Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 88

there's no disagreement between sources here....
...only a disagreement between the sources and a couple of editors who are engaging in original research.

The text I added is:

"Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature."

The original text, verbatim, from the source is:

"The idea (of black intellectual inferiority) lives on in the minds of many, notwithstanding the strong statements from the world's largest organizations of individuals interested in anthropology, the American Anthropological Association, and the less powerful, yet very clear statement from the American Psychological Association. Both declare that there is not much evidence of a link between race and intellect, and what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. 'Despite the clear statements by these credible professional organizations, many ordinary people still believe in black intellectual inferiority' . (Emphasis in original).

I don't know how much more clearly I can present this text in the article without either committing a copy right violation or employing a block quote. Obviously this text is very pertinent to the article, gets right to the point and is exactly the kind of information that should go into the lede.

Ok, now here are Boothello's sources which supposedly "contradict" it:


 * 1) The APA report itself which notes that there are IQ differences across races. But IQ differences across races are not the same thing as differences in intelligence and the APA report doesn't make that mistake. Only a couple of Wikipedia users who believe - contra most scientists and researchers - that IQ=intelligence see it that way. There's no contradiction here . The report goes on to state that even as far as the differences in IQs go "There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation." - which roughly agrees with the source I provided . At any rate, this is a primary sources and we should not be interpreting this as that is original research.
 * 2) Lovler, Miller, and McIntire Foundations of Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach, which states The report ... concluded that although no one knows why the difference (in IQs) exists, there is no support for the notion that the 15-point IQ difference between Black and White Americans is due to genetics.. Again there's nothing about intelligence in there. There is, once again a statement that the IQ difference is due to genetic has NO support, which is similar to what my source says.
 * 3) Shaun Gabbidon Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime, which again talks about the IQ gap and then states after reviewing the empirical evidence, the task force concluded "[there is] no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites. This does not contradict my source.

Now, there does appear to be one (single, unique, solitary) source provided by Boothello which does appear to contradict the source I provided. This is Cornelius Troost's book on religion, called "Apes Or Angels?". The summary for the book begins with "For many readers this book will be a mind-altering experience. It has a thesis that is a challenge to the conventional thinking of most Christians and their counterparts, the secular humanists.", and the rest is pretty similar. So we have a book which contradicts the reliable source which is a "mind-altering experience" blah blah blah. Could it be... let me check... yes, it sure does appear that this is a self-published book? In other words, this is a completely unreliable source.

So we have 1 primary source - the APA report itself - which does not contradict the source I provided and at least partially supports it. We have 2 other secondary sources which do not contradict the source I provided and at least partially support it. And then we have a single, strange, weird, non reliable, fringe, self published source which does contradict it. So which way do we go, ey?

As a personal observation, it seems to me that the opposition to the inclusion of this well sourced text comes from the fact that a couple editors insist on exact identification of IQ with intelligence. They seem to think that if a source says that "differences in IQ across races exists" this somehow "contradicts" the statement "there is little or no link between race and intelligence". But that's a logical fallacy (and plain ol' "wrong" too). None of the provided sources make that mistake (except perhaps Mr. Cornelius Troost). And insisting on this mistake is original research. Let the (reliable, secondary) sources speak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that is is useful to keep separate IQ and intelligence - the gap is an IQ gap and an achievement gap - not an intelligence gap. I don't think the Troost source is reliable, but the Gabbidon and Lovler et al. sources are. I think the Paige and Witty source is a less apt choice than the textbook sources, because it is more of a popular/applied science book.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek, I'm not surprised at your claim that the Troost source is unreliable. It's self-published, but the author is Cornelius Troost, an established expert in the field of evolution and education. This is relevant to the topic of race and intelligence and some of his other writings have been published in reliable sources. SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."


 * Please remember, I don't want the article to actually cite the Troost source. Even if it theoretically could be considered an RS, it's also biased, inaccurate, and not very prominent. I mentioned it only to show the diversity of viewpoints that exists about the APA report. If the Paige and Witty source is better than this, it's not better by very much, and I agree with Maunus that one of the textbook sources should be preferable.


 * Regarding your other point, you seem confused by the relationship between intelligence and IQ. They're not exactly the same thing, but IQ tests also aren't "total crap" as you suggested in your comment yesterday. IQ tests measure a particular kind of intelligence, which also has many real-world applications outside of IQ tests. The first two of the APA report's five sections are devoted to explaining the mental abilities that are measured by IQ tests, and how those abilities affect outcomes in the real world. Apart from the APA report, this is almost universally agreed upon by psychologists. Some other sources which support this are:


 * IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh (1998)
 * The g Factor by Arthur Jensen (1998)
 * The Handbook of Intelligence edited by Robert Sternberg (2003)
 * Intelligence and How to Get It by Richard Nisbett (2009)
 * Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt (2011)


 * Basically, pick any book by an established expert in psychometrics, and this is the viewpoint you'll find in it. With the exception of Jensen, these authors also aren't hereditarians or Pioneer Fund grantees. I'm sure you could also find sources that say IQ tests don't measure anything meaningful, such as Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, but these are by authors who don't have expertise in the relevant fields to be considered authorities about the validity of IQ tests (Gould is a paleontologist, not a psychologist).


 * The content you added is saying the APA report says that there probably is no connection between race and intelligence. The APA report says that there is a relationship between race and IQ, and the APA report (and most other mainstream psychology sources) say that IQ tests measure a type of intelligence. Therefore, even though this is true to the source being cited (Paige and Witty), this source does not accurately summarize the APA's conclusions. The APA report also says that the cause of the IQ gap is unknown, while the content you added says that it definitely not genetic. In this respect you've actually misrepresented Paige and Witty - Paige and Witty says that evidence fails to support a genetic interpretation, not that a genetic interpretation is certainly false. This isn't acceptable. In addition to using a poor-quality source when numerous textbook sources are available, you've failed to even accurately summarize the source that you used.


 * Maunus, I would like to replace the Paige and Witty content with one of the textbook summaries of the APA report. Is that change okay with you?Boothello (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure you are overstating Sternberg and Nisbett's support for the the importance of the g-based intelligence view, it is also not described as being hegemonic or unproblematic in the chapter on intelligence in Schacter, Gilbert and Wegner's "Psychology". IQ tests measure skills that correlate highly with particular kinds of success in particular kinds of societies, because that is what they are designed to do. I can support replacing Paige and Witty with one or two of the textbook sources.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:SPS exception applies to things like webpages of prominent academics. It does not apply to vanity press published works - if Mr. Troost's work is a respectable part of the mainstream, why couldn't he find a regular publisher for this book? No go.
 * And for the millionth freakin' time the contention that "the source is wrong" is nothing but your own original research . And no I did not "misrepresent" P&W - don't make stuff up. And for the millionth+1 freakin' time the idea that this is a "poor-quality source" is based on absolutely nothing - is there a reliable source which says that P&W is a poor quality source? No? Didn't think so - except your own fancy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replaced the Paige and Witty account with the Schacter, Wegner & Gilbert source that you suggested. You can tweak this to make it more accurate if you want. I think we're reaching a consensus now about what's best here, so I hope there won't be any more drive-by reverts to restore the Paige and Witty material.Boothello (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this, because I don't see why we can't use both sources. Paige and Witty have the advantage of being straight to the point and very clear. The textbook sources goes into more detail. So why not get the best of both worlds? In fact, that's what NPOV requires - presenting all reliable sources. I also don't think it's a good idea to remove text which is based on reliable sources, simply because of IDON'TLIKEIT. We're letting a couple of editors' original research trump reliable sources here which is a "bad thing" and a violation of Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * there absolutely no consensus here boothello. we should use both sources in compliance with npov, as suggested by marek. i also suggest maunus or marek make the new edit as other editors seem rather disingenuous (what can you expect from single purpose accounts?)-- mustihussain (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek this is not original research Paige and Witty contradict what all other sources about what the APA report says. Secondly it is not a high quality secobndary source as a textbook is, but rather a slightly partisan source. I think it is important to source this to as neutral a source as possible. Troost is obviously not a reliable source - if it were it would have been academically published. The reason it makes no sense to use both sources is because that would be too much for the lead, secondly it would create the impression that there is widespread disagreement about what the APA report says - which there isn't I know of no other sources that interpret the APA report as Paige and Witty do.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see the contradiction. Also I'm not sure one can even call it "slightly partisan", as one of the authors is the Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, Rod Paige (a quick read through his article should convince anyone that Paige ain't no bleeding heart liberal, as liberals don't usually refer to the NEA a "terrorist organization"). I don't think including the quote from the book would given an impression of disagreement, unless one is 100% wedded to the idea that IQ=intelligence always and everywhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead
Aside from needing to replace the Paige & Witty source (which is better now) I think the recent changes to the lead section also have a few other problems, which is why I tried to undo them last night. Others seem to think it's important that I explain what's wrong with these changes before I undo them, so I will:


 * The information about how IQ scores are distributed between racial groups has been moved out of the lead into the "Validity of race and IQ" section. WP:LEAD says that the lead section of an article should be a concise overview of the rest of the article. This information is the central topic of debate in the race/IQ controversy, so the lead should include it. This information is both prominent and uncontested - nearly every source that exists about race and IQ mentions whites score higher on average than blacks and that Asians score higher on average than whites, and the dispute is just over the cause of this difference. Therefore there is no problem with undue weight for the lead section to mention this, and it is an essential part of any concise summary of the nature of the debate. Excluding this information makes it impossible for readers to even know what the article's lead section is referring to when it discusses "racial IQ gaps". If people read the article starting at the beginning, they won't learn what racial IQ gaps actually are until around a quarter into the article.


 * This sentence was added to the lead: "While some researches use IQ as a measure of intelligence, Alfred Binet, the developer of IQ tests, warned that these should not be used to measure innate intelligence." This is cited to page 296 of Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian’s book Introduction to Psychology. Page 296 of this book mentions this warning from Binet, but this information is presented in the context of explaining how IQ tests were misused in the early 1900s, not in the context of modern IQ tests. The authors of this book do not use this warning from Binet as a criticism of modern IQ testing. By contrasting this warning from Binet with the fact that researchers use IQ as a measure of intelligence in modern times, the article is making a point that the authors of this book do not make, which is WP:SYNTHESIS.

When Mustihussain has restored Marek's changes to the lead after I or SightWatcher tried to undo them, the explanation given in his edit summary was that there was no consensus yet whether or not Marek's changes were an improvement. Mustihussain's argument appears to be that the bold changes that Marek made three days ago cannot be undone until there is a consensus to undo them, and that if no consensus can be reached either way, the changes have to stay in the article. This is the exact opposite of standard editing practice. According to Reverting, "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change" The status quo for the lead section of this article is the state it was in from sometime in 2010 until three days ago, not the new version that Marek introduced on Friday.

However, "no consensus" is not on its own a good reason to revert, so I've now explained the problems I have with the new material. Maunus, now that I've explained this, do you mind me undoing these changes until and unless a consensus can be established to restore them?Boothello (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * status quo? this is the most unstable article on wiki thanks to single purpose accounts making massive amounts of edits in shortest possible time. the current version gives both mainstream and fringe views equal weight. that is not acceptable. the time has come for another arbitration.-- mustihussain (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not done discussing Paige and Witty. At this point it may be a good idea to start an RfC.
 * The fact that the article overemphasizes IQ testing is not a good reason to overemphasize it in the lede as well.
 * There really is no intelligence/race or even an IQ/race controversy, aside from a small number of fringe racist researchers like Rushton and Lynn.
 * The fact that they have a following on Wikipedia which slants related articles is a PROBLEM, not something that should be spread further.
 * Of course Binet's warning was made in the early 1900's - time travel hadn't been invented yet at that time, you know. Anyway, Binet's warning was against using IQ tests for intelligence testing in general.
 * WP:Reverting is a Wikipedia essay, written by what looks like a clueless naive 12 year old, not Wikipedia policy (like it says in the big sign up top). Invoking "status quo", and "stability" to justify POV editing, on the other hand, is a violation of one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, NPOV. In addition to the fact that WP:CONSENSUS cannot be held hostage by intransigent editors, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (there's already way too much crap about IQ in this article), which are also policies not essays, applies. Consensus can change.


 * The above post and suggestion by Boothello tends to point out the futility of trying to compromise in some situations. You let some editors insert their own original research into an article, and delete well sourced text simply because it doesn't agree with the POV they're pushing, and they take that as a signal to further slant the article. We need to simply stick with policies. If a particular text is relevant and sourced to reliable source, then it should not be removed, no matter how much some particular editor dislikes.


 * @mustihussain, what would another arbitration case do? After it closes and bans and blocks are handed out, we'd just get a fresh crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles, while the watchers loose interest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * then both arbitration and a prolonged semi-protection are required. the current version is just a auxiliary propaganda site for the "mankind quarterly".-- mustihussain (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "There really is no intelligence/race or even an IQ/race controversy, aside from a small number of fringe racist researchers like Rushton and Lynn."
 * I would suggest that an editor who asserts such a thing would be unsuitable to edit this article. QuintupleTwist (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YAR/IRSPA (Yet Another Race/Intelligence Recent SPA).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * comment regarding Marek's arguments. I agree with the general statement that the coverage of the Race and Intelligence has generally given a lot of undue weight to the pro-hereditarian argument, which although I do not agree that it is really fringe, is a minority viewpoint in Psychology and in society in general. The article's have up untill this point tended to make it look as if the issue was tied or even with a slight advantage to the hereditarians. This problem has been promoted because of a steady influc of accounts dedicated to the hereditarian literature with which they are very well versed, but with no interest in representing the other side. This has been a long term problem and its effects can be observed in most articles related to either race or intelligence. Now, there are also several points where I disagree with Marek. There is unfortunately a race and intelligence controversy, many books published on both sides attest to this - the environmentalist side has been pitifully represented up untill this point and the hereditarian side has been given undue weight, but there is a debate that is going to continue as long as there are people interested in justifying racist worldviews. The Lynn and Paige article is tangential to the debate and they are not author's who are seen as authorities by any of the one's actually involved in the research on either side. We can get much better sources than that and we should. The quality of the sources is key to getting this mess straightened up. Up untill this point we have relied much too heavily on pitting primary sources against eachother rather than relying on secondary and tertiary sources to give us a sense of how to balance the coverage of various viewpoints. The idea of quoting Binet's warning is an unfortunate example of using primary sources where secondary or teritiary sources are needed. Quoting Binet would open up the market for quoting all kinds of old research, like Galton, and put it together in novel ways to push what ever agend one wishes to push. That is the wrong way to go. We need to provide perspectives from well respected secondary and tertiary sources.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right that the article is unbalanced in a hereditarian direction. But it's a problem that'll need to be dealt with very carefully. If we try to solve it by haphazardly moving things to new sections, or by adding primary sources or tangentially related sources, it will make the overall quality of the article worse rather than better. Which is why I think the changes I brought up in my previous post here are unhelpful.


