Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 98

This quote is dubious.
On the other hand, Ulrich Neisser writes that "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all."

Some wikipedia articles say it was Ulrich Neisser others say it was Lynn. Obviously if it's Lynn that isn't notable.

futurebird (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now; given the controversial nature of the statement, it's one we should only attribute to Ulrich Neisser if we are completely certain he said it. EDIT:  After tracking down the article, I think I figured it out - it looks like Neisser was quoting Lynn talking about himself.  Here's the full quote:  "All things considered, I doubt that the Pioneer Fund's political activities have made much difference one way or the other. The world would have been much the same without them. On the other hand, Lynn reminds us that Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all."  Obviously that's not really useful as a quote here, and it was presented in a particularly misleading manner.  On top of that, it's a book review, which makes it a poor source to quote here in any case.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Who supports radically simplifying this article?
This article seems extremely bloated, convoluted, and full of synthesis. Do you agree?

From my perspective, pages 65-72 of Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America is approximately what I would hope to see. The passage is written by the book's editors (two well-respected left-leaning academics), not by the white nationalists they interview. It mentions specific researchers and research methods where they are particularly relevant, but it mostly sticks to scientific consensus and popular metareviews. Franzboas (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you are unaware, this article (and many others) were the subject of a knock-down battle, see WP:ARBR&I. If you are planning to edit here, someone should leave the traditional notification of that on your talk. I mention this only to say that the article is the way it is partially due to its highly contentious history. As a strategy in such a topic, it might be best to start with some text thought to be problematic (and WP:SYNTH would be a big problem), and either edit it to show a proposal, or discuss an outline of proposed changes to the text here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * . Johnuniq’s message means you should run for your life, don’t look back, and kick free anyone clinging to your ankles. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson once wrote: Imagine a world in which we are enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them. Note the operative word “imagine.” The number of citations here exceed by over a factor of two those on our already exceedingly complex Spacetime article. Greg L (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Greg L: I'm going to wander into forum speak because the OP won't be responding (indeffed a month ago, what a surprise). I've been fondly recalling your sewer cover after noticing some nonsense being rekindled. I was also wondering if you had a connection with Category:Persecution by atheists but I'm probably thinking of someone else. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see now why that dispute over bilateral relations-related articles being deleted reminded you of my sewer cover essay. Hang-by-your-fingernails tidbits like “Australia helped evacuate 4000 people from Albania” rates up there with “On this date, Tyne Daly was born.” As for the Category:Persecution by atheists, you’re thinking of someone else. Later. Greg L (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with simplifying this article. Currently it gives the impression that there is a scientific debate on this topic, when in fact the only debate is between white nationalists and everyone else. futurebird (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll let others review your edits but I think that the lead tone is not an improvement. I also suggest adding references like after the Arthur Jensen criticism.  I agree however that the article should not present it as a current scientific debate.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second (conceivably third, at this point) the vote on simplifying the article. I think it's important to clearly delineate discussion of historic pseudo-science; getting into the weeds on something that was debunked 40 years ago is neither especially informative or clear.  – 20:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.88.244.60 (talk)

