked this version of the lead are now either banned or aren't around, so their opinions don't count, but I think it counts for a lot that any version of the lead could be supported by people whose viewpoints usually differed so hugely. Here's April’s version:

I like this one better mostly just because it's more concise and still accurately summarizes the rest of the article. What do you guys think? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus for reintroducing this version I won't oppose - Although I do think that moving forward is generally not to be done by moving backwards. Also as I mentioned I believe in the usage of WP:LEAD which clearly states that the lead should be a summary of the article able to stand alone - that means that we should consider the lead a blueprint for the rest of the article. I don't think the april lead works as a blueprint for the rest of the article since it doesn't actually mention any of the main points such as the arguments for and against the two main hypotheses. ·Maunus· ƛ · 23:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your version's not bad either. Perhaps we could incorporate elements from both? I do think that in general conciseness is a good quality for a lead to have. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this last version digged up by Ferahgo, but I would change some things in it:


 * The debate about race and intelligence did not start with the invention of intelligence testing. The topic had been discussed by biologists, anthropologists and philosophers for centuries before that. This should be made clear.


 * A bit too much credence is given to the environmentalist explanation versus the (partially) genetic explanation. The Neisser et al. report, for example, was agnostic about the causes. If we changed just a few words or added a few modifiers, the section would be more balanced.


 * There's no need to cite the Neisser et al. report, or anything else in the lead.


 * The section is rather short for an article this big. We could add another paragraph.

In general, I think it's a good idea to check out old versions of this article and whatever has been discussed previously on the talk pages. An enormous amount of work has been put into this article over the years, and it's clear that often when we're devising new changes to it, we're re-inventing the wheel.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We should remember that past versions were always decided upon because it was the best improvement to an already crappy article that a certain group could agree on - there has never been an actually good version, just different shades of bad, incrementally improving towards now. Rolling the debate six months back is not going to make the article better but worse.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you compare the current article with what it was a few years ago, they may not share more than a handful of paragraphs, and it's too optimistic to think that all the change has been for the best.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SAT scores
Let's get back to the discussion about whether the article should include stuff about racial gaps in SAT scores. Aprock said (here) the removal of the charts was based on their lack of a context that relates them to race and IQ, which was a fair point. Victor then said he'd look for more sources with similar data in the right context, and if he's found any I think it'd be nice to include them.

In general though, I think a section that talks about SAT scores would be a good place for some info about IQ's predictive validity and how that relates to the question of test bias. The current lead states that the APA concluded the racial IQ gap is not a result of test bias, and the "group differences" section mentions this is because IQ scores are equally valid predictors of achievement in other areas, regardless of race. Test bias and predictive validity are pretty big questions in the race/IQ debate, though, so it seems like they deserve more coverage than this in the article.

I recently got a copy of S. & C. Modgil's book "Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy" from 1987, which talks a bit about how racial IQ gaps relate to gaps in other areas like SAT scores and income. It seems like a decent source, but there might be more recent sources and I assume Victor's more familiar with this than me. I was wondering if he (or anyone else who’s familiar with the sources about this) would be interested in writing up a draft for us of a section about IQ's predictive validity, and how that relates to test bias as well as IQ gaps in areas like SAT scores. What do you guys think? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't hink that any of the works I've written while participating in this debate uses SAT scores as evidence, I don't know why we would.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * SAT scores are highly correlated with IQ, and they are sometimes mentioned in the race & IQ literature. For example, in their "30 years" review paper, Jensen and Rushton cite Roth et al. 2001:


 * Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; N = 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE; N = 2.3 million)


 * They also say something about predictive validity:


 * Because the means for Blacks and Hispanics are lower on tests of academic and vocational achievement, such as the SAT, the General Aptitude Test Battery, and the ASVAB, than those for Whites and East Asians, some have claimed the tests are racially biased. Yet the evidence reviewed and the distributional model predict that such differences will occur worldwide (see Section 3). This is supported by the fact that these tests have about equal predictive validity for all groups who speak the same language and have been schooled in the culture of the test.
 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're performing synth here. The source does not say that the SAT or GRE gap is in any way representative of the intelligence gap, it only observes that those gaps also exist. aprock (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is "intelligence gap" versus "testing gap." They are all testing gaps in quantifying skills which span cognition and knowledge. That any tests represent "intelligence" is the ultimate synthesis here and the foundation underpinning the validity and meaningfulness of all such tests.
 * The other problem is being as U.S.-centric as the topic is. IMHO, the deeper you test in one (national) society, the more you reflect the society and not any group or individual. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find countless secondary sources which equate IQ with intelligence in some degree. However, your insight is correct in the sense that IQ represents only one of many theories of human intelligence.  It's for this reason that I've in the past supported renaming to Race and IQ.  If pressed, I would support that again. aprock (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than changing the name of the article, why not include those other theories of intelligence in this article? Many of these alternative theories seem to have been invented in part because of the persistent IQ gaps between races.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't propose changing the name of the article. aprock (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups
There is one aspect that seems to be missing in this chapter, i.e. the question of deliberate inbreeding.

According to the Danish Police, who rely on expert testimonies, the excessive degree of criminality amongst Arab immigrants to Denmark is partly due to their high degree of cousin-marriages. This inbreeding has led to many young Arab immigrants and their children being mentally challenged, which in turn leads to poor communication skills, lack of impulse-control and lack of consequence awareness.

In countries where consanguinity is common (middle east) the rate of mental retardation is higher than in countries with no cousin marriages. A Swedish study designed to determine if this was a factor also in Sweden found the following. Severe mental retardation in Sweden as a whole affects 3 children out of 1000. However, in one Swedish suburb with a high proportion of inhabitants of non-European origins the prevalence of severe mental retardation amongst children was 4.5 out of 1000, i.e. 50% higher than the Swedish average.

It seems that culturally determined marriage practices are a very influential factor on intelligence of races, and should have their own sub-section.--Slottet Katrineholm (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The danish police is not a reliable source about either race, intelligence or cultural practices of any ethnic groups. There is a chapter about inbreeding depression in Vogel and Motulskis book about genetics and it does mention that certain recessive genetic variants that cause disease and mental retardation are prevalent in populations that have practiced inbreeding. But again, the correlation itself is not proff of causality - there might be several other reasons for higher rates of mental retardation in certain populations. In Western countries for example people with mental disabilities rarely have a chance to procreate and in the twentieth century eugenics era have even been forcefully sterilized (negative selection). But it is a good point that several cultural practices do affect both intelligence and genetic heritage.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 