 * I think the best thing to do at this point is to remove the out-of-context Binet quote. I also think the information about how IQ scores are distributed between races should be moved back into the lead. As I said, the mere existence of racial IQ gaps is not really disputed by either side in this controversy. And when this information does not appear until a quarter the way into the article, readers won't even know what the term "racial IQ gap" refers to before they get to that point. After that I would be okay starting a new discussion about how to make the environmentalist perspective adequately represented in this article. But I think that'll be a fairly long process, and Marek's changes are the wrong way to start. Do you agree?Boothello (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Binet quote is cited to a secondary source which uses the... wait a minute, it's not even a "quote", where did that misrepresentation come from? Anyway, it's a commentary on Binet, from a reliable secondary source. It's not primary. It's not original research. It's not out of context. It's not "tangentially related" - it's discussed in a primary source in the context of this very topic.
 * Even if a race/intelligence controversy can be said to exist (sure, in some sense, it does), that doesn't somehow make Paige and Witty "inaccurate" (they don't say that).
 * Paige is obviously an important author here, seeing as he was the Secretary of Education. If you want to we can say something like "authors Witty, and the former Secretary of Education state that both APA and AAA have issued statements etc."
 * I agree that much of the problem lies in reliance on unreliable and primary sources. But neither Witty and Paige, nor Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian (a textbook), where Binet is discussed are primary sources. So that criticism is aimed elsewhere I think. Yet Boothello is trying to use it for his/her own purposes.
 * Boothello seems to agree with Maunus' assesment that the article is already way too skewed towards the hereditarian "view" but still wants to make it even more skewed by putting even more IQ stuff into lede. How does that make sense?
 * I don't think Paige is an important actor - being secretary of state is a political position not an academic one. His opinion might be important in an article about policies, I don't think it is here. Espeecially nt givent that his description of the report contradicts summaries of the report by scholars on both sides of the fence. It is just not a very good or relevant source, and on top he is wrong as can be verified by anyone who reads the report. There is not a very good case for including it.

If the Binet quote is discussed in relation to the Race IQ gap in the source,then it is not synth. But I still don't think Binet's very old warning is important enough to go in the lead, it should definitely go in the history section if the source mentions it in the context of the IQ gap.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in my initial post, the problem with the warning from Binet is not that it's cited to a primary source, but that it's being given a meaning that the authors of the source (Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian) don't give it. These authors mention the warning from Binet in the context of how IQ tests were misused in the early 1900s, and say nothing about this in relation to modern IQ testing. Yet the article uses this warning from Binet as a critique of modern IQ research, even though the authors of the source don't make that point. That looks like synth to me. Also, I'd like your opinion about whether the distribution of IQ scores between racial groups is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, or whether it makes sense for the article to not mention this until around a quarter the way into it.Boothello (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the source doesnot discuss the IQ gap but only the early misuses of IQ then I do not think it belongs in the lead. I could be swayed to include it in the history section, but I would prefer to find a source that discusses Binet's warning in relation to racial group differences in IQ.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It discusses Binet in the context of misuse of IQ tests, racial discrimination ("Classifying races") and IQ scores by race. The warning by Binet is used as a way of introducing these discussions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The section in which this is discussed is entitled "Cultural Diversity: Races, IQs, and Immigration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think it makes sense to work it into the history section. Or perhaps the section on different perspectives on the relation between IQ and intelligence.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So there's no ambiguity about what the Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian source says about this, I'll quote the paragraph being cited:


 * "After Alfred Binet developed the first intelligence tests, he gave two warnings about the potential misuse of IQ tests. He warned that IQ tests do not and should not be used to measure innate intelligence and that IQ tests should not be used to label individuals. However, in the early 1900s the area we know as psychology was just beginning, and American psychologists were very proud of how much they had improved IQ tests. With their improved IQ tests, American psychologists not only used IQ tests to measure what they thought was innate, or inherited, intelligence but also used IQ tests to label people (as morons or imbeciles). As if that weren’t bad enough, early psychologists persuaded the U.S. Congress to pass discriminatory immigration laws based on IQ tests. As we look back now, we must conclude that the use and abuse of IQ tests in the early 1900s created one of psychology’s sorriest moments."
 * This is clearly a critique of how IQ tests were misused in the early 20th century, not of modern IQ testing. Yet the article presents this warning from Binet as a critique of modern IQ research. I agree with the idea of putting this in the history section, but it doesn't belong in the lead.


 * Also: what's your opinion about my other question, on whether the lead should mention how IQ scores are distributed between races? I don't think it's sensible that the article currently discusses racial IQ gaps before it explains what those gaps actually are.Boothello (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary I think mentioning the scores before the divergent opinions surrounding their significance have been explained is misleading.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in the article do you think this information should go? I don't think it should be buried in the "validity" section where it is now. Even if it's misleading to present the IQ scores outside of the debate over their significance, I also think it makes the article very unclear for it to discuss the debate over the cause of racial IQ gaps when it hasn't yet explained what these gaps actually are. It sounds to me like the best compromise is for the IQ data and the debate over its significance to be presented together. I would suggest putting this information into the paragraph of the lead that discusses the four positions that exist about the cause of racial IQ gaps. That way we won't have the problem of presenting this information outside the debate over how it's interpreted, but we also won't have the problem of describing the debate without saying what it is that's being debated.


 * Also, it looks like we're agreed that the Binet content should go in the history section, so I'll move it there.Boothello (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, is it ok if I make the change I suggested? I think this is the best compromise between your requirements and mine, but before I do it, it would be good to have some confirmation that you don't mind the idea.Boothello (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * maunus, the pro-hereditarian viewpoints may not be fringe in general but a bulk of the hereditarian-"arguments/theories" presented here are. the only way forward is to brutally stick to core wiki-policies. by wiki-standards the current version is not tenable. the article is littered with primary source, even worse, there are whole sections built solely on unreliable primary sources. i suggest to remove all content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources, or maybe even remove everything except the lead (as was done with the race&crime-article) and start all over again.-- mustihussain (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories
In the "Evolutionary theories" section, I am adding a counter view to the discussed view of Loring Brace. The issue concerns the possibility of evolved group differences in intelligence. There is no consensus as to whether it is plausible, form an evolutionary standpoint, that different populations evolved different average levels of intelligence. Given this, a balance set of opinions should be given. If someone objects to this please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Balance does not mean include every published opinion in favour and every possible opinion against. Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source on these issues and while C Loring Brace is a respected authority both on issues of evolutionary biology, biological anthropology and on race - Gerhard Meisenberger is not. I see no reason to include that source and I will proceed to remove it again. Please don't reinsert it before there is a consensus to do so. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Maunus - I'm not clear at all why we should pay attention to what Meisenberger says on the issue. There should be someone a bit more eminent expressing such views if they are widely enough held. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you want to do with. I know of a number of academics who say that the genetic hypothesis is evolutionarily plausible. Meisenberg offers a direct rebuttal to Brace, keeping it simple.  Otherwise I will have to rewrite the paragraph, noting people who consider a genetic hypothesis to be evolutionarily plausible and those that don't.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source. Please stop dismissing publications as "unreliable" because you don't agree with the political stance that they are affiliated with.  Rrrrr5 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that these are publications that a particular editor(s) happen to disagree with. It's that these are publications which are widely described as racist and "white supremacist". Un-re-lia-ble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Meisenberg is a respected biochemist. I included him because he addresses Brace's argument directly. If you want I will rewrite the section and cite sources that argue that an evolutionary hypothesis is plausible. For example, Nisbett "Some laypeople I know -- and some scientists as well -- believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are hundreds of ways a genetic difference could have arisen -- either in favor of whites or in favor of Blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups" Nisbett, R. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and culture count. New York: Norton. pg. 94 Or, if you want a geneticist, we could go with anthropologist/population geneticist Henry Harpending —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant, it is already obvious that there is a group of researchers who disagree with C Loring Brace's argument - otherwise the entire debate would be moot. There is nothing gained by letting the article degenerate into chains of he said-she said. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IF you don't want to include a counter view, delete the section with Brace in it. It makes it sound  as if an evolutionary explanation is inherently implausible, which it isn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well an evolutionary explanation would rely on the assumption that races represent distinct evolutionary lineages which they don't, so I'd say that it is pretty implausible. I don't see how we can have a section on evolutionary theories on race without including the opinions of one of the foremost scholars investigating race and evolution.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three issues here: 1) is it possible for groups differences to have evolved, 2) what are the mechanisms by which such differences could have evolved, 3) and are these mechanisms plausible?  The section on Brace deals with 1).  I am trying to put a counter viewpoint -- with regards to the general plausibility.  Perhaps we could just start the section with:  "There's some disagreement as to whether it's plausible that population differences in intelligence evolved" and then go onto the specific theories and critiques of them.  As for your point that "evolutionary explanation would rely on the assumption that races represent distinct evolutionary lineages," this is incorrect.  Evolutionary explanations do rely on the assumption that races are ancestrally defined (or related) populations (i.e. African Americans are somehow more genetically related, on average, to Africans than European Americans are), but it's irrelevant as to whether there are "distinct" lineages.  Imagine a genetic continuum.  Define "race" in terms of "regional" "ancestry" (like the US government does).  Take a handful of people from one region and a handful from another and you will have two races (groups with different regional ancestry) that are genetically different.  The whole debate about the taxonomic status of population clusters or whether they really are clines is irrelevant to this issue  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That will not do no. The only way to argue that racial differences in IQ have evolved would be to argue that race has validity as biological category - this is a minority viewpoint, and to show a biological basis for IQ which is also not a majority viewpoint. It is not the case that there is some disagreement - there is an overwhelming consensus that it is not the case that differences in mean IQ between racial groups can possibly have an evolutionary explanation. Any attempt to try to balance this fact so that it looks like the argument in favour of such a theory is stronger than it appears in the statements by AAA, AAPA and UNESCO will be a huge breach of NPOV. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we get back on topic? (If you want to discuss this issue, we can discuss this when we argue over some other changes that I'm going to make.) Right now we are talking about Brace's statement "that there  is  no  valid  reason  to  expect average differences among living human populations".  Obviously for Brace to say this, he must think there are human populations that could, in other respects, be different.
 * This is the topic. Brace's argument is mainstream as far as there is a meainstream on this issue. His position is obviously that there is such a thing as genetically differing populations yes. It is also that race is not such a geneticaly differing population. The specific argument about the survival value of intelligence is tangential to his general argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's tangential, then you won't mind me changing it? Or better, I'll delete it and you can write the non-tangential version in, ok?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is already heavily bviased in favour of the pro-hereditarian minority viewpoint. Removing Brace would contribute to that bias and would require me to remove most of the fringe studies by Lynn and Rushton to balance.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Manus, keep in mind that this section is called "evolutionary theories" for race differences. It's biased in the way that the "Potential environmental causes" section is.  The heart of this section is hereditarian/evolutionary theories.  If you think having the section gives the hereditarian position undo weight then move to delete it.  But given the existence of the section -- I suggest it be outlined as below.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)chuck


 * Manus, First, do you have any reasonable objection to me adding race/IQ Scholar Nisbett's quote. If you want to reject him on the basis of not being a biologists, I move to scratch Brace (and his comment about intelligence) on the basis of not being a behavioral geneticist.  I already asked if you wanted me to get quotes from behavior geneticists.  You said that would be unnecessary: "It is irrelevant, it is already obvious that there is a group of researchers who disagree with C Loring Brace's argument - otherwise the entire debate would be moot."  Make up your mind.  I can't add Meisenberg because his isn't eminent, even though he's a biochemist that work with population genetics;  I can't add Nisbett because he isn't a biologist, even though he is an eminent race/IQ researcher;  I can't add Harpending because doing so would crowd the section.

Look, Let's restructure this section: --174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)chuck
 * The prior plausibility of evolved differences between global populations (mention Brace, etc)
 * The relation between global population and race and arguments about that
 * Mechanisms of differentiation (mention Lynn, etc)
 * Critiques of those mechanisms (mention whomever)
 * The hereditarians are not a minority. Please see The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book).  Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No that is simply incorrect. Within species variation does not require distinct lineages. Braces' argument is nonsense. Taken to its logical conclusion all traits should be uniform in all organisms. He ignores the fundamental evolutionary principle of tradeoff. QuintupleTwist (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are talking nonsense and failing to even understand the beginning of Brace's argument: since races are not biologically defined populations there is no basis for believeing that selective forces of any kind have operated on them as a whole. Brace happens to be one of the scientists who knows most about human interspecies biological variation. Obviously his argument does not reject the possibility of interspecies variation and his argument does not reject the possibility of intelligence varying between particular biologically defined populations, he says that it is improbable since intelligence must be assumed to be integral to survival in all environments. But he does reject wholesale the possibility that evolutionary explanations could account for IQ differences between racial groups - because the racial groups being studied are not biologically defined groups. There are no evolutionary tradeoffs that could have operated on all ancestors of people that we today classify as Black and not on all the people that we classify into other groups. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not Brace's argument at all. In the referenced passage, Brace did not say that there were no groups but that:  “Human  cognitive  capacity,  founded  on  the  ability  to learn  a language, is  of  equal  survival  value  to  all  human  groups,  and consequently  there  is  no  valid  reason  to  expect  that  there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations.”  He was arguing that different populations would not evolve different levels of intelligence, because intelligence is equally valuable for all populations -- NOT because there were no populations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like Brace has two arguments. Can we just deal with the relevant one (the one in this section).  And figure out how to resolve this issue.
 * They are both very relevant to this topic. And my guess is that contrary to you I have in fact read his book and I know what he says. The notion that intelligence is of equal survival value is not his main argument, his main argument is that race is not biological category and that it cannot therefore have been subject to any evolutionary forces as a group. The argument included there is simply a retort to Rushton's ridiculous and empirically unfounded speculations thinking that life among the large predators of the African Savannah requires less intelligence than life in the cold. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the passage we are discussing: "C. Loring Brace argued that the evolution of human intelligence is founded on the development of human linguistic behavior and that because intelligence is of equal survival value to all humans it is implausible that any clinal distribution in the trait exists. He points to the commonality of human survival strategies during the Pleistocene epoch as incompatible with theories of evolutionarily based differences in intelligence.[127]"  We are not discussing some other passage.  I will be happy to discuss that after we resolve this issue.  I either want this Brace passage deleted or I want to add an alternative viewpoint.  Don't you like my Nisbett quote?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by
 * We are discussing the entire section. Nisbett is a psychologist and not an authority on either race or evolutionary theory.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion verges on the surreal. Presumably hyenas have the same intelligence as humans as they have to "[live] among the large predators of the African Savannah". This line of argumentation is absurd and it does no credit to the encylopedia to dignify it with inclusion. Furthermore, Brace clearly ascribes to the position that human variation can be described, which appears to be something Maunus is trying to deny based on his personal opinion. QuintupleTwist (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are ascribing me views that I have explictly denied in this thread - and frankly you are lying about me and making pejorative statements about my person. If I write another line adressed to you it will be a personal attack, so instead I will refrain from adressing you again. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research (especially faulty original research). Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source. That's all that really has to be said here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Race and genetics
The section "race and genetics" is redundant, verbose, and off topic. We have: 1. race is being confused with population (already in "The validity of "race" and "IQ") 2.  there are no subspecies or lineages therefore there there can be no heritable differences -- oh, like skin color -- between any populations  (irrelevant and already in "The validity of "race" and "IQ") 3. there is no such thing as between group heritability (patently false.  The mathematical equations is:   Within group heritability  = between group heritability/[(rg(1-rp)/rp(1-rg)] 4. when tested for differences, there are no differences between races anyways (contradicts 2, discussed in the race/ancestry part) 5. no IQ genes have been found (irrelevant -- this should be "IQ and genetics" -- and there should be a separate page for this)

This needs to be deleted or rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a weird artefact of the bad organization of the article into pro-hereditarian versus pro-environmentalist arguments. I do agree with you that this article would be better reorganized into a shorter and more on topic article where related arguments and counter arguments are presented together and not repeated ad nauseam in several sections. This is a remnant of an earlier stage of POV pushing activity that argued to include as much hereditarian material as humanly possible. ·Maunus· ƛ · 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede - redundant
I deleted the last sentence about a 1996 APA report and statement that was nearly identical to that in the second paragraph (and was probably the basis of the 2007 cite). Included the long quote from the 1996 source in the footnote, so it can be read, but it is redundant to have two such similar statements in the Lede.Parkwells (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Flynn effect
I propose moving the "Flynn effect" subsection that is below the "Genetic arguments" section to the "Potential environmental causes" section, since the "Flynn effect" is a "Potential environmental causes" and not a "Genetic argument." If anyone objects to this move, let me know --174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck
 * The Flynn effect is not an explanation of any cause. It is only an observation of fact.  It is used as evidence of environmental causes, but is not itself an environmental cause. aprock (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Though, it's not uncommon to use the "Flynn effect" as shorthand for "the presumably environmental causes underlying the Flynn effect." At any rate, do you agree that the "Flynn effect" section should be relocated.  It's clearly not a genetic argument.
 * I've removed the section. Part of the problem is that the article was recently rewritten from a very strong viewpoint, so gaffes like this are not uncommon.  They persist because the effort that it takes to make quality edits to the article is generally better spent elsewhere.  If you would like to actively edit the article, I would suggest being bold, but open to discussion, and refocusing of effort if the discussion bogs down.  I would also suggest signing up for an account.  Your edits will be given more credence if you do. aprock (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential environmental causes
For anyone interested, there are scores of environmental causes. Refer to: Wiesen, 2009. "Possible Reasons for the Black-White Mean Score Differences Seen With Many Cognitive Ability Tests: Informal Notes to File." (Google it.)--174.97.236.49 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck There is also Neisser's "The Rising Curve", and Resnick et al's. "Intelligence genes and Success", and Jencks' "The Black/White IQ gap". All large scale edted volumes that advance mostly environmental explanations.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

all of them ARE in fact associated with PF
Re - all the individuals listed ARE in fact connected to the PF. So the info is factually correct. I added a source to support that fact. So the info is verifiable and reliably sourced. Furthermore, the source I added SPECIFICALLY lists these very people and discusses their connection to PF. So you can't even argue that SYNTH is being violated as the source is explicitly about these very individuals' connection to PF.

So once more we basically have reliably sourced info being removed from the article per IDON'TLIKEIT. Let me guess, next step is to claim "no consensus" because a bunch of created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts will object no matter what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article just happens to list these four instead of a different four, there's nothing really unique about these four people and there are plenty of others who could be mentioned here. Then you go and make a specific point that these four are connected with the PF. Maybe we shouldn't list specific people at all, or additional ones who aren't PF-connected? How about Sesardic or Murray?


 * Every time anyone else has added something, like Rrrr5, or the IP, the default assumption is that it can't stay in the article unless there's consensus, where Maunus or whoever says "please get consensus" or "please respect BRD"  But when someone like you or people you agree with add or remove something, the default assumption is that it should be left that way whether there's a consensus or not. Why is this okay?-SightWatcher (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Just happens"? Just so happens that most of these researchers happen to get funding from PF? The underlying fundamental problem is actually one of WP:WEIGHT. The lede of the article tries to pretend that the controversy is between two equal groups of mainstream researchers. In fact the dispute is between a vast majority of mainstream researchers and a few fringe folks, most of whom are associated with an organization that is usually described as racist and white supremacist. Because the lede insists on pretending that these two groups and the two viewpoints they represent are somehow "equal" the least we can do is to actually note the association of these people with the institute.


 * To answer your question, the difference is that when I add text it is cited to a reliable source. When I remove a piece of text it's because it is either unsourced, sourced to some sketchy source (like MQ) or in violation of another Wikipedia policy. When Rrr5 or "the IP" (which one?) or yourself or any of the other post-Arb-com case accounts adds something it is usually NOT cited to a reliable sources. This is evident from the two diffs you provide - in the first one, the claim is sourced to Mankind Quarterly, a racist journal, and the second is unsourced. See the difference?


 * btw, in light of this and this, I just got to ask: you weren't by any chance canvassed to get involved here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And did I call it right, or did I call it right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the researchers are all funded by the same body, not to note this would be dishonest - they are propounding a minority point of view, and to present them as independent critics of the mainstream, rather than as a particular pressure group/faction would be misleading. This isn't a dispute between two equally-balanced scientific positions, but between the mainstream and the fringe, and to suggest otherwise is falsification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Maunus removed this because there was no discussion or consensus about it, source has nothing to do with it (a source for that would have been really easy to find anyway). That's how it should be, on articles this contentious anything like this needs to be discussed and agreed on.


 * It might be the case that the article is biased toward the hereditarian perspective right now, but there are ways of addressing that are helpful, and ways that are not. Making the lede offer this commentary about the selection of people that just happen to be mentioned is not helpful. There are plenty of researchers outside of this "faction" that support the hereditarian hypothesis who have nothing to do with the PF (two I mentioned), and the article as it is gives the impression that all of them are associated with it. This looks like an attempt to correct the hereditarian bias in a really unhelpful way. If you think the article is biased, how about propose some changes on the talk page about how to change the wording in other sections, or some other way that's helpful.


 * Also, I think it's wrong to assume that pro-hereditarian is "fringe", even Maunus believes it to be minority but not fringe. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How small does a minority have to be before it becomes 'fringe'? I'd say that if this 'minority' is largely centred around a single pressure group, 'fringe' is a good description. Still if you can find other of the minority viewpoint that aren't associated with this faction, you'll have a better case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think it is possible to use the term fringe for the hereditarian viewpoint, also I think the Pioneer issue shouldn't be pushed too much since there is also a dynamic that drives hereditarians to the pioneer fund for funding because mainstream funding sources are reluctant to fund that kind of studies - its not just that the pioneer fund pays people to produce hereditarian research - rather people who would be hereditarians anyway look there for funding. The reason this isn't fringe is the sheer amount of controversy and debate generated by the studies, fringe studies usually don't attract volumes of rebuttal but are met with silence. Secondly there are also notable scholars who occupy intermediary positions of different kinds such as Neisser, Flynn, etc. who are neither completely in either camp, this would be difficult with real fringe studies that are simply considered to be impossible to reconcile with the mainstream, secondly we have the issue that there are so many of the hereditarians (something like 50 people signed the mainstream science statement) and the fact that the APA report is clear in considering the position a reasonable one in principle (though not supported by evidence).·Maunus· ƛ · 13:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. With this in mind, do you mind if I remove the parenthetical inserted into the lead by Marek?Boothello (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boothello. Number one. Maunus isn't the final arbiter of issues on this talk page. Even IF he agrees with you on something, that doesn't mean other people do.
 * Number two. Maunus is just saying that not all heredetierians can be described as fringe. This has nothing to do with the sentence inserted which merely notes, per sources, that all these people listed in lede are in fact associated with the PF.
 * Number three. Can you please stop trying to remove well sourced material from the article simply because of IDON'TLIKEIT. You have not offered a single legitimate argument for your removal. Your editing is tendentious. Stop trying to connive various excuses for these edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything else left to discuss. One of the justifications you gave for the material you added is that all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by the Pioneer Fund. That was shown false, because there are also many hereditarian researchers who have no connection to the Pioneer Fund, such as those that Sightwatcher listed. The other justification you gave for your edit is that all hereditarian research is fringe, which is also false, for the reasons that Maunus explained above. There is no remaining justification for this change, but you still don't want it to be undone.


 * You are doing the same thing that you had a problem with when Quintupletwist was doing it. You're adding material to the article without discussing it first, immediately reinstating it still without any discussion when it's reverted. And you also apparently don't care how many people oppose the material you're adding, because you can't assume good faith about any of the editors who disagree with you. Your statement that our opinions don't matter because we're "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts" is an obvious assumption of bad faith.


 * Your incivility, disregard for BRD, and your refusal to assume good faith about other editors are making it extremely difficult to work collaboratively with you. Maunus is being reasonable, and he also seems to know more about this topic than you do. The only way it's been possible to resolve the conflict caused by your edits is when we're both willing to listen to him. You should keep that in mind when you say it isn't enough that he agrees with me.Boothello (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have neither been incivil nor disregarded BRD. And you might want to read WP:AGF again - it is NOT a blanket injunction to force one side in a debate into a state of all accepting gullibility. Specifically, the guideline (not policy) states: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Given your previous behavior I think a bit of skepticism on my part is warranted. In particular:
 * You continue to remove well sourced material based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds and original research.
 * You claim support for your actions when such does not exist.
 * You continue to misrepresent the debate or my statements. For example, above you state:
 *  One of the justifications you gave for the material you added is that all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by the Pioneer Fund. That was shown false, because there are also many hereditarian researchers who have no connection to the Pioneer Fund, such as those that Sightwatcher listed.
 * There's so much straw in that straw man you could thatch a roof. I did not say "all hereditarian research belongs to a faction driven by PF" - that's a falsehood. What I said, is that every single person listed in the lede has connections with the PF . Which they do. And for monkey's sake, the source I added states that very thing precisely So you can argue that the straw man you set up was "shown to be false" all you want - who cares, that's not what I claimed, nor is it relevant.
 * The statement that I "apparently don't care how many people oppose" me is untrue as well. I do however notice that there's several people agreeing with me here, that the opposition continuously comes from the same group of dedicated users who wish to hold the right of veto against any edit they don't like, no matter how well sourced.
 * Finally, I'm sorry but it's just eerie that in these disputes, on one side we have numerous editors with many years of experience on Wikipedia, who've edited across a wide range of topics, while on the other we have several accounts which are exactly what I described.
 * Your account, SightWatcher's, Mirandre's, the IP's, and a few others - were all created right after the end of the Race and Intelligence Arb Com case . I guess it could be just a weird coincidence, and I'm even willing to accept that it was a coincidence for, say, you personally, maybe one more account - but for 5+ accounts to all of sudden appear right at this very time is... well, the laws of probability are against it. Furthermore, every single one of these accounts has pretty much stuck to editing Race and Intelligence topics (with few minor exceptions). So yes, "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts" is exactly what you and these other accounts are. Good faith or bad faith, it is what it is. It's really up to you to demonstrate good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have disregarded WP:BRD in that you added material without consensus, it was reverted, and you and others who agree with you preferred to reinstate it without consideration for discussion and agreement. Optimally, consensus needs to be formed after the revert to keep it there, not to remove it. Otherwise I could put any nonsense I wanted into the article and then claim "there's no consensus to remove it" once someone removes it. As for your statement that I "need to reread AGF", I think it's clear (and I hope that it would be clear to uninvolved onlookers) that your attitude so far in this discussion has definitely not been one of AGF.


 * As for some of your other points. "You continue to remove well sourced material based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds and original research." No, I removed it based on points made repeatedly in this thread and in edit summaries. Associating these researchers with the PF gives the false impression that all hereditarian researchers are associated with the PF. And as Sightwatcher mentioned, listing any number of other hereditarian researchers in the lead would negate the PF association. "You claim support for your actions when such does not exist." Aside from SW (and now Victor Chmara too ), please see Maunus's response. Even if he is not agreeing with me per se, he is bringing up relevant points that you are ignoring. And yes, a large portion of your argument DOES seem to rest on the fact that you think this research is "fringe". You said: "The underlying fundamental problem is actually one of WP:WEIGHT. The lede of the article tries to pretend that the controversy is between two equal groups of mainstream researchers. In fact the dispute is between a vast majority of mainstream researchers and a few fringe folks, most of whom are associated with an organization that is usually described as racist and white supremacist. Because the lede insists on pretending that these two groups and the two viewpoints they represent are somehow "equal" the least we can do is to actually note the association of these people with the institute."


 * Maunus indicated that the PF issue shouldn't be pushed too much. And additionally, not every source needs a statement about it in the lead. We already went through this with the Paige & Witty material. The lead is meant to be concise and fully relevant to the rest of the article. I am not disputing that the source is bad or that the statement is OR, I am saying that the statement is not necessary and that it creates a false implication.Boothello (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I added well sourced material. It was removed for specious IDON'TLIKEIT reasons. I re-added it (two days later) and commented on the talk page. That's not "disregarding BRD", that IS BRD. You, on the other hand, are REMOVING sourced material for no legitimate reason. You also seem to have a faulty understanding of Wikipedia policies with regard to sourced content. You state: Otherwise I could put any nonsense I wanted into the article and then claim "there's no consensus to remove it" once someone removes it - this is another strawman . I DID NOT add "any nonsense I wanted". I added well sourced text. You removed it. Don't make these kinds of false comparisons. Do you understand the difference between text based on reliable sources and "any nonsense"?
 * Associating these researchers with the PF gives the false impression that all hereditarian researchers are associated with the PF. - that is your inference. Bottom line is that every single person listed is in fact associated with the Pioneer Fund and this is straight from the source. I don't know how else I can say it - but that is what is important here. I did not write or insert anything about "all hereditarian researchers" being associated with the PF so cut the nonsense. If you think this makes all hereditarian's look bad, that's your problem. A reader should be given a chance to make up their own mind themselves. What we SHOULD NOT do is hide this information from the reader in order to mislead them, which is what you're trying to do (like I said, read WP:AGF again).
 * If you sincerely want to resolve this disagreement, then I suggest you come up with text which is both honest and, per your desires, differentiates non-PF folk from PF folk. If you want to list additional researchers, herediterian or otherwise which are not associated with PF then I have not and, as long as you have sources, will not object.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned two already, Sesardic and Murray. Try Templer, Arikawa, Loehlin, and J.R. Baker too. Since the lede only mentions hereditarians who are PF grantees (and makes the point that all of the people it mentions are PF grantees), it gives the impression that hereditarian researchers in this area are all associated with the PF even though isn't true.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, add Satoshi Kanazawa to that list too.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a comparable list for the mainstream view? aprock (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a comparable list for the mainstream view only comprising people called Stephen ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) What still stands true is that a good number of hereditarian researchers (and most of the most prominent ones) are indeed PF grantees, and that the hereditarian viewpoint is held by a small minority ofn researchers (whether that minority is small enouigh toi be called a fringe is up for debate).--Ramdrake (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Luckily we don't need to work with a simplistic either/or on what is fringe. We need to work instead with the ArbCom fringe science finding that established categories. The hereditarian viewpoint might count, for example, as questionable science, on a level with Freudianism. I think that is helpful. Back in the day, the views of Carleton Coon were entirely mainstream and scientific. Nowadays they embarrass anyone except the most hardened historians of science. The positions of Rushton and Eysenck not that long ago were regarded as scientific and worth discussion; it's not so true now. Wikipedia should keep up to date with scientific opinion, but does not need to be ahead of opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is a good idea or NPOV to mention the pioneer fund every time we mention someone who is a pioneer fund grantee, it is not very NPOV since for each of them they also have other credentials that might be relevant and picking this particular one every time is slanted. I suggest only mentioning the pioneer fund when the article is discussing issues about history of research and about funding, not when we mention individual grantees. I do think the pioneer fund is such a big player in the debate that it should be mentioned in the lead, but not in a way that makes it look as simply an attempt to disqualify them out of hand through guilt by association. I think both sides need to be a little reasonable here and find some ways to improve the article through changes that are more substantial than simply supplying oneliners against or in favor.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Heritability within and between groups
I propose rewriting the needlessly wordy section "Heritability within and between groups" as below. The discussion of the meaning or heritability ("Heritability" is defined as..") is redundant. Wikipedia already has a section on this. Does anyone object to this change?