 * The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Airplaneman   ✈  02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence → Group differences in IQ by race — for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient and for agreement with the mainstream recent literature of psychology and related disciplines. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (ec) The use of "intelligence" in the current title is far too encompassing and opens any discussion of differences in IQ scoring to allegations of racial superiority or inferiority, attracting the wrong thinking to the article and to IQ testing in general. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ferahgo, below: As SATs are U.S. specific, I would suggest a section called "Other tests associated with quantifying intelligence" and still keep the IQ title. I appreciate your point, however, "Race and group differences in results of tests which are designed for or are associated with quantifying intelligence or knowledge" is a bit of a mouthful. One can also argue that SAT scores are more a measure of the education one has received and one's motivations and familial/social pressures to receive it (or not)—not whether or not they are intrinsically "smart." P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Maunus: Thank you for that, I was actually reading it as you propose, "and race", not "by race." WeijiBaikeBianji, would you mind updating your rename proposal? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Last comment for now, "Race and IQ" alone would be an improvement, I think; "Group differences in IQ" not focused on race is then a useful supplement to discussing statistics, etc. without the race card in play. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Victor: "Race and intelligence" only has a bit over a one-thirds more lead over "Race and IQ" in the same Google search, let's not use Google to argue the case here. If we are discussing standardized tests and their results as they correlate to "race", "IQ" would be the more apt term to use; if we are discussing not only measurements of but aspects of intelligence beyond (largely) standardized tests, then "intelligence" would be the more apt term to use. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but we're not arguing over the title here, we're (implicitly) arguing over what the article is about, and there are more constructive ways of doing that. Ferahgo is completely correct in associating scope and title. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've seen "what other things are named on Wikipedia" produce some truly bad results. Any change in name must be done solely on the merits here, not on the basis of parallels. There's no debate on what "sex" or "height" are, but there is on "race." P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Put another way, does the article as envisioned include sections:
 * Race and IQ
 * Race and other quantified tests associated with intelligence [SATs et al.]
 * Race and other aspects of intelligence [anthropological/societal values, aboriginal cultures, etc.]
 * #1 and #2 (= "IQ"), or #1 and #2 and #3 (= "intelligence")? We'll leave the problem with implications of superiority or inferiority aside for the moment. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The main reason for the proposed rename is parallelism with the section title in the main article Intelligence quotient (which follows the recent professional literature in that regard). Thanks to Maunus for explaining the procedure for this request in the section above. Peters correctly points out that the current title, which is also attested in the literature, tends to trigger cognitive illusions in editors newly approaching the article (from more than one "side" of real-world debate on the subject) and thus makes for a less optimal editing environment. Of course all editors should redouble efforts to make sure the article is neutral in point of view and reflects the most reliable secondary sources on the subject, including discussions of differences in terminology among writers on the subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no parallelism with the section in Intelligence quotient, where Group differences refers to both sex and race differences; it's an umbrella term. This article is just about race differences in intelligence, which is why it is called Race and intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This was already discussed here and I pretty much agree with Victor's reasoning for keeping the current title. Three main reasons for this:
 * 1. It's consistent with a lot of similar Wikipedia articles, like Fertility and Intelligence (and quite a few others)
 * 2. "Race and Intelligence" is the most common way that authors who write about it refer to the topic, from both sides of the debate
 * 3. The article encompasses other measures of intelligence besides IQ, like reaction time testing and possibly SAT (the SAT charts have been removed until we can provide some context for them, but hopefully that will happen eventually). IQ in the title is too narrow a focus.
 * As a brief aside - I see that WBB has successfully changed the titles of several other intelligence-related articles just this morning, like Sex and intelligence, Height and intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence, and Health and intelligence - and it appears he didn't bother discussing any of them first. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I think that the proposed name may be unfelicitious as it seems to take the concept of race for granted. What I wish more than anything is exactly for the article to give an understanding of why race is not a concept that can simply be taken for granted. I think a better name would be "Group differences in IQ and race" (where the "and" serves to make it a subject of discussion instead of merely the factor by which IQ is categorized) or "Race and group differences in IQ". However I also recognze that using IQ instead of race may be limiting the scope of the article in an unhelpful way.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree now with Maunus's comment Also taking into account Aprock's thoughtful comment, I think Maunus has come up with a good improvement over several less satisfactory choices. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus's proposals are convoluted and imprecise in meaning; they contradict WP:TITLE.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose I agree that the current name isn't ideal, but the proposed name is a mess. I mean, we could name the article "IQ and a couple of other intelligence measures discussed generally in the context of self identified race/ethnicity."  I think that Race and IQ might be an improvement, but the proposed change is too cumbersome. aprock (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I value your view. If you think the current name is not ideal, can you propose a better one?  How about my proposal (below)? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * strong oppose For the reasons stated above by Ferahgo. See also discussion here. Race and intelligence is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent with other titles (until today). It is also an expression widely used by academics, unlike WBB's proposal. WBB's title changes of related articles will have to be reverted, because he did not discuss it with others (which is weird considering his edit history), and there certainly was no consensus for doing it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the discussion here. Drawing parallels and inferences without discussing the details underneath is how these debates turn into brawls. Yes? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "parallels and inferences" I have drawn, but I find WBB's behavior here very unconstructive. We are having endless discussions about even very minor details in these articles, yet he makes major, difficult to reverse changes to several related articles without even a peep beforehand!--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It's a step in the right direction. Despite Victor insisting that the current title is precise, the lead of the article correctly says "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence..." IQ narrows it down to something that can be defined. Just leaves the other half, race, being poorly defined. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose I view the change of "Health and Intelligence" to "Group Differences in IQ by Health" as a terrible change and I speak as someone who is pursuing research on why IQ differences (measured in childhood) correlate with mortality from cardiovascular disease decades later. In this regard, most researchers in the field see IQ as the independent variable and cardiovascular health as the dependent variable, but WBB's change messes up the meaning of the title by implying that causation should go ONLY from health to IQ (but in reality the causation can go either way depending upon the particular association one is studying).Rafrye (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * — Rafrye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose In regard to the proposed change of "Race and Intelligence" to "Group Differences in IQ by Race", it is an attempt to narrow down the discussion regarding differences in intelligence (general cognitive ability or "g") to the discussion of differences only in performance on specifically designated IQ tests. This is very different from how most intelligence researchers view the concept of "intelligence", instead they view intelligence differences as causing differences in performance on many different types of tests and everyday life and career challenges that require the use of cognition and reasoning ability. Intelligence experts have published papers showing that IQ (g) correlates about 0.7 to 0.8 with scores on math tests, academic achievement tests, and SAT and ACT tests. The modern view is that ALL cognitively demanding tests tap the SAME reservoir of mental ability regardless of whether the test is technically designated as an "IQ test" or an "academic achievement test". This Race and Intelligence article should include mention that the view espoused by Galtonian/hereditarian scholars (such as Eysenck, Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Herrnstein, Murray, Gottfredson, Harpending et al.) sees ethnoracial group differences in intelligence as being the most important and key cause of racial differences in academic achievement, SAT/ACT scores, career success, earned income etc. One of the important aspects of this Jensenist viewpoint is that it provides a very broad and wide-ranging explanation for many issues of race group performance differences aside from just racial differences on narrowly defined IQ tests. There is ample evidence from peer reviewed articles by major scholars (Wendy Johnson, Matt McGue, Dorret Boomsma, Robert Plomin, Ian Deary, Douglas Detterman, Nicholas Martin and many others) that IQ-type intelligence very strongly affects academic achievement; thus there really is no valid reason that this article omits linkage of race differences in intelligence to race differences in academic achievement. Again to summarize, this proposed name change is just another effort to try to strangle and suppress the true import and implications of race differences in intelligence.Rafrye (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it should be pointed out that WeijiBaikeBianji has been renaming the other "Intelligence" articles all day, starting this morning. So far he's successfully renamed Height and intelligence, Sex and intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence, Health and intelligence, and Fertility and intelligence. Every single one of these renames was done without discussing it with anyone first. Note that the reason given for his R&I rename proposal was "for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient and for agreement with the mainstream recent literature of psychology and related disciplines." This was posted literally while he was in the process of renaming the other articles, and this is the only one he's bothered discussing with anyone first. (As soon as I linked to "Fertility and intelligence" in my original comment as something consistent with this article's current title, he changed that one too!) Does this strike anyone else as a bit... odd? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best way of dealing with any problem you might have with other renameings is to bring them up on the appropriate talk pages. aprock (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a specific problem with other individual renamings that I'm taking issue with here (though they're probably problems also, as per Rafrye's explanation). The issue here is that he used this as one of his MAIN lines of reasoning in urging a rename on this article: "for parallelism with other subarticles of Intelligence quotient." The key word is "parallelism." These other "intelligence" articles were NOT parallel to his R&I rename suggestion before this morning, when he mass-changed all of them at once. Let's look at the sequence of events:


 * 1. WBB renames four articles without discussing it beforehand, which goes against the instructions given here.
 * 2. He then suggests renaming this article, and one of his central arguments for the rename is that the new name should be consistent with all of these other intelligence-related articles that he had just renamed.
 * 3. I point out that the new suggested name would not be consistent with a load of other intelligence articles, and cited Fertility and intelligence as an example.
 * 4. Immediately after this, WBB renames the fertility article too.


 * The point is, his "parallelism" argument means nothing if the only reasons these other articles have this name at all is because he renamed them all this morning without discussing it with anyone. I could use the same argument if I wanted to rename this article "Race and postage stamps" and before proposing that change, I renamed every similar article to include "postage stamps" in the title. At least it would be consistent then!


 * Additionally, I think it's a bit unfair for the onus to be on me (or Victor or Rafrye) for bringing this up on the talk pages of the other articles to get a consensus for reverting the name change. WBB violated customary procedure by renaming them without discussion, so I think it would make the most sense for the renames to be reverted, and THEN Weiji makes an argument on the talk page for renaming and achieves consensus before the names are changed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's achieved consensus here. It looks like a pretty solid "no consensus" to me.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose You've over-thought this. That might be an apt title for an academic article, but not for an encyclopedia. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * — Cant1lev3r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - and that's my concern here. Too many editors think that it's OK to use sloppy, imprecise kanguage in Wikipedia. Now that's something I totally oppose. This article too often uses the terms IQ and intelligence as if they are interchangeable, and treats race too often as if it has a precise definition, after correctly telling us that it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This user registered yesterday only to make these comments - might suggest a case of meat puppetry.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't manufacture precision where it doesn't exist. The convoluted syntax of the proposed title doesn't improve anything. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The proposed title is clumsy, but the current one is somewhat dishonest. My preference is for the whole article to disappear. It's built on a very shoddy base. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "You've overthought this" just is not a good reason to oppose Maunus's proposal. RfCs work only if people commenting offer serious comments that address the actual issue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, with modification. HiLo48 is right - encyclopedia articles should not have sloppy titles, and "race and intelligence" is vague and confusing.  I take Ferahgo's point that data is not restricted to IQ tests, but the fact remains that "intelligence" itself is under question, what we mean by it and how it is measured, and the dat is not at all clearly about "intelligence."  If one of the points of argument is whether the tests really are measuring intelligence, then to suggest so in the title violates NPOV.  I suggest instead of replacing "intelligence" with "IQ," we replace it with "Intelligence Tests" or "Intelligence Testing" to be more inclusive.  That addresses Ferahgo's valid point.  "Race" is also under question, and really the article is primarily about diferent average socres of tests among two or three specific races.  Why have a title that obscures this important point.  I propose: Racial groups and IQ testing and if people think this is a step forward but can still be improved upon, well, great.  This RfC shows that there is serious disatisfaction with the current title.  If the original proposal doesn't have consensus, let's use these commetns to create a conersation that moves us towards a consensus, if possible. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say that I prefer Racial groups to Race. aprock (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) My support of "IQ" was/is as a shorthand for "intelligence testing"; thinking out loud, "Intelligence testing and race" or "Intelligence testing and racial groups" would work, it's the "testing" which is the primary topic and should come first. This addresses my original concerns (prior to subsequent updates) about the lede not being clear as it should be on quantification of test results, etc. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you to everyone for comments. There are, of course, Wikipedia policies about naming articles, and I definitely want to end up with a name here that fits those policies. Several editors have made thoughtful suggestions (not all in perfect agreement with one another), and I'm still thinking about this. I see some consensus developing that may achieve common naming, clarity about the article's topic, and other desiderata under Wikipedia policy. I had actually hoped for more discussion of this issue of the article title the first time I mentioned the issue on this talk page, and now that focused discussion has ensued everyone is welcome to participate as we forge a consensus. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for many of the reasons given above--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As most people are opposed to renaming the article, and more than seven days has passed since the beginning of the discussion, this section is no longer current. I'm not sure what the procedure is here though.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A neutral editor will close the discussion (though RM is backlogged so this may not happen in a hurry). Just leave it as it is. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reconsidering the renaming issue
I'm considering opening up discussion from a fresh start on the general issue of optimal names (under Wikipedia policy, and in view of the reliable sources on the related topics) for this Wikipedia article and the several closely linked Wikipedia articles. What I'm doing at the moment is reviewing the Wikipedia policy on article names for guidance on general principles to apply here. That policy notes that it should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.

The willingness of several editors here to advance rationales for this name or that name has been helpful to the discussion and I thank all of you for the food for thought. It will be especially interesting to examine specific sources, particularly encyclopedic sources and other general reference works for practitioners and for the general public, to check the terminological distinctions in those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really think renaming should be a central focus right now. I think Race and Intelligence is a not unreasonable name.  It's short, succinct, and sufficiently general enough to handle the imprecision in definitions.  Currently, the pace of research into genetics is assiduously deprecating most of the content in this article.  It's difficult to formulate an optimal title founded on those slowly shifting sands. aprock (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's best to write backwards, from my ancient essay writing days: write the essay; write the summary; make the summary the lead; add a tight recap of points at the end to replace the summary; give it a title appropriate to the key points covered. Too much time on leads and titles up front is a bit like the tail wagging the dog if the content isn't done—as counter-intuitive as that may seem at first. Just an observation. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Peters, I agree that that is good writing advice. And I find Aprock's point interesting too. Maybe this is the pace at which to reconsider the renaming articles part of the clean-up after the ArbCom case: work steadily at better sourcing of this article and linked articles, to better uphold the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, and then the most fitting (among competing trade-offs) title for each article will be a matter of second nature. I'm glad to see that there appear to be editors who are committed to digging deeply into the sources and being sure of what the sources say as we continue with article edits. Further mutual discussion should bring about genuine consensus about which titles may most need to be revised (and which articles need to be merged or deleted, etc.). Pressing toward neutral point of view is the main policy issue, while article titles (and article structure) are just signs of how well that policy issue is being addressed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