"Hereditarians have argued that the high within group heritability of IQ in conjunction with the magnitude of the gap makes it likely that the Black-White gap has a partial genetic basis . James Flynn has outlined the argument :

"Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and between family factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 Sds (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect onwithin-white heritability estimates)"

This argument has been criticized for a number of reasons. This argument has been criticized by other researchers using several different arguments. Firstly, as noted earlier, Templeton argues that heritability is relevant only for explaining within group variance, cannot be used to explain variation between groups. Secondly the heritability figure of .8 for White American populations have been frequently been criticized as being highly inflated. Another is arguing that there are many environmental factors, sometimes small and subtle, that together add up to a large difference between blacks and whites. Dickens and Flynn argue that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ. Hereditarians has replied to these criticisms. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

If someone has an objection to my edit please state why. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck

Race and genetics
Has anyone here considered splitting this article into "Group differences and intelligence" and "Race, genes, and intelligence." This article could run:

1 History of the debate 2 The validity of "IQ". 3 Group differences 4 Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic 5 Significance of group differences 6 Policy relevance 7.Ethics of research

And the "Race, genes, and intelligence" article would specifically focus on the genetic hypothesis for racial differences. That way we wouldn't have to niggle over whether this or that sentence is being unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you say it would be a POVFORK? In a "race, genes, intelligence article," we could outline the gene/environment argument in detail.  It would be separate from a "Group differences and intelligence" article which could deal with  SES, ethnic, racial, sexual, geographic differences in a generic manner, focusing on the validity of IQ, the magnitudes of  differences, the causes of the differences, generally, and other issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When you put race and genes and race and intelligence into the same article then it would clearly violate NPOV to suggest that the mainstream view on race, namely that it is a social category and not a genetic or biological one could be kept out of that article. We already have articles on Heritability of IQ and Race and genetics and a whole series of articles on ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. As I noted, race can be a social category (i.e a socially delineated group) and still have biological content.  In fact, this is how hereditarians and others often treat race (Blacks = self identifying Africans/African-Americans; Whites = self identifying European/European Americans).  Whether or not "Blacks" or "Asians" or whites fit a biological category is irrelevant -- all that matters is that on average there are genetic differences between the groups, which is trivially true.  In the same way, SES groups can have heritable (genetic) differences (cf Murray 1994; Jensen 1981) without being "genetic or biological categories."  Ditto ethnic groups.  You can even cluster groups together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are stacking non sequitur on non sequitur. If race is not a valid biological construct then the basis for believing that a genetic causal explanation for any shared behavioral trait within a racial group is also necessarily invalidated. If someone does not believe that the reason that IQ varies between racial groups is biological and that therefore
 * Are you just playing dumb? When you say race is not a valid "biological construct," what do you mean? I'm guessing that you don't even understand the meaning of this phrase. When most people say that "races are biological constructs" they mean that they are groupings defined according to some taxonomic criteria.  To say that "races are social constructs" is to say that they are groupings defined according to some non-taxonomic social criteria.  That's all these phrases mean.  Now, it should be patently clear that "social construction" does not preclude genetic difference.  For example, here are two socially constructed groupings:  "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average."  By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are "social constructs."  In the same manner, different racial groupings can be genetically different and still be "social constructs," as most people use the term --174.97.236.49 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck
 * Since you clearly don't have a clue what the term 'social construct' means, please don't use it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide a definition of "social construct" (and "biological construct") which contradicts my point. Let me give a clear example:  While sex (male and female) is considered to be a biological construct, Gender (masculine and feminine) is considered to be a social construct.  On average, there are nonetheless genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender, because gender overlaps with sex.  Would you disagree?  Would you maintain that on average there are no biological/genetic differences between groups of people classified by gender? To continue, it's trivially true that on average there are genetic difference between, says, Blacks (African Americans) and Whites (West Eurasian American);  for example, Blacks tend to be darkly pigmented and whites tend to be lightly pigmented.  Would you honestly contend that the average pigmentation difference between individuals socially classified as Blacks and Whites has no genetic basis? Now, since there are genetic differences between racial groups (e.g. Blacks and Whites), either "race is a social construct" is trivially false OR "race is a social construct" does not mean that there can be no average genetic differences between racial groups.  Take your pick.

--174.97.236.49 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck
 * It is of course true that categories being socially constructed does not preclude biological difference (and that on average people with different genders also have different chromosomes)- but it just so happens that race and gender are different in this aspect because Race does not overlap with any biological category. There is no biological category that maps onto the categories of "black people" and "white people" with a degree of precision even remotely similar to that of gender - this is because opposed to gender categories, the social construction of racial categories is not a universal one that maps onto an inherent biological difference but an extremely locally defined one that is used to map on to certain subjectively defined and clinally distributed biological traits. And no there are no trivial truth in your definition of the definition between light and dark skin because those terms are relatve and the thresholds for category inclusion differ from place to place and situation to situation and are influence by a gazillion other social factors. You are basically just wasting our time continuing this line of argument. We have the sources and we say what they say.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to your statement "We have the sources and we say what they say," my concern is that you don't understand what some of them say. Let's take a specific point.  In the "race and genetics/ section, you say: "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races''."  In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.  Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), by my guess would be that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Manus, I glad we agree that the "social construction" of a groups, per se, "does not preclude biological difference." You contend, nonetheless, that for there to be biological differences, socially constructed groups must overlap with biological categories.  You provide no justification for this.  Above, I gave an example of why this is not the case:  "For example, here are two socially constructed groupings:  "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average."  By definition these groups are genetically different and yet are social constructs [that do not overlap with biological categories]."  (For a discussion of the meaning of social constructs refer to:  Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy --

Now, pray tell, which statement do you disagree with: OR If you disagree with neither, you agree with me that there can be genetic differences between socially constructed groups even if these groups do not "overlap with any biological category." As I have stated before. Whether or not races are social constructions -- or overlap with biological categories -- is irrelevant to whether or not, on average, there are genetic differences between them.
 * To say "Y is a social construct" is to say X constructs Y (i.e. Y doesn't have independent existence apart from what people say it is)
 * X constructs Y if and only if X causes Y to exist or to persist or X controls the kind-typical properties of Y
 * the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" is a socially constructed group that does not overlap with a biological category
 * there are genetic differences between the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ above average" and the group of "all people that have a genotypic IQ below average."
 * The fact is that the available evidence points to the conclusion that racial divisions can not be said to be characterized by any meaningful genetical differences - either on average or in individual cases. Your example is again useless because people with lower or higher than average IQ's is based on a single objective criterion - racial groupings are not.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Manus, this is an interesting claim. I won't dispute it here.  My point was simply that social construction (i.e non biological construction) doesn't preclude genetic differences.  Why is this relevant? In this section you stated:  "Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races."  In the source cited, Tempelton does not say anything about there being no basis for making claims about differences in intelligence.  Perhaps he says this elsewhere (a relevant citation would be nice), but my guess is that he does not reason from the non existence of human subspecies ("and that therefore...").  My guess is that this is your interpretation.  I could be wrong.  To decide, I will have to wait for you to point me to the relevant passage.  Anyways, to make this basic point about this one sentence, it was necessary for us clarify what it means to say race is or isn't a biological construct.  (By the way, could you check over my proposed edit to the "Heritability within and between groups" section, as I am guessing that you are the one that undoes my changes.--174.97.236.49 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck
 * Templeton writes: "The premier human adaption is our intelligence. There is no doubt that our species as a whole has had its recent evolution chaacterized by a large increase in intelligence, but the question still remains if current human populations are genetically differentiated with respect to intelligence, either as a reflection of isolation by distance or local adaptation. Unfortunately this question is usually muddied by two indefensible erros: (a) phrasing the question as a genetic differentiation in intelligence among "races", (b) phrasing this question in terms of the heritability of intelligence or some surrogate such as an IQ test score. As shown previously, races do not exist in humans under any modern definition. Because different traits have discordant distributions it is meaningless to look at "racial" differences in any specific traits including intelligence. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from  those specific populations to broader "racial" categories. Hence in any discussion of intelligence the conclusions must be limited to the specific populations under study and not generalized beyond them". (Templeton 2001 p.49 )·Maunus· ƛ · 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. So to sum up, Templeton says that since there are no human subspecies (according to him), there wouldn't be IQ differentiation along subspecies lines -- but there could be IQ differentiation along population lines (say West Africans versus East Africans versus Europeans versus South Asians).  This is different from what you said.  You said:  since races are not subspecies there couldn't be racial differences in intelligence.  There's a subtle but important difference here.  Templeton's formulation allows us to inquire about population differences, and, in that sense "race" differences where races refers to local populations (i.e. Europeans instead of "Caucasoids";  West Africans instead of "Negroids");  Templeton's point is that it's not meaningful to generalize beyond these narrower populations to broader populations.  This point is not inconsistent with hereditarianism as concerning the US;  When it comes to the Black-White difference, "Whites" (European for the most part) are being compared with Blacks (West Africans for the most part) -- both represent narrow populations, more or less.  By your formulation, there couldn't be differences between narrow populations because they are not subspecies.  We have:

Versus ("Templeton argues that racial groups [as commonly defined) neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races [as commonly defined).")
 * because populations are not part of races qua subspecies, we can not generalize differences beyond populations --("races do not exist in humans under any modern (subspecies) definition. One can look at genetic differentiation among any two or more populations, but it would be incorrect to generalize from those specific populations to broader "racial" (subspecies) categories")
 * because races qua populations are not subspecies, there can not be differences between races qua populations.

The second statement doesn't follow. And it isn't what Temp said. So the statement in question needs to be rephrased or removed. It might fit better in the section that deals with international differences.
 * You are misrepresrnting Templeton and me. I already knew when I posted this that you would somehoew twist this top make it fit your case. He is flat out contradicting you in fact. I am not going to discuss this more with you. My time is too precious. I am sure other editors will be able to see what Templeton actually says, and how you are misrepresenting him as saying the opposite of what he says.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Templeton makes it clear that there can be between population differences in intelligence. He argues that it's meaningless to ask if there are between subspecies differences in intelligence. With regards to the hereditarian position, we are asking if there are between race -- where race means population or group (i.e the population of African and European Americans) -- differences in intelligence. You are misrepresenting Tempelton's position.   How about this edit:  "Templeton argues that racial groups do not represent subspecies and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of subspecies"?

No you are misrepresenting his position based on a reading statements into the quote that he does not make. Try to read what it actually says: "races do not exist in humans under any modern definition" and "It is meaningless to look for "racial differences in any specific trait including intelligence". He clearly and unequivocally says that there can be intelligence differences between populations that are adaptively distinct or distinct by isolation (a requirement for selective forces to have operated on them and not other groups), but that racial groups do not represent such a group and that studying racial differences in any biological trait is meaningless. You are misrepresenting arguments from sources in a way that is clearly disruptive and makes it difficult to assume good faith in interacting with you. I suggest trying an approach that is less combative and aims at comprehending sources and representing their actual meanings instead of twisting them to agree with your personal goals. Otherwise your career here will be short, as the discretionary sanctions that are in place here are aimed to stop precisely that behavior.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)It's redundant to say that races do not represent subspecies and "distinct evolutionary lineages," since Templeton argued that races are not subspecies because they are not "distinct evolutionary lineages,"
 * 2) Again Tempelton says there is no basis for making claims about subspecies. If races are not subspecies, they must be something else (e.g popultions or groups). And Templeton does not say that there's no basis for making claims about populations or groups. --174.97.236.49 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck
 * also Templeton does not argue that race is not subspecies because they are not evolutionary lineages - he distinguishes between the two quite clearly. How can you pretend to correct misrepresentations of a source that you have clearly not read?·Maunus· ƛ · 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If your argument is that hereditarians are in the minority position because they believe that races are biological categories, you're mistaken -- consider that both Murray and Jensen made similar arguments for class differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that argument is called social darwinism and is just as baseless as the race argument and it also does assume that class differences are based on genetic differences, namely the genetic difference that they assume cause one class to have lower IQs than other.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the view that race and intelligence are biological is not the minority viewpoint. I would describe the notion that they aren't as the fringe (namely, Marxist) viewpoint.  Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone who think UNESCO is a Marxist organization couldn't be trusted to recognize a fringe viewpoint if sitting on it. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not a Marxist organization, but it is indeed a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "a Marxist-affiliated viewpoint"! I was unaware that a viewpoint could become a Party Member (or even a fellow -traveller). Isn't Wikipedia wonderful, you learn something new every day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ....·Maunus· ƛ · 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, as much as I'm a staunch defender of hereditarianism. This whole article is rather untidy.  Why can't you break it into:


 * History of the debate (general brief)
 * The validity of "IQ"
 * Group differences
 * Potential causes a. environmental b. cultural c. genetic (make c brief and generic)
 * The environmental versus hereditarian debate (environmental case/hereditarian case)  -- setting some word limit to cut down on unrepresentative views  (i.e each side has X words to present their side.)
 * Significance of group differences as it is.
 * Policy relevance given different causes and expected durations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes the article needs a cleanup. But no, that is the wrong outline and the proposal is in basic conflict with the policy NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Balance is not achieved by giving each side equal amounts of verbiage - it is achieved by weighing points of view relative to their prominence in academics. Your proposal has no section on race and the problems of race - whch is the most controversial problem with the entire topic. And Cultural causes are also environmental - since we attain culture through interaction with our cultural environments.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inbreeding depression"
I propose rewriting the " "Inbreeding depression" section to make it more readable:

"Heritability and the method of correlated vectors"

Different subtests vary in how much they correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and inbreeding depression. The Black-White subtest differences correlate with general intelligence loadings, heritability estimates, and the effect of inbreeding -- a purely genetic effect. As the hereditarian hypothesis predicts this while environmental hypotheses do not, Hereditarians argue that one can infer a genetic component to the difference. In reply, Nisbett and Flynn argue that the Flynn effect, a presumably non-genetic effect, also correlates with general intelligence loadings and inbreeding depression; as such, they argue that the above correlations imply nothing. Rushton and Jensen have disputed Nisbett and Flynn's claim and maintain that the correlations support a genetic role.[5]--174.97.236.49 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Chuck


 * Honestly I would remove the entire section as unencyclopedic. It's a he said/she said about a topic which has no high quality secondary sources supporting it's inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * agree.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Murray as an intelligence researcher?
I have reverted the addition of Chareles Murray in the list of prominent hereditarians, as his field of study and endeavor is neiher inteligence nor anthropology nor human genetics, but rather policy, and his work did not produce any original research, but was mostly a reinterpretation of other research by other researchers (among them Rushton).--Ramdrake (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly think there's now a consensus for this change? Sightwatcher, Victor Chmara, Maunus and myself all have said that this doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the lead. The only people who expressed agreement with you on this are Volunteer Marek and AndytheGrump. What's more, you haven't made an attempt to respond to Victor's point that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are all on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and that that is just as relevant as mentioning their relationship to the Pioneer Fund. Why are we mentioning their affiliation to the Pioneer Fund, but not this? Your statement that "if "Intelligence" is THE premier publication in the field, then the field is in a sorry state" does not render this irrelevant. This field is the article's topic area, and therefore it's what the article needs to be based on, whether you like it or not.


 * Consensus is more than just a vote. What matters more is the strength of the arguments being made, so I think it's more important how you brushed aside Victor's point without addressing it than that the majority of editors involved in this discussion disagree with you. As an editor whose opinion is in the minority here, and who is not trying to address the points made by the majority, you should not be claiming that your preferred version has consensus.


 * I find it very telling that for the past month 100% of your content edits have been reverts, that all but two of them have not been accompanied by any explanation on the talk page. And that all but one of your reverts in this topic area have been to reinstate changes made by Volunteer Marek. When the focus of an editor's involvement is to support editors with whom they agree in edit wars, that is not a good sign about whether the goal of their involvement is to work collaboratively with other editors. There are discretionary sanctions authorized on this article, so if you continue with this behavior I intend to go to an admin about it.Boothello (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the addition of the Pioneer Fund reference is weaselly. On the other hand - should we credit Murray with being a researcher on the topic? He's notable media-wise, but is he really appropriate as an academic reference on this particular topic? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that when hereditarian researchers are being listed somewhere, it happens too often that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredson are the only people listed. It creates the false impression that these four are the only hereditarian researchers who matter, and I think it would be good for the article to mention an additional person. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the fifth person should be Charles Murray or someone else, though. I asked Victor Chmara in his user talk whether he thinks Murray is a better choice than someone like Loehlin or Sesardic, so let's see what he says. What do you think?Boothello (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's bizarre to claim that Murray has not done original research in this field. Murray and Herrnstein's original analysis of IQ data from the NLSY is probably the most debated IQ study in history. His publishing record in academic journals is not extensive but it is not non-existent either, see e.g., , and. He has probably published more on this topic than someone like Nisbett, who is properly a social psychologist. Murray is one of the best-known people associated with the race and IQ controversy.

There is certainly no consensus to mention Pioneer in the lead section. If anything, there's a consensus against that. If we start inserting all sorts of qualifiers and insinuations so as to cast doubt on the motives of the hereditarian researchers, we will have to do that with the anti-hereditarians, too. For example, should Stephen Rose be described in the article as a "polemicist on the left" or "the last of the Marxist radical scientists", as he has been described in the Guardian (see his article for references)? I hope we will not go down that road. The problem with mentioning affilitations that some scientist may have is that everybody has multiple affiliations, and choosing which one to mention and how to mention it is a completely arbitrary process driven by personal biases. It's best to just neutrally describe these people as psychologists, anthropologists or whatever, and if some affiliations are relevant, discuss them more in more detail in one place in the article and/or in a dedicated article as is currently done with Pioneer.

I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of Murray (Vincent Sarich and Henry Harpending are some others who could be included), but Pioneer should certainly not be mentioned in the lede for the above reasons.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my concern: I know Murray's work best from my days as a policy researcher. At least in the UK he's not seen as particularly credible amongst academics in policy studies. His work is studied as an influential articulation of a political position, but in terms of his use of empirical evidence, his research is considered pretty poor. Essentially, he's a media-friendly advocate, not a quality researcher. I think he's significant as a populariser of ideas, but my reading of the text is that that is not a good criterion for inclusion here. We should be wary of media perception getting in the way of who the serious players are. The Bell Curve didn't get attention for the quality of the work - it was partly the opposite. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Murray is as competent a researcher as anyone, and The Bell Curve used standard social science methods, and its main results have been replicated by other researchers. Most of the criticisms against him are pure political nonsense. Murray once wrote a rather amusing article about the distortions and dishonesty of many of the book's critics, but unfortunately I cannot locate it at the moment [edit: it's this one ]. Anyway, we can include someone other than Murray in the lede.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Herrnstein was clearly the more respected researcher of the two, and the only one with a background in Psychology. Sarich and Harpending are both minor players, I don't think they deserve lead attention, I do think the Bell Curve should be mentioned in the lead, especially since its publication sparked the current phase of the controversy.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am OK with Murray and/or Herrnstein being mentioned in the lede, as their book is one of the most notable on the topic. Also OK with PF having a brief mention in the lede. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the Pioneer Fund in relation with Rushton et al.
I believe the point that Volunteer Marek was trying to make with his edit is that ALL the most prominent hereditarian researchers are ALSO PF grantees. This. In my view is a significant point. While the point may conceivably be better written (how?), I still think it is important enough to deserve reasonable mention in t he lede, as the PF is a major corporate player through its funding in this field of endeavior.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should mention the PF when it is specifically relevant. I don't think we should use it as a tag to automatically put after certain people's names. It definitely deserves mention in the lead as all involved groups agree that it has played an important role in all of the phases of the controversy from the earliest period.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added back mention of the Pioneer Fund, hopefully within the parameters of your comment.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I already told Boothello several times, my point was NOT that "all hereditarian researchers are PF grantees", but rather that "all the hereditarian researchers listed in the lede of this article are PF grantees". I take no stance as to whether these are the "most prominent" amongst them or not. But the source DOES state and explicitly discuss the connection of:


 * Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson (copy pasted from article text)


 * to the Pioneer Fund. Since these names can thrown a lot in this and other related articles, yes, I do think it is important to note the connection in the lede. In fact, if we mention it once in the lede, it will be unnecessary to bring up the fact again when these folks are mentioned in the text (per Maunus' comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Although a thorough discussion of funding and the role of PF in promoting this particular line of research does probably warrant a separate section or subsection (under "Ethics of research" perhaps) of its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

New lead proposal
There've been a lot of undiscussed changes to this article’s lead section in the past few weeks, and a few people have made suggestions about things they think it should include, so I decided to try and write a new version of the lead that incorporates these suggestions. Here’s my proposal of how the lead should be changed:

Here are the reasons for the things I changed:


 * I added back the information about how IQ scores are distributed, which was removed around a week ago without consensus. As I mentioned when this was removed, it makes the article confusing for it to talk about racial IQ gaps before explaining what those gaps are. WP:LEAD says the lead is meant to be a concise summary of the rest of the article, and it’s not possible to summarize the article without mentioning this. Maunus said that he thinks it’s misleading to mention how IQ scores are distributed without mentioning the debate over the reason for this, so I also included a sentence to the end of this paragraph mentioning that there’s no consensus about the cause of these gaps.


 * I removed the sentence about skull measurements in the lead section. This was unsourced, and mentioned nowhere else in the article, so it shouldn’t be in the lead. Some other recent changes to the first paragraph also don’t make sense, such as saying that race and intelligence was a topic of debate only before the invention of intelligence tests. That’s completely backwards: while the connection between race and intelligence has been discussed in some capacity for centuries, the modern debate over this began when IQ tests were invented. I’ve changed the first paragraph back to the way it was before these changes were made.


 * Maunus suggested that the lead section should mention The Bell Curve, so I added a sentence about that to the last paragraph. I also think if we’re going to discuss the history of the controversy, we should also mention Arthur Jensen’s 1969 paper that initiated the modern race and intelligence debate.


 * I don’t think the paragraph on group statements about race and IQ should be in the lead, for two reasons. First, the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and the statements from the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. And second, I think the statements from AAA, AAPA and UNESCO deserve more space than they can be given in the lead. These three statements do not say exactly the same thing, and lumping them all into the same sentence in the lead prevents us from presenting the nuances of any of them. If consensus favors my proposal for the lead section, I’ll also work on creating a new section called “group statements” where we can describe these statements in detail.

Since there is no consensus for the current version of the lead, I think it’s important for it to be replaced with something that’s been discussed. Suggestions about how to improve this are welcome.Boothello (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, your text is self-contradictory in places. Specifically:
 * It is generally agreed that both genetics and environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores.
 * contradicts
 * Others argue that the evidence supports an all-environmental explanation.
 * I also very strongly disagree with the removal of the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO statements. We've already discussed it and while there was disagreement with the wording the consensus seemed very much to include the statements. These groups statements are very important and give the reader the "bottom line" on the subject. If the statements are not mentioned further in the article, that's actually just reflective of the sorry POV state of the article - what we would want to do is to bring rest of the article UP, not drag the lede DOWN.
 * And yes, I still think Rushton, Lynn and others should be linked to the PF fund, but even if not, the nature of the PF as a racist organization devoted to promotion of scientific racism DOES need to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More generally, the basic problem with this article (and several related ones), including the lede is the UNDUE attention given to the so-called "hereditarian" position and the presentation of it in much more favorable terms than it is actually regarded. Your changes do not seem to tackle these fundamental issues in any way, and if anything, make them worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that in to put forth in the *same argument* that the claims made in the Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper deserve greater mention in the lede while those from the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO are so complex there isn't enough room for their summation there is - hilarious -. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to respond to these objections one at a time:


 * We just finished discussing the Pioneer Fund issue at length, and I don't think anyone else agrees with what you want. The current wording is as close to a compromise as it's possible to have between you and everyone else here. If you still don't like it even now, I don’t think there's anything else left to discuss about it at this point.


 * Of the two statements you quoted that you say are contradictory, the first is referring to individual IQ scores, while the second is referring to racial IQ gaps. This wording also isn't something new that I'm proposing, it's the wording currently in the article. If you think I should change the article's current wording to make it clearer, please make a specific suggestion about how to improve it.


 * The mention of The Bell Curve was included because Maunus wanted it to be mentioned. It doesn't matter much to me whether the Bell Curve is included here, I only included it to incorporate Maunus's suggestion.  Both The Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper initiated new stages in the race and intelligence debate, more so than any other publications on the topic, and both hereditarians and environmentalists agree they had this effect. I think this is why Maunus wanted The Bell Curve to be mentioned, but do you disagree?


 * If other people think it's necessary for the AAA, AAPA, and UNESCO statements be included, at the very least the paragraph about them needs to be reworded. I'll post a new version of this proposal sometime soon that does so.Boothello (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We just finished discussing the Pioneer Fund issue at length, and I don't think anyone else agrees with what you want. - No, that is not true . Andy the Grump, Ramdrake, and aprock agreed with me, more or less. Maunus stated that he didn't think that the PF connection should be overemphasized but that's not the same thing, despite your claims, as saying that it should not be emphasized at all.
 * "Racial" IQ scores are composed of individual IQ scores, are they not? Again, we shouldn't even be spending that much time on the herederian view in the first place.
 * I didn't disagree with the mention of the Bell Curve. But we should be honest and state explicitly that the reason these works are "noteworthy" is because of the controversy not because their conclusions are widely accepted.
 * However, see Professor Marginalia's comment above. If that part needs to be reworded, it's only to include the statement that I had tried to put into the article, based on a reliable source, which you then removed.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * '"Racial" IQ scores are composed of individual IQ scores, are they not?


 * For individual IQ variation within racial groups to be highly heritable does not by any means necessitate that between-group IQ differences have to be heritable also. The reason for that is explained by the article itself (although not as clearly as it could be), by the APA report, and by almost every other source that summarizes the race/IQ debate from either a hereditarian or environmental perspective. This point is so basic, covered so extensively in the source material, and so central to the Race/IQ debate that I'm kind of shocked you would be making large changes to these articles with the aggressiveness that you have if you haven't read enough of the source material to understand this. Having an informed opinion about what these articles should and shouldn't say requires a certain amount of knowledge about this topic. If you aren't familiar enough with it to be aware of the distinction between within-group and between-group heritability, then you seriously need to reconsider whether you're knowledgeable enough about this topic for your participation here to be helpful.


 * The hereditarian hypothesis is not the view that genetics influence individual IQ variation within racial groups. The hereditarian hypothesis is the view that genetics also influence differences in average IQ between racial groups. The first idea is mainstream, the second is not. I can explain how the first can be true and the second not if you want me to, and I'm sure any of the regulars on these articles could too. But for someone who is trying to dictate article content as much as you have been, it shouldn't be necessary to explain something like this to them at all.Boothello (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at it again it, you're right (don't ever say I don't concede a point when I'm shown to be wrong) - I do understand the point perfectly well, but here I just denied my antecedent (switched my "if" with an "only if"). I read it as the first part saying that between group variability was both genetic and environmental while individual heritability was all environmental, in which case the statement would be wrong. But I flipped it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the new version. As requested, I did away with the ref to The Bell Curve and Jensen's 1969 paper, and added a paragraph about the statements from AAA, AAPA and UNESCO.

After doing some research about the UNESCO statement, I found that the original 1950 version of it was replaced in 1951 with an updated version, as described here. When people have said that they think this article should include the UNESCO statement, I assume it must be the 1951 version that they mean. It would be extremely misleading for this article to include only the 1950 statement, and imply that this statement still represents UNESCO's current position, without mentioning that this statement was replaced with a new version the following year. With this in mind, the summary presented here is based of the 1951 version of the statement.

As I said before, the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO statements do not say exactly the same thing, so if we're going to summarize them we have to do so separately, not lump them all into the same sentence. I still think it's unwieldy for these group statements to be presented in the lead instead of their own section, but if this is what everyone else wants, I'm willing to accept that consensus opposes me about it.

Does anyone have any other suggestions about this? I would especially like to get Victor Chmara's and VsevolodKrolikov's opinions. Both of them have been involved in this article for a long time, and seem to have a good understanding of the issues surrounding this topic, so I'd like to know if they approve.Boothello (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A few points:


 * the connection between race and intelligence had been discussed for centuries before IQ tests were invented


 * psychology should be mentioned first when listing relevant disciplines


 * I do not understand why the ancient UNESCO statements should be given such a prominent role, or even mentioned, in the lead section; they are of historical interest only


 * a lead section should have at most four paragraphs


 * the sentence "A fourth position holds that IQ does not exist, that it is a socially constructed concept, and that the source of the difference resides in the nature of the tests, which favor particular ethnic and linguistic groups" is incoherent (IQ does not exist?) and should be rewritten


 * the paragraph containing the above sentence is a bit incoherent as a whole, too; for example, who has suggested that there are precisely these four explanations for racial IQ differences?