¿Wikiproject?
With all the sturm und drang (and how easily we fall into, minimally, lecturing at each other) reflective of the importance (aside from controversies) of the overall subject matter, I would suggest that it is long overdue to have a dedicated Wikiproject, "Human Intelligence", to pull all this stuff together in a comprehensive manner and attract wider participation. I'm a bit gobsmacked there isn't one already, although I rather suspect that's symptomatic of the abysmal historical cooperation in this topic area. As an aside, in that vein, I would suggest that anyone who realizes that they are talking at someone (I've certainly been guilty of this myself) step back and ask some more questions to work at bridging the divide. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea about Wikiproject. Lots of work though.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea. :) It'll attract more people to the articles and will probably make everything more organized. I'm willing to help with the work it'll take, too (as long as I'm allowed to keep participating here... which looks a bit iffy at this point). -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What would be the distinction between the proposed WikiProject and the WikiProjects that now categorize various articles about this subject? I think that something like a dozen different WikiProjects already have editors watching this article or the most closely linked articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @WeijiBaikeBianji: My strong sense is that this subject area is currently a "child" of a number of different areas all having something to say about it, but fully encompassed by none. While editors may be aware of the subject matter area through existing Wikiprojects, there is, in fact, nowhere in one place where the organization of the subject matter for encyclopedic presentation can be discussed. The other issue is simply the inevitable forking of similar discussions across multiple article talk pages when we could have Wikiproject subpages devoted to specific areas of issues—including, for example, a central archive for references, one of which you currently maintain in your user space. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would make more sense to place certian aspects of this article under a wiki project on race and/or on racism. (Though perhaps it could be under both.) One of the great conflicts at this article is between sociologists and the deterministic race scientists. I wonder of a "human intelligence" project would tend to attract people who think that human intelligence is well understood, well defined and easy to measure with simple tests? futurebird (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sociologists seem to have contributed little of substance to this field of research. Moreover, it's misleading to speak of hereditarian researchers as determinists, because every single one of them thinks that both genetic and cultural/environmental factors contribute to group differences in traits like IQ. In contrast, anti-hereditarians insist that only the latter kinds of factors can influence group differences.


 * The scientific problems involved in research on race & IQ are largely those of intelligence testing in general, so R&I is obviously a subcategory of the proposed Human intelligence Wikiproject.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Victor, when you write, "Sociologists seem to have contributed little of substance to this field of research," you make me wonder what sources you have been reading. Both Charles Murray and James R. Flynn were formally trained as sociologists, and both (especially Flynn) have had high-impact publications related to this field. Definitely the topic belongs at least as much to the WikiProject on sociology as it does to some of the other WikiProjects that might claim it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Flynn and Murray's contributions are all about psychometrics, not about anything sociologists traditionally study.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"views on research"-draft
the "views on research"-section is rather lengthy and i propose to shorten it. i suggest we remove the nisbett vs rushton and the gottfredson vs nisbett/sternberg/hunt/carlson-quotes, keeping only the quotes from the books by jensen and nisbett. with these changes the section looks like the following:

-- mustihussain (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything should be removed from the section as such except perhaps the Gottfredson quote about triarchic theory which is not directly related to R&I. The real problem with the section is the excessive reliance on direct quotes. I think most of the quotes should be removed and replaced with paraphrases. Not only are direct quotations, when used to such an extent, unencyclopedic, but they are also frequently unhelpful from the perspective of the reader, because in them many studies, concepts, and arguments are referred to, often just in passing, that have not been referred to and explained earlier in the article. For example, Flynn talks about the black-white IQ gap and the "g pattern" disappearing in Germany, and about blacks losing ground on whites with age, but neither the German study nor the fact that the B-W gap grows with age have been discussed previously in the article. Furthermore, the Flynn and Jensen quotes in your draft version are solely about the B-W gap, which, while the primary focus of many scholars, is not the only thing that the R&I literature deals with. If we got rid of most of the direct quotes, the section would become shorter.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's my draft for "Views on research":

--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you agree that my version above is an improvement on what there is in the article now, and on mustihussain's proposal? I will put it in the article unless there's opposition.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While your prose is better (especially because of fewer bulet points) Mustihuassain's and the current version has the advantage of providing sources that espouse the different views. Also your version gives the first and the last argument to the hereditarians framing the issue in a particular fashion. I think the section should make it clearer that part of the problem is that intelligence and race are both contested categories that can be seen as having a higher or lower degree of naturalness or culturalness depending on which school of thought on approaches the problem from.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A problem with all of the version is the the view attributed to Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd is in fact held by a dozen other researchers and published in more influential publications: Jonathan Marks' "human biodiversity", Alexander Alland jr.'s "race in mind" among others. Sternberg et al is important because it shows that neither of the categories are accepted, but it makes it look as if this viewpoint is limited to them. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean about me not providing sources? Are you talking about the four-point list, because other than that I don't see how I fail to mention sources. I don't think we should mention Ogbu and others unless we also discuss their arguments in more detail, and in any case it's the arguments that are important, not who made them. We can add some comment from some anti-Jensenist at the end of the section, if that is what you think it needs. I also think that the paragraph about the b-w gap could be omitted here, because it's something that's discussed elsewhere in the article, and a "Views on research" section should be about more general, meta-theoretical and ethical issues. Go ahead and add Marks and whoever to the draft above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was the Ogbu and other sources given as examples of scholars arguing the different positions. You may be right that it makes little sense mentioning them without a discussion of their views - but I remember that they were included after a rather long discussion where people were arguing that it was simplifying the debate to identify positions without mentioning anyone who holds those positions.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Victor I like your version. To mollify Maunus' concern about the hereditarians getting the last word you could switch the order of the last two paragraphs. Hereditarians do not agree that race is an invalid concept but instead we suspect that environmentalists are raising it as a "pseudo-issue" in a last desperate gambit to stave off the hereditarian race/IQ theory--most environmentalists are just fine with "race" when the concept is used to further left-wing objectives (e.g. Affirmative Action) but raise problems only when it is used by hereditarians. As I pointed out in a previous post, many of the top human population genomics scholars use the concept of race ALL THE TIME in their work but they mask it from the PC-Police by using the euphemism "human population" to refer to the concept of race in their papers and press releases. Also the British Boasian stalwart Rose (unlike S.J. Gould) is a "Steven".Rafrye (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a better approach to avoid anyone getting the last word the section could be closed by a small paragraph summarising the issue. Also would it be possible you think that we could have your insights and advice about how to improve the article without it being couched in "us/them"-rhetorics and political soapboxing?·Maunus· ƛ · 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

New draft
I rewrote my draft, removing the discussion about the b-w gap (it's discussed elsewhere in the article, and is too particular for this section), and adding some more references:

--Victor Chmara (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I favour an approach that describes the debate as a clash between two different paradigms with different degrees of support in different disciplines is that this approach particularizes the viewpoints by ascribing them to single scientists. This means that we automatically get the problem of weight which is really diificult to solve (this version for example clearly cites more scholars as being in favour of race and intelligence research and defending the hereditarian paradigm than against) and the problem that of choosing which quotes and viewpoints to include which can also be a neverending discussion. An on top I don't think it actually provides an overview of the debate but rather a string of different positions with no obvious relation between them. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For comparison here is the first version of the debate overview section that I wrote back in spring sometime. For me the section should draw out the wide lines along which conflicts emerge and expose them in a general way accesible to lay readers. This includes the definitions of race and intelligence and the historical traditions surrounding them and their political implications and the political type arguments used in the debate. I am not introducing this in order to suggest that we should use this version (I have done a lot of reading since then) but to show what my intentions originally were when I first wrote the section for the article.:

·Maunus· ƛ · 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The older version does a better job of characterizing the nature of the debate and placing it in context. It is not as if these things exist in a historical vacuum. It is of critical importance to mention the history of "race science" in any attempt to characterize the contemporary state of the science. Presenting it as a 4-part debate between equally weighted sides ignores the fact that a large number of people don't even consider the question to be a well defined one. futurebird (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, your version gives short shrift to those who think that race and intelligence is a valid field of research. As the debate in Nature last year and other sources cited in my version demonstrate, there's plenty of people also in the anti-hereditarian camp who think that race and intelligence can and should be studied. Moreover, it's not clear what sources would back up some of the rather wide-ranging claims made in your version. Gould never published anything in intelligence journals, and Gardner is known for his "theory" that has been universally rejected by other intelligence reseachers, so it's not clear why these two should be mentioned here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201008/the-flynn-effect-and-iq-disparities-among-races-ethnicities-and-nations-

There is a very good article about new explanation to difference intelligent between races, based on the Flynn effect. I believe this explanation should be included. 94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Actually it talked also about the connection between literacy and IQ.94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it already is included.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually while there is a section about the Flynn Effect, the claim of this article is NOT included. the section say that we don't know the reason for the Flynn Effect, while this article do suggest some explanation for the Flynn Effect.In fact the article claim  that some research show that the Flynn Effect is a product of literacy change. More over the article refer directly to the research that the book "the bell curve" used.It show that the test they used actually tested literacy.
 * In short the claim of the wikipedia article, "# Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.
 * Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin." doesn't tell the whole story.
 * It doesn't say anything about the finding of the correlation between literacy and mean IQ.94.159.192.163 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, I definitely think the suggested cause of the flynn effect should be mentioned in the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The popular article is interesting reading. There are a lot of interesting research projects that have flowed from pondering the Flynn effect. I think the concerns of the kind editor here who has recommended this popular article are somewhat misplaced, however. There really is a direct problem for the hard-hereditarian position on group differences in IQ among "race" groups from the Flynn effect, because the Flynn effect was specifically predicted to be impossible by the authors who were most sure that they had evidence for genetically based racial differences in intelligence. Flynn's path-breaking papers were based on data sets that met specifications set by Arthur Jensen, as (Flynn 1987) makes clear. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Texas Schools Project (TSP) administrative data and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (ECLS)
Evidence that early differences are exacerbated by differences in schooling; later differences correlate more to "between schools" than "between races." As a "study" it would be more a primary source were we to quote directly; however, "cited by 49" per so well worth a direct reading. I strongly recommend that the best approach is to read the original as well as representations of the original. The "secondary source" mantra should not get in the way just because we encyclopedically care more about what is said about what was said rather than what was said in the first place. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/hanushek%20rivkin%2002.pdf
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=899602727713123280&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=F6qfTJfvGYKclgfctsXsAg&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-citedby&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQzgIwAQ

Citation needed for gap decrease
I undid the good-faith delete for now; however, the gap decrease needs to be cited or some other (cited) statement inserted regarding the progression in, and understanding of, the gap—or the delete will need to stand. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard Nisbett, "Race, IQ and Scientism," pp. 50-52 in Steven Fraser, ed., The Bell Curve Wars (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).-- mustihussain (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like a good source for this - here is the set of pages from your citation, and it does not address the size of the decrease that is uncited in the article. On page 50 it mentions (in a quote from The Bell Curve) that the gap has narrowed by .15-.25 standard deviations, but in the article it says "the difference has shrunk from about 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations", which is a difference of 0.4. I'll take a look at Weiji's suggestions soon. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of sources. Hunt and Carlson notes this too.




 * -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kaufman source also does not mention anything about the difference having "shrunk from 1.2 to about 0.8 standard deviations."  The Weiss source has no page numbers and is a fairly large volume, do you have page numbers handy for the specific data in the article? (Preferably a quote from it actually, since the book does not appear to be browsable at Google Books) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've noted before, the WAIS-IV book reports the b-w gap as 14.54 points in the 2008 standardization sample. This certainly does not support Flynn and Dickens' claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is pure OR. Please stick to reliable sourcing. aprock (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Nisbett's new book, "intelligence and how to get it”? according to a book review in new york times the gap is now 9.5 points among 12-year-olds.-- mustihussain (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gaps differ by age; one age can't be taken as fully representative, that's why we need a proper citation for the statement regarding the overall gap or need to craft something else that we can properly cite. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gaps also differ by brand of IQ test, and in any event IQ points are not measurement units (nor are the standard deviation units used to derive IQ standard scoring). There are also cohort effects to consider. That's why it's encyclopedic and fair to the sources to say that there is a gap (there is, at the moment) and that the gap has been generally decreasing, but not to specify the size of the gap with much exactitude in the lede. And of course the article text, probably beginning right from the lede, has to make clear that both the significance and the cause of the gap are matters of considerable dispute. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence documentary
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9i7a_race-and-intelligence-1-7_school

I believe this video should be included in the External links.Oren.tal (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It's weak.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * why do you think so?Oren.tal (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not in the business of providing links to Dailymotion. What is the authorized original source of the video with no copyright violation? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well, it is channel 4 documentary about the issue. so that is why I think it should be included.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC) http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo
 * I think the channel four documentary is probably a good external link - but it should be to the channel4 website not to a videosharing website where the content may be illegal or the link may break.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article is going to include external links, I think some of the old links it used to have should be considered. I found these in a version of the article from around the time of mediation, but they've disappeared for some reason since then.

Collective statements
 * APA Task Force Examines the Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence
 * Statement on "Race" and Intelligence. American Anthropological Association. Adopted December 1994.
 * Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence, v24 n1 p. 13–23 January–February 1997

Review papers
 * James Flynn and Charles Murray debate – news summary
 * June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
 * Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
 * There Are No Public-Policy Implications Robert J. Sternberg
 * What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True? Linda S. Gottfredson
 * Heredity, Environment, and Race Differences in IQ Richard E. Nisbett
 * The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson
 * Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen
 * Race, Genetics and IQ Richard E. Nisbett (PDF)
 * The Inequality Taboo Charles Murray archived version
 * Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen

Might not want to re-include all of them, but I think they're at least more relevant than a TV documentary.

In general I think that including documentaries is a pretty bad idea. In an area of legitimate science a documentary looks pretty pathetic next to actual published research. I can't count how many times I've seen paleontology documentaries completely dumbing down and misrepresenting the topic - sometimes not even intentionally. This happens all the time with science documentaries directed at the general public, so I think it's best to keep them out of the article regardless of the perspective that they take. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Flynn & Murray debate should be included in External Links. It's a rather informative discussion between two prominent scholars in the field.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the texts should be in the sources - not in the external links.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of link
See. Exactly what policy prevents linking to a related article? If there are any problems with sources in the other aricles it should be noted there but that numerous peer-reviewed articles have cited and used the IQ scores establishes notability and some academic acceptance.Miradre (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Geographic ancestry section
Sorry-- I'm new at this and my ref tags got messed up. Removed the stuff recently added by full shunyata because we can't cite wikipedia directly, and the other stuff I removed looks like synth because its cited to papers that aren't discussing Lynn's conclusions. The last one doesn't mention IQ at all. -SightWatcher (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If a professionally published paper discusses the factual issues of this article, it may belong in this article no matter who it responds to. (There is, of course, the issue of citing too many primary sources and not enough secondary sources in most articles related to the recent Arbitration Committee case connected to this article, but sources must be represented here according to their weight in the professional literature.) The way to cure a footnote referring to a section of a Wikipedia article is to turn it into a wikilink. Therefore I've just reverted your two brand-new edits. But welcome aboard; we can always use more careful editors here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Um...the point is that the articles should not be used in response to Lynn because they don't address Lynn's studies. Granted I'm new to wikipedia but this looks like textbook synth to me. The Dickens study is already in the article elsewhere, it just doesn't belong here in response to Lynn. Thanks! I'm just going by what I've read on guidelines thus far. I'm trying to learn and hope to actually contribute some if possible!  -SightWatcher (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If Lynn asserts a fact, and another researcher asserts a contrary fact, that may be just fine for article text. It would be synthesis if either factual statement were indirect, but it's just good use of sources to see which sources assert which facts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is quite obvious. Let's say that a sociologist discovers a certain correlation between x and y.  If the same scholar publishes an explanation for the corelation, we can put that in.  If anothe scholar publishes a differe nt explanation of the correlation, we can put that in too.  Even if the second scholar does not discuss the first scholar's viesws, thi is clearly NOT SYNTH. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this looks like synth. Slrubenstien’s explanation would make sense in theory, but look at the actual text of the article. It’s doing more than just stating facts contrary to Lynn's conclusions.


 * Here are the conclusions from Lynn that the article talks about:


 * "Several studies performed without the use of DNA-based ancestry estimation attempted to correlate estimates of African or European ancestry with IQ. These studies have found that mixed-race individuals tended to have IQs intermediate between those of unmixed blacks and whites, with a correlation of 0.17 between the estimated degree of difference in ancestry and the size of the difference in average IQ."


 * And here comes the first problem:


 * "The studies also suggested that African national IQs range from 67 to 70 using Richard Lynn's controversial study while suggesting the African-American mean IQ is closer to 80. In reality the black American mean IQ is about 90, much higher than a heterosis correlation of 0.17 would predict, which would predict an IQ closer to 80 in African-Americans with about 20% European admixture."


 * Since the article cited for this passage isn't talking about Lynn's conclusions, it doesn't say this is higher than what a heterosis correlation of 0.17 would predict. Or that this would predict an IQ closer to 80. These conclusions are not in any of the sources being used. They're nothing but original research. There’s also a problem presenting Dicken's estimate of African American IQ as fact, since this estimate isn’t universally accepted. The section that Sightwatcher linked is a good example of how to cover this topic neutrally though.


 * And then we have this:


 * "The European admixture suggested by Lynn is not nearly as uniform by geographical region in the US as previously believed. Suggesting a possible lack of correlation between European admixture and IQ scores."


 * The paper does not mention IQ at all. Stating it suggests "a possible lack of correlation between European admixture and IQ scores" is once again not supported by the source and its definite original research.


 * If you two think these two papers should be cited here it needs to be done in a way that isn't a synth/or issue. I'm going to make a minor change to get it more in line with Wikipedia policy and hopefully it’s an acceptable compromise. -TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well...I think the version before full shunyata's edit was still better, but the new version is acceptable enough.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of discretionary sanctions
Can I just remind every editor editing here of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reminder, which is helpful to all of us and especially to the several editors who have come on board since the Arbitration Committee case was decided. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting feedback for draft for new article "Nations and intelligence"
See User:Miradre/Nations and intelligence. Things to improve before moving to Main namespace? Miradre (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that even an encyclopedic topic? What are the sources for that? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Heritability of Individual IQ in Lead.
I've mentioned this in the "Changing lead back to the newer one" section but I feel this issue should have it's own section. Concerning individual IQ in the lead it currently states "It is generally agreed that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores" This line is misleading as it only gives environment as a factor for individual IQ without mentioning genetics. I can't imagine any reputable scientist or anyone here even, that doesn't believe that genetics doesn't play at least some role in individual IQ. In APA's Task Force Report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" the fact that genetics contributes substantially to individual IQ is considered one of the "knowns".

Studies on the heritability of individual IQ scores for adults is consistently very high. In the range of .70 to .88 study after study. Which is consistently mentioned in the major scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Intelligence, etc. The APA's Task Force report lists IQ heritability at .75 by adolescence age. This is significantly higher than any other psychology trait that we know to have a genetic factor such as shyness, anger, depression, alcoholism, etc. Given this the line "It is generally agreed that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores" should be changed to "Individual adult IQ is considered to be predominately genetic although environmental factors does influence IQ". to reflect the viewpoint of the current scientific community. BlackHades (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be ok to mention that both have effects. I don't agree with your formulation - there are many IQ researchers that disagree with the notion that adult IQ is predominantly genetically determined. Genetic factors are especially well known to play a role in many mental disorders that usually result in below average IQ. Genetic factors are not known to determine above average IQ, but it can't be ruled out. I also think that it should be explained very clearly how the principle of correlation works - it doesn't show causality only correlation. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about if the line was changed to reflect the APA's Task Force Report's position to the effect of "The American Psychological Association in their Task Force Report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" have stated that both genetics and environment factors contribute substantially to individual IQ and that the broad heritability of IQ reaches .75 by adolescence age." BlackHades (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Preferably "heritability" should not be mentioned at all in the intro since it is so easily misunderstood. If it is mentioned then many caveats must be mentioned like it only applicable to the time and place where the study took place. Must likely the "heritability" number was different in the US previously when there were more infections and malnutrition and this also applies to most part of the world. The figure is extremely dependent on what environmental factors are influencing the situation currently and how strong they are.Miradre (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The heritability figures you mention, BlackHades, are not found in the best current sources. They don't belong in the lede on that basis, because they don't belong in the article, when newer and better sourced figures are available. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What are those sources and what do they say, WBB? Maunus, who are those researchers that claim that the heritability of adult IQ is not >50% (in contemporary Western populations)?--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WBB, the heritability figure of individual adult IQ have been consistent in the .70 to .88 range in the post era of Bouchard's Twin Study. Do you have recent sources that list a broad heritability of individual adult IQ as below .50? BlackHades (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is a confusion here. While there are heritability numbers for parent/child relationships, there are no sources that say that there is any racial component of intelligence which is heritable in groups.  Heritability numbers like the ones that exist are fine for the lead of a genetics/iq article, but not for the lede of a race/iq article.aprock (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * BlackHades, thanks to you and to Victor for your specific question. While I type out specific citations for each of you, may I ask which sources you consider to be the most reliable and current on this issue? Yes, I think you are quite right to put a [citation needed] tag on any factual statement we discuss here, and I welcome fellow editors to take a look at the sources, their dates, their authors, their channel of publication, and anything else that is relevant as we jointly decide what is appropriate to put in article text about the issue. It's evening where I am typing, and I already know I'll be busy gathering up those sources tomorrow, but I note your interest in the issue and plan to fulfill my commitment to cite specific sources on the issue of current generally accepted figures for broad heritability of IQ in populations living in developed countries. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphs
Can this article include some of the gßraphs found on this page? http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28test_data%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.16.127 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the source for the information in those graphs? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Review articles about primary research articles on gene associations
The first article, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005), is rather famous, and a good introduction to the scientific method. The follow-up article, "Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way" (2007), points to the importance of looking for replication of any result announced in a primary research study. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A popular article about the same issue that may be a bit easier to read:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science (Atlantic November 2010)