 * I don't think any researchers should be mentioned by name in the lead section; the debate is or at least should be about arguments and evidence, not persons
 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of your criticisms, for example, I said before I think the UNESCO statement is old enough that it shouldn't be in the lead section, but I included it because Maunus and Volunteer Marek both thought it needed to be there. I also think that the whole last paragraph belongs in the article body rather than the lead, partly because it lengthens the lead unnecessarily. But when I made the first version of my proposal without this paragraph, most other editors opposed it. So I'm not sure what to do here.


 * I guess what I suggest is that you make your own proposal for the lead, and see whether other editors prefer it over my proposal. If they do, we can use your version instead of mine. But either way the current lead really needs to be replaced, even moreso now that I've found it's misrepresenting UNESCO's position by describing only their 1950 statement without mentioning the 1951 revision.


 * For a lot of articles in this topic area, I think the most neutral and stable versions are from before Miradre or Marek became involved in them. This is what this article looked like before either of them began editing it. The lead section of that version of the article had been stable for several months, so it might be worth getting some ideas from it about what the current lead should say.Boothello (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The statements from the professional organizations should come first, in the second paragraph, definitely before Rushton et. al., though it might have to be reworded slightly in that case for flow. Otherwise, it should be the third paragraph.
 * On the UNESCO statement, I see it as relevant but on this one I'm willing to be convinced - it'd be nice to find something more up to date.
 * Not sure why Psychologists should come first. Anthropologists and others have as much of a claim here as anyone - it might make sense to just go with an alphabetical listing. What's the argument for giving Psychologists prominence here?
 * Yes, the lede is too long, too some extent that's going to be inevitable here. I'd cut:
 * Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, although these studies are generally considered less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause. - not nec and too much detail for the lead.
 * Several professional organizations have issued statements that addressed the topic of race and intelligence.  - not nec, it's obvious from text that follows what the text is about.
 * The report states that it is possible but not proved that some types of innate mental capacity are more common in one human group than another, but it is certain that innate capacities within a single group vary as much as, if not more than, between different groups. - too much detail
 * The current second and third paragraph should be combined as they on the same thing.
 * Not mentioning researchers in the lede - the problem is that the distribution of these researchers is pretty skewed. It's obvious from the folks listed that this is too a large (though not total) extent Pioneer Fund Grantees vs. rest of the world. Given that the article gives such a over-prominent space to the herediterian view, the Pioneer Fund should be mentioned. An alternative would be too scale the attention given to the heredeiterian view in which case it would make sense to remove these guys from the lede. But I don't see the latter happening, so at least Rushton and PF should stay in the lede.
 * IQ does not exist - yeah, that's bad writing. I'm guessing it should be something like "single factor intelligence doesn't exist" or "intelligence is not quantifiable" or "intelligence is not one dimensional" or something like that. What's the source here again (this relates to Victor's last question)?
 * Boothello, before I made my edits the article was a weaselly exercise in white washing and WP:UNDUE. It still is but less so. "Stability" is not a good argument - articles can be "stable" and be very bad, for a long time. This point was already made previously, so please don't keep bringing it up again and again.

Why would the UNESCO statements (there were two of them, the first by sociologists and cultural anthropologists, the second by physical anthropologists and geneticists who rejected the race-denialist line of thinking in the first statement) be relevant in this article's lead section? I think this article should be about current views on race and intelligence, because there's a separate article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. What other article about a scientific topic or controversy discusses views held 60 years ago in its lead section?

The reason why psychologists should be mentioned first is obvious: The article is almost entirely about IQ and psychological research, and at least 90 percent of the sources used are by psychologists. Psychology is the only science with a valid and reliable operationalization of intelligence, and to the extent that other disciplines deal with race and intelligence at all, it's mostly handwaving for this reason.

Race and IQ research outside of the US should be mentioned in the lead section, because that's a prominent part of the debate; it's not just about America. However, this could be done more succintly.

While it has been repeatedly claimed in these discussions that the hereditarian view is a minor view or even a fringe view, no evidence has ever been presented in support of this idea. The only representative survey of academic opinion on race and intelligence is the Snyderman and Rothman one from the 1980s, which showed that among psychologists, educationalists, and sociologists, some sort of hereditarianism was the modal view, whereas the hardcore environmentalist view was supported by a much smaller minority. I'm not claiming that that study is definitive, but it certainly does not lend support to the notion that hereditarianism is a marginal view in the fields of science that are most relevant to this topic.

I see no reason why any researchers should be mentioned by name in the lead section. No other article does that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason why psychologists should be mentioned first is obvious: The article is almost entirely about IQ and psychological research, and at least 90 percent of the sources used are by psychologists. Psychology is the only science with a valid and reliable operationalization of intelligence, and to the extent that other disciplines deal with race and intelligence at all, it's mostly handwaving for this reason. - even assuming this is true, the article is about Race and intelligence, and there the anthropologists get the prominence over the psychologists. The fact that the article is primarily about IQ and psychological research is one of the things that is wrong with the article rather than a reason to monkey it up further.
 * While it has been repeatedly claimed in these discussions that the hereditarian view is a minor view or even a fringe view, no evidence has ever been presented in support of this idea. - the fact that the overwhelming majority of the pro-hereditarian research is associated with the racist Pioneer Institute is pretty much evidence for the fact that it's a fringe view. If you want to limit the article to non-PF grantees that could possibly work but it would mean removing lots of the article.
 * For the same reason, the Pioneer Fund, and "researchers" associated with it should be mentioned in the lede. They, and the institute are very much part of the discussion and they are treated at great length in the sources - hence the lede should reflect that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An important factor is that if you look at the academic literature that provides in-depth discussion about the relationship between race and intelligence, rather than just discussing either race or intelligence with a few passing mentions of the other topic, that literature is overwhelmingly within the field of psychology. In other words if you look at all of the scholarly books and papers published in a given year that provide an in-depth discussion about race and intelligence, most by far will be within the field of psychology, and at least half will be in psychometrics. Psychology sources also tend to be the only ones that provide detailed coverage of the individual subjects of debate within this topic, like Spearman’s Hypothesis, X-factors, or the Flynn Effect. To the extent that anthropologists have written about this topic, their views should also be included. But the portion of the source literature that's written by them is really minor compared to that which is written by psychologists. When research about a topic is so completely dominated by one particular field, then that should be reflected in Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.


 * As I said, I'm just talking about academic sources here. I know that there are lots of popular books about this topic by people in all sorts of different fields, but scholarly books and papers are always the most reliable sources in any article about a scientific topic, so those are what the article should be based on.


 * And it's wrong to say that the majority of hereditarian research is associated with the Pioneer Fund, unless you mean "associated with" in a very misleading way. Most hereditarian research definitely is not supported by the Pioneer Fund. It may be accurate to say is that the majority of hereditarian research is from researchers who have at one time in their lives done research that was supported by the Pioneer Fund, although Maunus explained here the reason why - it is sometimes difficult to obtain funding for controversial research, and researchers will often take funding where they can find it. Consider Hans Eysenck, who first received funding from the Pioneer Fund in 1986, but had been well-known as a hereditarian for decades beforehand. Eysenck's best known pro-hereditarian book, The IQ Argument, was published 15 years before he received any money from the fund. It can't be right to say that if a person receives money from the Pioneer Fund at any point in their lives, this causes all research they've done throughout their entire careers to be "associated with" the fund, even research that they did years before they received any fund money.


 * Victor: as I said in your user talk, I think it would be helpful if you could write a new version of the lead which incorporates any changes you think ought to be made from what has been suggested here.Boothello (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There's little of interest that anthropologists have said on this topic. This is because they generally deny the existence of intelligence and races, and refuse to operationalize them in any manner. Most anthropologists deny the legitimate existence of such a field of study as race and intelligence, so you don't need more than a few sentences to summarize their obscurantist views on the topic.

Psychology, together with behavior genetics, is the only discipline that has a sophisticated and intellectually serious tradition of research on race and intelligence. This is the reason why psychological research dominates this article. It cannot be otherwise.

The fact that some people dislike the policies that Pioneer has sometimes supported has no bearing on the legitimacy of the research it has sponsored. This research has been published in peer-reviewed publications, and has been and continues to be widely cited by other academics. Why did you refer to Pioneer grantees as "researchers" with scare quotes? Do you realize that all of these people are tenured professors, have extensive publishing records in peer-reviewed journals, and sit on the editorial boards of such journals? They have the respect of their peers, which is what matters, not smear jobs by ideological crusaders. These crusaders have attacked Pioneer and attempted to link this research with fascism, Nazism and whatnot precisely because they are unable to disprove the research findings -- when scientific criticism has proven to be ineffectual, they have resorted to unscientific criticism.

As pointed out by Maunus earlier, the reason why many hereditarian researchers have received funding from Pioneer is that Pioneer has often been the only one to agree to fund research with politically incorrect implications. It has never been shown that Pioneer has tried to pressure or influence their grantees in any manner. It's a tiny organization with barely any staff, so it's a bit weird to see how much attention is paid to it. (Meanwhile, the "environmentalist" side has received and continues to receive lavish funding from the government and the richest foundations, yet they have failed to identify any environmental mechanisms that could explain the racial IQ gaps.) All hereditarian researchers have published on other topics and received grants from other funding sources, so I don't see why their grants from Pioneer would somehow define them as scientists. Finally, most of the research used to support the hereditarian view was not sponsored by Pioneer.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure how to respond to this, so it's probably better not to in any substantive manner. I'll just remind everyone that reliable secondary sources are what guide content creation, not our own personal opinions about which fields are correct in their interpretation. aprock (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If Victor doesn't want to propose a lead, how about this:

Most of the changes that I made were based on Victor's suggestions, though I also replaced the summary of the four positions in the third paragraph with the summary by Hunt and Carlson. Seems odd that Hunt and Carlson's list of positions doesn't include agnosticism (isn't that their own position?). But at least now this summary isn't borderline original research, as it was when the article said that there were four positions without citing a source for that.

If anyone disagrees with these changes, I should point out that the justifications he gave for why he wants these changes haven't been addressed by anyone. On any Wikipedia article, decisions can only be based on policy-based and evidence-based arguments, not based on editors' personal opinions. So that's the only thing I can base my proposal on. If anyone disagrees with Victor's suggested changes, they need to specifically address the reasons he gave above for why these changes are necessary.Boothello (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that most of my objections I made above still apply here. For example, the statements by the professional organizations need to come first before we get to making sure that every one knows that there are racial differences in IQ scores. Intelligence precedes IQ. Your "pointing out" that "these changes haven't been addressed by anyone" is not factually correct. Both myself and others have responded to Victor. The fact that you tend to agree with Victor and disagree with others does not mean that they haven't "been addressed". So no, this will not work either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll note as well that the lede is not appropriate. Instead of focusing on the lede, it would probably make more sense to edit the body of the article, and when that has been more evenly developed, rewrite the lede as a summary of the article. aprock (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Boothello, I like your latest proposal. Two small suggestions:


 * second paragraph: remove "most notably in Africa", because there are plenty of data from everywhere


 * fourth paragraph: the AAA and the AAPA statements are short declarations, whereas the APA one is an extensive, detailed report, which should be made clear

--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek said above that he thinks the paragraph on group statements should be moved to before the one on the test score data. I think the lead flows better with the paragraphs in their current order, but I'll change the order if it's the only way to get enough consensus to add this to the article. We definitely need to get rid of the current lead, which I think is opposed by consensus at this point. And even with the paragraphs in Marek's suggested order, I still think this proposal will be an improvement over the current wording. What do you think about changing the order of those paragraphs?Boothello (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The test score data should be presented first, because the group statements are largely comments on those very data. Nevertheless, if moving the paragraphs is what it takes to get people to agree on using this new lede, then let's do that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree with aprock. no point in editing the lede. the dominance of fringe views in the rest of the article has to be eradicated first.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It will likely take months to fix all of the NPOV problems with the rest of the article. In the meantime there are a lot of issues with the current lead that have been pointed out, such as the unsourced information mentioned nowhere else in the article and the way it misrepresents UNESCO's position (by stating only their 1950 statement and not the 1951 revision). We also have a specific proposal about what to replace the current lead with. There's no reason to not fix these problems with the lead while we have the opportunity. I can replace the current lead with the new version right now and then at least THAT issue will be dealt with, and we can get on to discussing the article's other problems.


 * With this in mind, I hope it's ok to go ahead and replace the lead with the new version, including the changes suggested by Victor and Marek. Even if the new version isn't perfect, it's clearly an improvement over what's there now. Otherwise we'd have to leave this discussion unfinished right when it was close to reaching a consensus.Boothello (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Re:. The first paragraph's fine (and is in fact an improvement). The rest no so much. For example the sentence: ''Several professional organizations have issued statements describing their positions in this dispute. '' assumes that a dispute exists. What dispute? Even if there is one, it should be defined first. The previous wording was better. Also, the previous wording was more to the point and direct. I am going to revert the change, but will restore the first paragraph changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your change to the second paragraph makes it now contradict itself. The first sentence says that the position of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists is the same as that of the American Anthropological Association, but the last sentence of the paragraph describes the AAPA statement in detail, making it clear that it doesn't say exactly the same thing as the AAA statement. You also seemed open to Victor's point that the UNESCO statement is too old to be mentioned in the lead - you said "I see it as relevant but on this one I'm willing to be convinced - it'd be nice to find something more up to date". So I'm not sure why you added that back now. At the very least, if we're going to mention UNESCO's position we need to base it on the 1951 version of their statement, not the 1950 version. This paragraph is misrepresenting their current position by claiming that the 1950 statement represents UNESCO's position but not mentioning that this statement was replaced the following year.


 * Also, Victor Chmara and I both thought it was better for the paragraph about group statements to come after the explanation from Hunt and Carlson about what the dispute is. The only reason this paragraph is stating the positions of professional organizations before it defines the dispute is because you disagreed with me and Victor, and wanted the summary of organizations' positions to come first. If you don't like it now, then we can put these paragraphs in the order that Victor suggested.


 * It's very troubling to see that you doubt whether a debate over race and intelligence exists at all. I said before that having an informed opinion about what does and doesn't belong in an article requires a certain amount of knowledge about its topic. If a person is unfamiliar enough with any academic debate that they don't believe a debate to exist at all, they should not be trying to influence the content of an article about that debate.Boothello (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell me if you still think the positions of professional organizations should be in the second paragraph, before the article has explained the nature of the debate on this topic. The only reason this is in the second paragraph is because you wanted it to be there. If now you're complaining about it being there, I'll move this paragraph to after Hunt and Carlson paragraph as Victor and I suggested originally.Boothello (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you be specific about where this supposed "contradiction" occurs? I don't see it. The AAPA statement is a bit more detailed than the AAA statement but they do say essentially the same thing (more or less that nobody, save a few cranks, thinks that the hereditarian position has any value). Likewise as far as I can see the UNESCO statement is not currently in the lede so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where did I "add it back in"? It might be a good idea to put it back in though.
 * Your and Victor's position has been noted. But there is no general agreement for it. The position of professional organizations is of primary interest here. Note that these positions are on the subject of "race and intelligence", which is what this article is about, rather than with regard to IQ tests specifically which is a subtopic (already given way too much prominence both in the article and in the lede). Also, please stop ignoring the input of other editors into the discussion, even though they may not comment as intensively as you (or me for that matter). Most of them do in fact disagree with you or Victor.
 * It's very troubling that you are trying to exclude input from people who don't agree with you by down playing their concerns with phrases like "it's very troubling...". In other words, drop the insinuations please. I'm perfectly familiar with the subject matter - don't make personal attacks please. There is nothing in the article which documents the existence of such a debate in mainstream sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to ask an extremely simple question. In your previous comment you said you disagreed with describing the position of professional organizations before the dispute itself is defined, because you said "Even if there is one, it should be defined first." But earlier in this discussion you said the positions of professional organizations should come first, so that's what the article does now. When I followed your advice, you complained about the specific thing I'd done at your suggestion. I am trying to ask you whether based on that, you would agree with me putting the paragraph about the positions of organizations after the Hunt and Carlson paragraph, so that the dispute can be defined first as you requested in your previous comment. No one else other than me and Victor has offered their opinion on this, and he and I agree with your most recent opinion that the dispute should be defined before the positions of organizations are given. Please answer this simple question on a content issue.


 * The more you post in these articles, the more apparent it becomes that something needs to change. In the edit summary for my last edit, I linked you to this page from the manual of style about what the format of the first sentence of an article needs to be. Now that you've removed the article's original first sentence, the new first sentence clearly does not meet these criteria. But you don't seem to care, because as usual, you immediately unreverted when I reverted you. You've been involved in Wikipedia for years, so it can't just be that you don't understand what the format for an article's first sentence should be. It looks like you're deliberately ignoring this guideline.


 * And here is the fundamental basis for all of the edits you've made in this topic area, described as clearly as possible in your edit summary here: that you believe there to be no debate over this topic at all, so in your opinion the hereditarian hypothesis should be given no more coverage than geocentrism. Regarding your statement above that there is no documented debate about this in mainstream sources, the existence of this debate is documented not only in the sources currently used by the article, but by the exact sources we have been discussing for the past few weeks, such as Hunt and Carlson’s paper and the APA report. This is described in the preamble of the APA report, the first page of the Hunt and Carlson paper, and also the beginning of the chapter on group differences in the 2011 edition of Mackintosh's IQ and Human Intelligence. Neither of the first two sources are pro-hereditarian, and Mackintosh's book is strongly anti-hereditarian. It shows that even opponents of the hereditarian hypothesis acknowledge that this topic is "fiercely debated" (to use Mackintosh’s words).


 * But even though two of the papers we have been discussing here describe the existence of a major debate over this topic in their opening paragraphs, you say that as far as you know there is no mainstream source which documents the existence of a debate about it. How can you not be aware of what's in the opening paragraphs of the sources we've been discussing for more than a week? The only way it's possible is if you haven't been reading the sources that we discuss, and that you also haven't read any of the other sources (like Mackintosh's book) which document the existence of this debate.


 * No one else has agreed with you that this debate does not exist, and Maunus and Victor Chmara both explained in earlier comments what's wrong with your claim. You had nothing to say in response to either of them about this. Now I have just provided three mainstream sources that show you are wrong. Without getting outside help from other editors, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to get you to understand that this is what the sources say. You won't listen to the opinion of other editors, you won't follow the lead guideline, and you also are making claims about the source material that makes it clear you are not reading the sources we discuss. If this doesn't change I think it is completely appropriate to say you should not be participating.


 * If you're going to post in these articles, you will need to make an effort to learn what the source material says, especially about obvious topics like whether there is an R&I debate. Otherwise this is likely to eventually end of at AE again.Boothello (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The title, and subject, of this article is "Race and intelligence", not "Race and intelligence debate". So the present first sentence describes the subject perfectly well and is in conformity with lead guidelines which you link to. To pretend that a debate exist is a standard tactic of fringe viewpoints attempting to give themselves legitimacy. The fact that major professional organizations don't think the herediterian POV has much merit is illustrative here and that's why it should be mentioned first. This is like proponents of creationism pretending that there is a "debate about evolution". I mean, there is one, but it is a political not a scientific one.
 * If you're referring to this work then note that the word "race" does not appear in the preamble. I don't have access to the Mackintosh book so I can't comment on that.
 * Furthermore the wording of the removed sentence was The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate for centuries - where and how is this "for centuries" supported? This basically seems like it's calling claims made by 19th and early 20th century racists and eugenicists a "debate". If you want this to be here then we should be precise and spell out that old racist theory posited a relationship between race and intelligence but they have since been debunked.
 * You keep claiming that others agree with you and maybe Victor does, though I don't think the same thing is true for Maunus. However, there are plenty of other editors here, like aprock or mustihussain or VsevolodKrolikov or Ramdrake or AndyTheGrump for instance, who do not agree with you though it seems like they simply do not have the same patience as I do in trying to engage you in meaningful discussion.
 * The bottom line on this "debate" thing is that, aside from a few cranks who get their money from racist organizations like the Pioneer Fund, no serious person believes that some races are intellectually genetically inferior to others. I hope you're not seriously saying that this is something that is up for discussion (and the whole "oh but the tails overlap so it's possible for a black person to be smarter than a really dumb white person so it's not really racist" line is an obvious piece of bunk) or that there is an actual debate about this. You have not given any legitimate reason for that sentence to stay in the lede.
 * Also, let me repeat my question above - what is this contradiction you're referring to?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek, you are clearly uninformed on this topic, and have not read much of the literature. Your personal opinions on this topic are irrelevant; only the views presented in reliable sources count.


 * Firstly, the scientific discussion about race and intelligence simply did not emerge only with the invention of IQ tests. You may believe that people like Linné, Hume, Darwin, and Galton were worthless racists, but nevertheless they were prominent scientists and thinkers who believed that race and intelligence were linked. To claim that race and intelligence was not an issue before IQ tests is a gross misrepresentation of history.


 * Secondly, the claim that "no serious person believes that some races are intellectually genetically inferior to others" is contradicted by reliable sources. For example, in the 1980s, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman conducted an anonymous survey of more than 600 randomly selected North American social and behavior scientists. One of the questions asked was, "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" 14% of the respondents declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". In other words, the modal position among scientists in relevant fields was that at least some of the b-w gap is genetic in origin; the environmental determinist view you support was much less widespread.


 * In 1994, 52 leading scientists published a statement called "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". Quoting from the statement: "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too." Note that these are not just some random 52 people. They are the who's who of intelligence research and behavior genetics, and they say that genes may be implicated in racial differences in IQ.


 * In 2005, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a journal published by the American Psychological Association, published an issue devoted to the race and intelligence question. Most of the issue consists of a target article by Rushton and Jensen, who argue that race differences in intelligence are heritable. I suggest you read the issue to catch up on the research in this field. Another recent source is Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2010), which devotes about 50 pages to the topic, concluding that it is not possible at this point to say whether race differences in IQ are due to genetic or environmental differences.


 * You have claimed that only "a few cranks" argue that race differences in intelligence may be heritable, but you have not presented a single source in support of that (ridiculous) view, and the sources I just described blatantly contradict you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant literature before making further comments or edits to the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Victor, I have refrained from offering my forthright and blunt opinion on what I really think about people who hold views such as the ones being described here - that some races are intellectually inferior to others - and I expect that you reciprocate by keeping whatever opinions you might have about my level of "informeness", as well as your patronizing suggestions to "familiarize myself" with the topic to yourself. Otherwise there's really no possibility of discussion. Those kinds of comment border on personal attacks. As the policy says, discuss content not editors.


 * So, still keeping quiet about editors, let's move on to content.


 * First I never said that scientific discussion about race and intelligence simply did not emerge only with the invention of IQ tests. Nor have I said that Linné, Hume, Darwin, and Galton were worthless racists. Nor did I say race and intelligence was not an issue before IQ tests. You're piling strawman upon a strawman here. What I said is that the discussion of race and intelligence carried out in the early 20th century and before before cannot be characterized as a scientific debate. And the major contributors to this discussion were eugenicists and racists. Now, one can certainly respect Linne, Hume, Darwin and Galton for the great contributions to human knowledge they made, and at the same time think that their views on race and intelligence was so much racist junk. Just like we can admire Newton for the calculus and the physics, yet we smirk when we read about his belief in alchemy.


 * Second, your example of Snyderman and Rothman is no evidence of a debate. All it shows is that a secret anonymous poll, revealed that in the 1980's some social and behavioral scientists privately held racist views, perhaps a greater number than one would expect (well, it was the 1980's). Either that or the survey design was crap (which I believe is a criticism that has been made). That's not a "scientific debate" that's just some people holding racist views, essentially in private.


 * The 1994 Statement, aside from being pretty outdated as well, has already been discussed above to death and likewise it's no evidence of a debate. And yes, you're right that "that these are not just some random 52 people". We can start with the non-random Linda Gottfredson, a grantee of the racist organization Pioneer Fund.


 * The 2005 Psychlogy, Public Policy and Law issue appears at first glance to be more recent, except for the fact that it's a retrospective. Of the six articles included, 2 are by Rushton and Jensen themselves, one is by another Pioneer Fund grantee, Linda Gottfredson, and the other 3? Well, the Sternberg paper says:


 * J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) purport to show public-policy implications arising from their analysis of alleged genetic bases for group mean differences in IQ. This article argues that none of these implications in fact follow from any of the data they present. The risk in work such as this is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data.


 * The paper by Nisbett opens up with:


 * J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black–White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black–White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil.


 * This isn't a debate, it's two academics telling Rushton and others to STFU already and stop embarrassing the profession. The third paper by Suzuki and Aronson is written in more standard mealy mouthed academese so it's not as blunt as Nisbett and Sternberg but it says pretty much the same thing.


 * So what we have here is a wrap up of a debate that never really happened. Personally, I would question the professional judgment of the psychologists and editors of the journal in even providing a space for such views but whatever, I'm not a psychologist (yes, it's true), and it's not my profession. At best this lets you say is that there was something resembling a debate on race and intelligence within a subset of the psychology profession. Though if Psychology were a living person I might be inclined to consider that a BLP violation.


 * The bottom line is this: a claim is being made that a real scientific debate exists on whether or not black people are inferior to white people.. There is no such debate. In making such a claim the statement that you and boothello want to include suggests that in this supposed debate there's a non-trivial possibility that the racist view that black people are in fact intellectually inferior to white people has some validity. This is misleading (among other things). It's a violation of WP:FRINGE. And yes, it is only a small group of "researchers", awash with money from a racist organization like the Pioneer Fund who like to pretend that such a debate exists. Again, this is the same tactic that creationists use in pretending that there is a "debate about evolution" to try and legitimize their non-scientific views - and there's no debate there either, despite the fact that you can find some folks with Biology PhD's who don't believe in evolution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The contradiction was in this version of the article. It has been fixed now, please don't add it back.


 * The APA report describes the 1990s controversy as having been initiated by The Bell Curve. If you are at all familiar with The Bell Curve, you must be aware that what made it controversial was not just that it talked about intelligence, but intelligence and race. Mackintosh's book and the Hunt and Carlson paper are even more explicit that this controversy is about race and intelligence specifically. If you haven't read either of those sources, you should. Acquainting yourself with what the source material says is your responsibility, and it's disruptive for you to make edits based on the viewpoint that you suspect exists in sources that you have not read.


 * Maunus commented here about what he thinks of the argument you're using and makes a similar point to the one made by Victor Chmara. The only time that VsevolodKrolikov has commented on the changes you were making to this article, in this comment, he also disagreed with you. Ramdrake and AndyTheGrump have agreed with you before on other issues, but neither has agreed with your claim that a debate over race and intelligence does not exist. During the few months that I've been involved in this article, you are literally the only person who I've ever seen claim that. More importantly, in all my time studying this topic academically, never have I encountered an academic professional claiming that - and you have failed to provide reliable sources saying anyone does. I've given several that say the debate exists, and there are many more.


 * In summary: your claim here has been rejected by me, Victor Chmara, and Maunus (in the comment that I linked to), and no one has expressed agreement with it. Therefore, I think it's accurate to say that consensus opposes you about this. As for the lead guideline, this guideline states that the first sentence should be a declarative sentence that explains the reason for the topic's notability, and contains the title of the article in bold as early as possible. This is true of the sentence you removed, but not of what's now the first sentence. With this is mind I am going to add back the first sentence of the article, and cite it to Hunt and Carlson so that it is now sourced.Boothello (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

One more time, what contradiction are you referring to? AFAIK I have not "added any contradiction again" as you insinuate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maunus has not commented on this talk page in quite some time. It's really inappropriate for you to appropriate his comment and try to use it for your own purpose. Basically the people that disagree with me are you and Victor. You are also ignoring aprock's comments: ''I'll note as well that the lede is not appropriate. Instead of focusing on the lede, it would probably make more sense to edit the body of the article, and when that has been more evenly developed, rewrite the lede as a summary of the article. And mustihussain i agree with aprock. no point in editing the lede. the dominance of fringe views in the rest of the article has to be eradicated first.''

You can make claims like  you are literally the only person who I've ever seen claim that all you want but an assertion is not an argument and in this case it is simply false. And will you please drop this insulting nonsense about "Acquainting yourself with what the source material" - this is obviously a bad faithed attempt to poison the well.

And let me ask you this directly since you appear to be intent on evading the question: are you really claiming that a serious scientific debate exists on whether black people are intellectually inferior to white people? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comments by Volunteer Marek: Marek feels that anyone who espouses the Jensenist viewpoint is a priori espousing racist viewpoints and therefore wrong/evil and therefore should be excluded from participation in public discussion of the race/intelligence issue. I am willing to concede that the Hereditarian viewpoint is a priori a racist perspective but the important question is whether it is the TRUTH (you know that pesky old VERITAS thing keeps coming up again and again in intellectual debates). You see Marek thinks that Racism is evil and morally wrong--but this has no absolutely no bearing on whether the Hereditarian/racist viewpoint of Galton and his followers is empirically/factually true. Marek is sure that the Environmentalist/antiracist viewpoint of Boas and his followers is morally right and that the opposing viewpoint Hereditarian is morally wrong. Because of this Marek wants to ignore the issue of whether it may actually be factually true that races have innate differences in their levels of intelligence. The other assertion that Marek makes is that the Hereditarian/racist viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint. He overlooks the fact that prior to the rise of the Boasian school during the 1930s and 1940s virtually all scholars and intellectuals were of the Hereditarian/racist viewpoint (albeit prior to this time there were a few proto-Boasians, people like Rudolf Virchow, Adolf Bastian, Léonce Manouvrier). Currently the Hereditarian viewpoint is hampered by the fact that it is so politically incorrect (after all it is pretty much a racist viewpoint and racism is supposed to be highly evil according to the currently popular mores in Western society, in contrast Asian societies tend to be more comfortable with racist viewpoints...) but it is still not merely a fringe viewpoint. Consider that the Bell Curve was coauthored by Richard Herrnstein who was the Chair of Psychology at Harvard (Chair at Harvard, thats just chopped liver huh??) and Arthur Jensen has been one of the most revered experts on the scientific study of human intelligence during the past few decades (Professor Emeritus at Berkeley). So the "fringe" Hereditarian/racist viewpoint has been championed by top experts from the top universities on both coasts Harvard and Berkeley, how really "fringe" does that sound?? Also during the 1950s and 1960s the Hereditarian/racist viewpoint was strongly espoused by Henry Garrett the former head of the APA and the former chair of psychology at Columbia and Virginia (again top organization the APA and top schools Columbia and Virginia--how fringe is that??). Many other of the top academic psychologists during the 50s, 60, and 70s people like Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck, and Lloyd Humphreys also strongly endorsed the "fringe" Hereditarian/racist viewpoint. In anthropology the "fringe" Hereditarian/racist viewpoint was supported by major figures such as Earnest Hooton and Carlton Coon. In more recent times the "fringe" Hereditarian/racist viewpoint has been supported by leading anthropologists such as Vincent Sarich of Berkeley and Henry Harpending chair of anthropology at Univ of Utah. Harpending is a member of the National Academy of Science (a MAJOR academic honor). Other scholars that Marek wishes to summarily dismiss because they are (oh my god) "racists" (Murray, Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson et al.) have published widely read and highly influential books and articles and they are on the editorial boards of top journals. Many top scholars that have not openly endorsed the "fringe" Hereditarian/racist viewpoint still find it highly intriguing and worthy of further investigation, these are major figures in the social sciences such as James Flynn, James Heckman, and Steven Pinker.Galtonian (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galtonian (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek, I gave you a bunch of references showing that the topic of race and intelligence is widely discussed in reliable sources and that lots of highly esteemed scientists consider the hereditarian view as legitimate. You rejected all these sources out of hand without making a credible argument why they should be rejected. Why are a carefully done survey of scientific opinion, published in The American Psychologist, a public consensus statement by leading scholars, or extensive reviews of the topic published in an APA journal and in a new book from a leading academic publisher not legitimate sources on this topic? The fact that you personally think someone is a racist, or that some viewpoint is a fringe one is uninteresting and irrelevant if you cannot prove it using reliable sources. All the sources I have presented are in glaring contradiction with your views, and you have not produced a single source in support of your contentions.


 * Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to judge what the scientific truth is, let alone speculate who is or is not a racist. We should just report all notable viewpoints present in reliable sources. The fact that Nisbett and Sternberg claim that Jensen and Rushton disregard relevant evidence or that their views are ideologically driven is not, per se, any more important than the fact that Jensen, Rushton, and others make similar claims (with much better justification) about Nisbett and Sternberg. All of these gentlemen are notable players in this debate, and we should report their views, as is currently done in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you did not give me a list of reliable sources and "lots of highly esteemed scientists" who "consider the hereditarian view as legitimate". What you gave me is one source which had an anonymous survey which indicates that some behavioral scientists may harbor racial prejudice in private. And then you piled on the Pioneer Fund grantees, yet again. Let's be clear that Rushton, Lynn (who thinks that "virtually all of the advances in science, mathematics, technology, and arts, have been made by Europeans and East Asians"), Gottfredson and all the others who did their research with financial support and backing from this racist organization are NOT "highly esteemed scientists". I don't know maybe you run in different circles than I do.
 * And this is aside from the fact that most of these sources are outdaed.
 * And this is an exercise in sophistry:  The fact that you personally think someone is a racist, or that some viewpoint is a fringe one is uninteresting and irrelevant if you cannot prove it using reliable sources. - I HAVE provided numerous reliable sources which refer to the Pioneer Fund and the Pioneer Fund grantees as racist and racists, which explicitly state these folks are pushing a racist agenda under the guise of "scientific research". So it's not "my opinion" or "my viewpoint", it is the viewpoint and opinion of reliable sources. This has already been discussed several times so why pretend otherwise yet again?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Marek, some people such as those at the ISAR may think that the Pioneer Fund or some researchers who have received Pioneer grants are racist, and this is a notable viewpoint that can be and in fact is currently mentioned in the article. However, it is just one viewpoint among many, and not one that is terribly relevant when it comes to the question why races differ in their IQ distributions. If you read specialist literature on this topic, you'll notice that even very "anti-hereditarian" researchers such as Nisbett or the people who wrote The Black-White Test Score Gap pay little if any attention to the Pioneer Fund or possible motivations of individual researchers; instead, they concentrate on the relevant scientific issues and controversies, and that is what we should do in this article, too.


 * Wikipedia does not have a policy saying that the views of those who are deemed by someone to be racists, or communists, or, say, vegetarians should be excluded from articles. Wikipedia is based on the policy of WP:NPOV, which means that all significant views that have been published in reliable sources must be included. According to WP:SOURCES, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, and I and others have listed lots of such publications (and there are many more cited in the article itself) for you to verify for yourself that the topic of race and intelligence and the hereditarian approach to it are prominently present in reliable sources.


 * You are the one who wanted to include a UNESCO statement from the 1950s in the lead section, so it's ironic that you would claim that my sources are outdated. The sources I described are not outdated in any manner (some were published a few months ago), and you have not presented any evidence that would suggest they are. The AAA and AAPA declarations are about as old as the older ones among the sources I mentioned above, so would you suggest that the declarations are outdated as well? Much of the scientific debate in this area relies on studies that were published decades ago. For example, many of the studies that Richard Nisbett seems to be regard as the most relevant were conducted in the 1970s, 50s, and even 30s (some of these are discussed in the article).


 * The Snyderman and Rothman survey did not indicate that "some behavioral scientists may harbor racial prejudice in private". It was a survey about their professional views on topics such as race and intelligence, and the results indicated that the typical behavioral scientist interprets the relevant studies and evidence as showing that at least some of the b-w gap in IQ is heritable. Your thinking that every human population has an identical distribution of genes that are relevant to cognitive functioning (because God willed so or whatever) is not enough to make it so.


 * As to the Maistream Science statement, all of its signatories were full professors in relevant fields, with impressive records of scientific publication. They include recipients of numerous professional awards and honors, many past and current presidents of learned societies such as the Behavior Genetics Association, several people considered to be among the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, the man who was the most cited social scientist alive (Eysenck), the two most important theorists of the structure of intelligence (Cattell and Carroll), editors of several high-impact psychology journals, etc. etc. If you were actually well-versed in the intelligence and behavior genetics literature, you would know that the list of signatories is about as impressive as any list one could imagine.


 * I should make clear that I do not think that the scientific facts regarding this topic should be determined on the basis of surveys of scientific opinion, or statements and declarations by relevant organizations or groups of individuals. I discuss them only to demonstrate that race and intelligence is a highly notable scientific topic, and that the hereditarian view is not a "fringe view" by any reasonable standard. Based on some sources, you could make the argument that the anti-hereditarian view is a fringe one is psychometrics, but that is not what I would argue. There are multiple prominent views in reliable sources about race and intelligence, and we should discuss all of them in the article. This meta-discussion about the topic is a useless time-waste, and I will discuss this further with you only if you start backing up each of your claims with citations from reliable sources and Wikipedia policies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Victor, you are rewriting policy here. "What we should do here" is specifically not "concentrate on the relevant scientific issues and controversies", and "pay little if any attention to the Pioneer Fund or possible motivations of individual researchers".  I'm surprised that you would espouse such a divergent and POV laden position.  Ideally, the content should reflect the relative WP:WEIGHT given to any particular issue.  The issues of racism in the Pioneer Fund is well covered in secondary sources, and the attention paid to such should be determined by such coverage.  Additionally, your discussion of sources skirts one of the primary principles from WP:ARBR&I correct use of sources.  You appear to be implicitly advocating active sysnthesis from primary sources, a problem which has plagued this and related articles for years. aprock (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't twist my words, aprock. I didn't say that the Pioneer Fund should not be discussed in this article, only that if you look at prominent non-hereditarian accounts of race and intelligence, the Pioneer issue is hardly mentioned in them at all. Marek seems to think that Pioneer is at the front and center of this debate, whereas leading researchers do not think so, even when they are highly critical of the views of Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, and others. For example, The Black-White Test Score Gap, the critical responses to the "Thirty Years of Research" article in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It, and Hunt's Human Intelligence do not discuss the Pioneer Fund at all. The Pioneer issue is one small part of the topic; the real meat is elsewhere. And I don't know what you're talking about regarding "active synthesis from primary sources".--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't twist your words, I quoted you directly. With respect to the sourcing issue, I'll quote you again: "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, and I and others have listed lots of such publications ... for you to verify for yourself that the topic of race and intelligence and the hereditarian approach to it are prominently present in reliable sources."  Peer-reviewed papers are generally primary sources, and it is improper to use primary sources as a measure of weight. aprock (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Peer-reviewed papers are primary sources about those original experiments that are described in them, but they are secondary sources with respect to those studies that they just comment on or describe. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" is a verbatim quotation from WP:SOURCES. In any case, I don't see how the sourcing issue is relevant here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * but they are secondary sources with respect to those studies that they just comment on or describe, this is often not the case. For example, one Pioneer Fund grantee summarizing the work of another grantee is not independent enough to be considered a secondary source.  This article is unfortunately filled with those sort of "secondary" sources. aprock (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. Some people have developed this strange conspiracy theory where the Pioneer Fund is some all-powerful entity dictating the opinions of scientists and overwhelming the peer review process of academic publications with its awesome power. A while ago, there was some discussion on the Pioneer Fund talk page about what to do with another Pioneer Fund, a philanthropic organization founded by Helen M. McLoraine. I did some reading regarding this another Pioneer, and found, among other things, that every year the organization gives out as much money in the form of figure skating scholarships alone as Rushton's Pioneer gives out in total. I found this detail hilarious in light of the obsession some people have with the Pioneer Fund. Fortunately, the scientists who do serious research on the technical questions of race and intelligence generally pay little attention to the Pioneer issue, as I have noted above. It is only people who prefer to shout from the sidelines trying to denigrate serious participants of the debate instead of doing serious research of their own who obsess about the Pioneer Fund.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. What's nonsense?  That a Pioneer Fund grantee reviewing the work of another Pioneer Fund grantee isn't a secondary source?  By all means review WP:PSTS: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event."  I suppose there may be some debate about what "one step removed" means here, but given the degree of collaboration between many of the grantees, I think we can all agree that finding more objective sources is certainly preferable.  With respect to your conspiracy theory commentary, there's not much to say.  This is not a WP:FORUM. aprock (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Marek asks: "And let me ask you this directly since you appear to be intent on evading the question: are you really claiming that a serious scientific debate exists on whether black people are [on average] intellectually inferior to white people?" Marek is right, there is no serious scientific debate on whether black people, on average, have lower IQ-type intelligence compared with white people--because of course there is overwhelming evidence indicating that blacks, as a group, tend to be significantly (at least one standard deviation) less intelligent than whites; instead the serious scientific debate is over whether genetic differences are a major factor in explaining the well known racial group differences in intelligence. Galtonian (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Galtonian (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least Mr. Galtonian up there is pretty open and straightforward about this - that this supposed debate IS about whether or not non-whites are intellectually inferior to whites. He doesn't try to hide behind (not-really-reliable) sources and the like but comes out and says it. And he's also right in that this debate doesn't exist, at least not in mainstream science, a few Pioneer Fund cranks notwithstanding. Of course he also thinks the herediterian/racist view is the correct one but at least he's not weaselly about it. In a way I can... well, not appreciate ... not respect ... acknowledge the honesty here.
 * As for the merits of these "researchers", it's not just that they hold odious views, but that they do sloppy, mistaken, work. Murray's has a hard time coping with basic statistics not to mention something "more sophisticated" like linear regression. Heirnstern is generally agreed to have ruined his reputation by collaborating on that book. Apparently, according to the discussion on the r/k selection theory, Rushton also has problems with basic evolutionary theory (and has a habit of misrepresenting his data - which is also pointed out in the papers by Nisbett and Sternbreg above. To name a few. Which isn't at all surprising since the aim of this work is not to do science but to push a particular (fairly nasty) ideology.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek, did you read any of the sources that I asked you to read, or is this still just your personal opinion? Another source that describes the nature of this debate is Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence. Since you don't seem interested in reading the sources that I ask you to read, I'll quote the relevant paragraph, from the end of his section on race & intelligence:


 * "This summary will probably not satisfy those who have taken strong stands on either side of the debate over racial and ethnic differences in intelligence. Bold hypotheses 'rally the troops' and make great entrees for television talk shows. People who take intermediate positions are said to be “wishy-washy” or “afraid to say what they really think.” Nevertheless, the issue is complex, and oversimplifications do not help. There are group differences in intelligence, they are important, and there are both scientific and social reasons for trying to understand them. Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. […] Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forwards. They generate more heat than light."


 * This is another reliable source that contradicts you. Earl Hunt is not a hereditarian or a PF grantee, and his book was published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press. I hope you wouldn't claim that a book published only a few months ago is outdated, or that Cambridge University Press is not a reliable source. Also, if you were familiar with the sources (including Hunt's book, which goes into detail about this) you'd also know that nobody believes whites outperform all non-white groups, for either genetic or environmental reasons. Some non-white groups such as East Asians tend to score higher than whites, and the reason for that is also debated.Boothello (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There continues to be this silly argument about whether the Hereditarian theory for ethnoracial group differences in intelligence is racist or not racist. Clearly it IS RACIST according to an accepted dictionary definition of the word RACISM (see below). But this fact really has no bearing on whether the Hereditarian theory is true or false. Obviously if the Hereditarian theory is scientifically true than it is scientifically correct to believe in racism and therefore to be a racist in at least some sense of the word. Volunteer Marek is so certain that racism is evil and morally wrong--that he rashly jumps to the illogical assumption that the Hereditarian theory is scientifically wrong. Jensen and Rushton refer to this as the "moralistic fallacy", i.e. the notion that because the Hereditarian theory of ethnoracial group equality in mental abilities is morally wrong that then it must be scientifically/factually wrong, as Jensen and Rushton point out this notion (that Marek has repeatedly raised here) is totally illogical.

definition of RACISM according to the Dictionary.com: "–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

Obviously according to the first definition "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" the Hereditarian theory espoused by Galton, Eysenck, Jensen, Lynn, Rushton, Herrnstein, Murray, Rindermann, Kanazawa, Harpending, Sesardic, Gottfredson, Sailer, Derbyshire (and several others including myself) is TOTALLY RACIST, unfortunately for Marek and his fellow Environmentalists--the Hereditarian theory is probably also TOTALLY TRUE!!! Galtonian (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, I think the herediterian theory is junk because it is junk science. It conflates correlation with causality, relies on crappy statistics, and sketchy data. At its best all it can do is come up with some 'just-so' stories to justify some extreme conclusions, in a way that is not falsifiable and thus fails the Popperian criteria for science. The racism associated with the view is the voodoo that is needed for its adherents to keep sticking to it in face of contrary evidence (and even just common sense).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just note that there is no understood mechanism to explain the heredity of individual intelligence between parents and children. Whether it's genetic, epi-genetic, cultural, or something else, there is still no scientific understanding of how intelligence has a hereditary component.  Given that, the supposition that the hereditarian explanation is anything more than conjecture seems somewhat premature.  I'll note that this is exactly what the APA statement says, in somewhat different language.  After 15 years of research into intelligence since "The Bell Curve", there is still no known genetic mechanism for transmitting intelligence to offspring. aprock (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that it has to do with different pieces of DNA that produce brains that are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.0.106 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)