Changing lead back to the newer one
Somehow the lead got changed to a much older lead that was revised many times since with no reason given for the change. How did such a big change occur anyways with no talk? The newer lead is considerably more neutral with perspectives from both sides of the argument with several citations given. The older lead is incredibly one sided, makes several false statements, with zero citations given to solidify any claims made.

E.g. "It is generally agreed that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores" --- Most cited research in scientific journals show genetics to be the larger factor in individual IQ than environment which makes this quote exceptionally misleading. The genetic correlation for individual adult IQ is .70-.80. Whether this translate into racial differences in IQ is up for debate but for individual IQ, several cited research in scientific journals show it to be predominately genetic.

"it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors" --- Widely assumed by who? If anything, the Snyderman poll shows the majority of scientists views that genetics plays a role in racial IQ gaps. There hasn't been a wide body of scientists such as the APA to make such a claim that the gap is entirely environment based. There is again no source for this claim.

Changing lead back to the newer one. Perhaps someone can give a reason why several months of revisions on the lead should all be reversed.BlackHades (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of doing a blanket revert over several sections, it might be more practical and productive to address the specific problems you see with direct edits. I would support more neutral wording of the two portions you quoted. aprock (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The specific problems I mentioned were previously addressed months ago. That is why those sections were deleted and replaced by newer cited statements. Is it misleading to state that environment plays a factor in individual IQ while not mentioning that genetics does as well. Especially when studies consistently demonstrates a higher correlation to genetics. I will change these statements to something more neutral. BlackHades (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Which studies support the conclusion you mention here? Where are they discussed in reliable secondary sources? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits" by Thomas Bouchard shows a broad heritability of .82-.88 for adult IQ tests. The APA Task Force report states a broad heritability of .75 and clearly states that individual IQ is substantially genetic. There is substantial amounts of studies confirming these figures. I do not know of any study in any major scientific journal that the heritability of adult IQ to be below .50. Anyone have a reference to one? Can anyone explain why the lead should mention that environment plays a role in individual IQ but ignores genetics? How can this be considered NPOV in any way. Two changes should be made in regards to this. One, it should state that both genetics and environment plays a role in individual IQ. Two, it should state that genetics plays a bigger role than environment in individual IQ. Any agreements or disagreements to these two points? BlackHades (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The consistent amount of scientific studies in journals on the heritability of racial IQ gaps is enough to conflict with the statement "it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such [environment] factors". which misleads you to believe there is a scientific consensus against the heritability of racial IQ which is false. Changing statement to reflect that there is currently no consensus. BlackHades (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Snyderman poll (which I have both in its journal article form and in its book form in my office) is an obsolete source on this issue. The current sources take a different view. Yes, if you have a suggestion for new wording of the article, the first question is to ask what current, reliable sources you would suggest that we all look up. I would not recommend the Snyderman poll as one of those sources, for several reasons, but especially just that it is from too long ago. P.S. The statement you, BlackHades, make about what you call "genetic correlation for individual adult IQ is .70-.80" (the correct term would be "broad heritability") is both incorrect and misleading. Especially, any heritability figure cannot be used as a basis for how little environmental changes might influence a trait--even Arthur Jensen (1969) and Snyderman (in the book) were readily able to give counterexamples for that common misconception. The Wikipedia articles that mention heritability also need to be updated with better sources, which is something I have been working on, and that kind of error has no place in Wikipedia article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blackhades formulation of the phrase "There is currently no consensus whether or not heritability plays a factor in racial IQ gaps." - the reference to Bouchard is not helpful - there is not need to privilege Bouchard's view in the Lead - especially not since his view isn't generally accepted.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any objection by anyone to change "it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such [environment] factors" to "There is currently no consensus whether or not heritability plays a factor in racial IQ gaps."? BlackHades (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not object.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments about several comments above, all put here (1) The word "heritability" is the wrong word for that sentence, as should be clear to any editor who is a native speaker of English (which possibly several of the editors here are not) and who has read extensively in the literature about heritability. I'll really have to put less time in on talk pages and more time in on drafting new article text about heritability, for this article and the several other articles on Wikipedia that mention that much-misunderstood concept. (2) Again, I must remind all editors that everyone who is published in the professional literature on human behavioral genetics acknowledges that any figure for broad heritability doesn't yield a valid prediction for how subject a trait is to environmental influences. Here are a couple of citations from active researchers on human behavioral genetics, which I urge all of you to read in full:


 * Simply put, any heritability figure can still allow any degree of environmental influence. It turns out that heritability figures haven't provided the "genoscope" that Turkheimer once hoped for. (3) Although I have just cited to all of you two recent journal articles, really by far the better sourcing for Wikipedia articles, by Wikipedia guidelines, is "secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." (Actually, both the journal articles I just cited can fairly be characterized as review articles rather than as primary research papers. They are both by authors who also publish many primary research papers, too many old examples of which have been cited in Wikipedia articles for statements the authors no longer agree with.) (4) Talk page discussion is important. But editing article text is even more important, so I will devote increasing shares of my time to editing boldly in article text. (I think I haven't had much role yet in editing this article at all, but that must change.) Editors who desire to check  the growing lists of sources I will rely on as I edit article text more are welcome to do so. Anyone is welcome to comment about any of my edits (and welcome to suggest new reliable secondary sources). " 'You can edit this page right now' is a core guiding check on everything that we do." You may edit this article. I may edit this article. I am inclined to edit this article quite extensively with a mind to a) bringing the references up to date, b) relying on secondary sources rather than on primary sources, c) reflecting mainstream professional literature on the subject, for  neutral point of view, and d) shortening the article and making it more user-friendly for readers unfamiliar with the professional literature on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, any heritability figure can still allow any degree of environmental influence. It turns out that heritability figures haven't provided the "genoscope" that Turkheimer once hoped for. (3) Although I have just cited to all of you two recent journal articles, really by far the better sourcing for Wikipedia articles, by Wikipedia guidelines, is "secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." (Actually, both the journal articles I just cited can fairly be characterized as review articles rather than as primary research papers. They are both by authors who also publish many primary research papers, too many old examples of which have been cited in Wikipedia articles for statements the authors no longer agree with.) (4) Talk page discussion is important. But editing article text is even more important, so I will devote increasing shares of my time to editing boldly in article text. (I think I haven't had much role yet in editing this article at all, but that must change.) Editors who desire to check  the growing lists of sources I will rely on as I edit article text more are welcome to do so. Anyone is welcome to comment about any of my edits (and welcome to suggest new reliable secondary sources). " 'You can edit this page right now' is a core guiding check on everything that we do." You may edit this article. I may edit this article. I am inclined to edit this article quite extensively with a mind to a) bringing the references up to date, b) relying on secondary sources rather than on primary sources, c) reflecting mainstream professional literature on the subject, for  neutral point of view, and d) shortening the article and making it more user-friendly for readers unfamiliar with the professional literature on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, any heritability figure can still allow any degree of environmental influence. It turns out that heritability figures haven't provided the "genoscope" that Turkheimer once hoped for. (3) Although I have just cited to all of you two recent journal articles, really by far the better sourcing for Wikipedia articles, by Wikipedia guidelines, is "secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." (Actually, both the journal articles I just cited can fairly be characterized as review articles rather than as primary research papers. They are both by authors who also publish many primary research papers, too many old examples of which have been cited in Wikipedia articles for statements the authors no longer agree with.) (4) Talk page discussion is important. But editing article text is even more important, so I will devote increasing shares of my time to editing boldly in article text. (I think I haven't had much role yet in editing this article at all, but that must change.) Editors who desire to check  the growing lists of sources I will rely on as I edit article text more are welcome to do so. Anyone is welcome to comment about any of my edits (and welcome to suggest new reliable secondary sources). " 'You can edit this page right now' is a core guiding check on everything that we do." You may edit this article. I may edit this article. I am inclined to edit this article quite extensively with a mind to a) bringing the references up to date, b) relying on secondary sources rather than on primary sources, c) reflecting mainstream professional literature on the subject, for  neutral point of view, and d) shortening the article and making it more user-friendly for readers unfamiliar with the professional literature on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "There is currently no consensus whether or not heritability plays a role in racial IQ gaps" is a perfectly fine sentence. Nothing in your sources contradicts it. We could also substitute 'genetic factors' for 'heritability'.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to "There is currently no consensus whether or not genetics play a role in racial IQ gaps." BlackHades (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead section was discussed here. I think most agreed to restore an older lead as a compromise, as there was no consensus on a new one and the one that was in the article then was pretty awful. I agree that environmental factors are currently overemphasized in the lead. WBB, there are no "current sources" that contradict the Snyderman poll, because no one has published such polls ever since.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record I still think the version I wrote then is better than either of the one's we are currently looking at.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I must object to the misuse of "consensus" here, as I have absolutely no agreement with restoring an older lede. I have quoted John Broughton on the misuse of consensus to violate Wikipedia policy in the ArbCom case file and I will let everyone know here that I reserve my right my challenge anyone else's statement about what "consensus" is here and in any event to edit boldly on the basis of Wikipedia policy and reliable sources until a new consensus forms. And, yes, for the record, so far I prefer what has come from Maunus's keyboard to several of the other blocks of text that have been proposed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that there was a consensus about restoring the old lead. I said that there was no consensus for a new lead. The old lead was restored, and people seemed to approve of it as a provisional improvement, at least tacitly (there was no attempt to revert it until now).--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnitude of heritability figure implies nothing about malleability of IQ
Quite a few online discussions about heritability of IQ don't mention the issue of malleability (also called "mutability" or "controllability" or "changeability") of IQ. Regardless of what heritability figure for IQ is mentioned in a particular source, the real question of importance is the degree to which IQ is mutable, or malleablethat is, how much IQ can change under environmental influence on an individual. Sources on this issue include











But back to the question: What does heritability mean? Almost everyone who has ever thought about heritability has reached a commonsense intuition about it: One way or another, heritability has to be some kind of index of how genetic a trait is. That intuition explains why so many thousands of heritability coefficients have been calculated over the years. Once the twin registries have been assembled, it’s easy and fun, like having a genoscope you can point at one trait after another to take a reading of how genetic things are. Height? Very genetic. Intelligence? Pretty genetic. Schizophrenia? That looks pretty genetic too. Personality? Yep, that too. And over multiple studies and traits the heritabilities go up and down, providing the basis for nearly infinite Talmudic revisions of the grand theories of the heritability of things, perfect grist for the wheels of social science.

Unfortunately, that fundamental intuition is wrong. Heritability isn’t an index of how genetic a trait is. A great deal of time has been wasted in the effort of measuring the heritability of traits in the false expectation that somehow the genetic nature of psychological phenomena would be revealed. There are many reasons for making this strong statement, but the most important of them harkens back to the description of heritability as an effect size. An effect size of the R2 family is a standardized estimate of the proportion of the variance in one variable that is reduced when another variable is held constant statistically. In this case it is an estimate of how much the variance of a trait would be reduced if everyone were genetically identical. With a moment’s thought you can see that the answer to the question of how much variance would be reduced if everyone was genetically identical depends crucially on how genetically different everyone was in the first place; that is, it depends on the genetic variances.

There are more quotations on this issue in a variety of reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is incorrect to say that high heritability "implies nothing about malleability of IQ", because improvements in environment do not eliminate the IQ "hierarchy"; the individuals and populations with higher genetic potentials will be at the top regardless of the environment (the only way to change this is to adopt the sorts of policies described in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron). Secondly, the hereditarian case for the heritability of group differences is based on the conclusion that the determinants of IQ are pretty much the same in, say, American whites and blacks. In other words, there are no environmental "X factors" that affect all African Americans and no white Americans; the differences in environment between blacks and whites are too small to explain the gap.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the environment affects everyone equally which most likely is not the case in developing nations a child in poverty with genes for a genius may well be stunted by malnutrition and disease which does not happen a child with rich parents.
 * Now you might argue that this does not apply to the same degree in the US. Lets assume that you are right and there is a genetic difference in the US. That does not mean that the same applies globally since US blacks are not a random sample of, say, sub-Saharan Africans.Miradre (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that the determinants of intelligence are the same in the developing world as in rich countries. I was talking about the black-white gap in the US. African-Americans are the black population with the highest measured mean IQ.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect regarding the last. For example blacks in Britain score higher.Miradre (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, now I remember hearing about those British figures. Unfortunately, I cannot access those sources. Do you know what kinds of tests they used, what the sample sizes were like, and, in particular, how old the testees were? (The black-white gap is less than 10 points in small children in the US, too.) Were they immigrants or born in the UK? (For a comparison, Jason Richwine has estimated the mean IQ of sub-Saharan African immigrants to the US at 89, but they cannot be regarded as a representative sample of s-S Africans.) It is notable that the socio-economic outcomes of West Indians and other blacks in the UK today seem to be similar to those of African Americans: . Are there more recent studies on race and IQ in Britain than those decades-old ones?--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)