I agree it needs simplified. Consider the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear." That makes my eyes glaze over more than my college science textbooks. It could simply say, "There is no clear evidence that genetics causes intelligence differences among races, but research is ongoing." Parts of this article are currently obfuscated, which may function as a form of censorship. Krehel (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I attempted to simplify the first paragraph, but it was quickly reverted on the basis of neutral POV. I had tried to maintain the same meaning as the original text. Therefore, unless I failed to maintain meaning, the original text currently in place needs fixed for the same reason my edit was reverted! But it seems not my place to do so. Krehel (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you did not "simplify" it, you replaced carefully neutral language with POV language. The article said: "The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. While tests have broadly shown differences in average scores based on self-identified race, there is considerable debate as to whether (and to what extent) those differences reflect environmental or genetic factors, as well as to the definitions of 'race' and 'intelligence' and whether they can be objectively defined.  Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear." which you replace with "The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. While race and intelligence are related, there is great controversy about how much this is caused by environmental and genetic factors, as well as about how race and intelligence should be defined. There is no clear evidence that genetic differences among races have any effect on their relative intelligence, but research is ongoing." Your change was clearly a declaratory statement "Race and intelligence are related", when, actually, that's a major part of the controversy, whether or not they are related, and what those terms mean, all of which are clearly stated in the original language.  Your "simplification" thus distorted the lede to say something that was untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well established that there are relationships between people's race and their intelligence. That's not really what the controversy is about, aside from a few fringe voices. And this is far from the only place in this article where the existence of relationships between race and intelligence is stated as accepted fact. My intent was to make the article comprehensible. Krehel (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Race
The article claims there is a consensus race is not biological. I checked the reference and it`s Daley referencing Smedley about anthropologists. Surely most anthropologists are cultural anthropologists and not qualified to answer questions of biological validity? Cultural anthropologists would for example be ignorant of typical genetic variation ratios among other species and be more likely to mindlessly parrot Lewontin's fallacy. This is like claiming a consensus regarding the Higgs boson among sports scientists. Ethicosian (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Race is not understood to be solely genetic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is whether some race concept is biological. Obviously one can invent some non biological concept and call it race. The question is whether the race concept used by scholars in this area is biological. That is a question for biologists, not people studying South American face painting styles. Ethicosian (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is interested in fixing this? Are editors here biased and trying to present a false picture? Ethicosian (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. We are all biased and try to hide the truth. There are two main raisins for this - first, we are naturally inclined to insincerity, and secondly, the Conspiracy To Present a False Picture on Race and Intelligence Ltd. pays us for it. Can I be of further assistance? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Most anthropologists are qualified, to answer questions of biological validity. Race, in some senses, is a social concept. Human populations groups are very diverse, and there are no clear genetic divisors, other than that of appearance to divide us into races. For example, some people think Turkish people aren't white. What are they then? Brown? Does not look like it. At one point in history, Italians and Spanish people were not considered white. At one point the Irish were not. Race is false, because, human populations are greatly diverse in appearance and intelligent, and to lump people into races, is a biological fallacy, if they only hold some common traits like appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.22.153 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Cultural anthropologists are not qualified to answer questions of biological validity. That's why we see a low incidence of race denial among biologists, and a high incidence among cultural anthropologists. Cultural anthropologists tend to mindlessly parrot Lewontin's Fallacy, going on about "more variation within groups", presumably unaware of Fst ratios among non-human taxa. They even come out with nonsense such as "some reordering entirely invalidates a taxonomy" or sophistry such as "some people think dolphins are fish, mammals don't exist". They go on about irrelevant legal definitions, as if the government classifying tomatoes as vegetables means they are not fruits, and if that wasn't ridiculous enough, claim that invalidates biological taxonomy. Needless to say actual biologists would laugh at this utter stupidity. It's just a shame "most people" repeat it. Ethicosian (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Anthropology includes the study of genetics and biology, and an anthropologist would be expected to be up-to-date on the relevant aspects of those fields, so yes, an anthropologist summarizing the relevant literature is a sufficient source. But regardless of how you feel about the source, you have to provide what you feel is a better source if you want to change it. If you want to argue that a hypothetical "pure" biologist untainted by the softness of anthropology would disagree, you have to actually provide a cite to that hypothetical biologist to back that up - you can't just remove the source because you don't like it and change the sentence to say the opposite of what it did before without providing any alternative sourcing for your version at all.  For the record, if you want other sources, here is a source from a biological anthropologist stating that race is a social construct.  Here is a paper published in a journal dedicated to genetics that describes race as a social identity, a "largely social construct", and one of a number of "poorly defined social proxies of genetic relatedness."  Actually, I think I'll add that one as a source to the section in question.
 * EDIT: Here's the key quote from that second paper (which, I'll reiterate, was published in a genetics journal, and cited three high-profile papers on genetics for this particular point):  "Two facts are relevant: (i) as a result of different evolutionary forces, including natural selection, there are geographical patterns of genetic variations that correspond, for the most part, to continental origin; and (ii) observed patterns of geographical differences in genetic information do not correspond to our notion of social identities, including 'race' and 'ethnicity."  Note that the scare-quotes around race and ethnicity are in the original.  Unless you have an up-to-date source that disagrees with this, I think that that settles the issue?  --Aquillion (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We're discussing surveys of the fields, so presenting individual sources is of no relevance. Looking through various surveys in this it's clear biologists tend to support the biological race concept, while cultural anthropologists don't. I am referencing all of those surveys, I could copy paste all of the surveys referenced there here if that made a difference to you. Your link to one 2004 opinion is pointless. Writing in this article that there is a consensus among anthropologists would be misleading, as I'm sure it's intended to be, even if it wasn't false. Should we reference the surveys of Lieberman or Ann Morning to show that a majority of biologists support the biological human race concept? As a compromise we can also write that a majority of American cultural anthropologists don't support the biological human race concept. We can leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which group knows what they are talking about. Ethicosian (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh, that page was definitely misrepresenting Morning's survey - she specifically shows that there is not a majority among biologists supporting race as a concept (she has it at a slight minority, 45%, and goes into detail on how stark the divide is. Key quote from her conclusion: "At best, one can conclude that biologists and anthro­pologists now appear equally divided in their beliefs about the nature of race.")  You need to read the actual papers, not just the abstracts - there's absolutely no way you could read Morning's paper and come away with the view that race-as-biology can be accurately called "the mainstream view among biologists" today, and your implication that there is a sharp divide between biologists and anthropologists is clearly wrong, since she says the exact opposite.  I think your confusion might be because Morning was writing in response to an assumption that constructionism was "of course" the obvious mainstream viewpoint; her conclusion is that there's still a lot of debate.  But she definitely isn't saying that biologists are all constructionists the way you're implying, either.  (If you read the paper, you might have been confused because she splits biologists who don't agree that race is primarily biological into three subgroups, which makes it look like essentialism has a plurality?  But they still make up a slight majority overall, 55% - 45% - that's of biologists, not anthropologists.  Hence why she says in her conclusion that biologists now reflect the split among anthropologists.)  --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this in more detail after going through the relevant papers, but I think we agree there isn't a "consensus" at least. Ethicosian (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

- - - Dear Aquillon. - I am not MikeMV or any clone thereof, but it's clear to be he cut you a new one. There is NO "Consensus". Additionally, YOUR Morning citation/quote should be in the article. """KEY quote from her conclusion: "At best, one can conclude that biologists and anthro­pologists now appear EQUALLY DIVIDED in their beliefs about the nature of race.""" So there is NO "consensus" and BARELY a "Majority", by your own Dishonest words. and YOU omit a "KEY quote".. Scandalous and blatant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.41.65 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This should be titled RACE and IQ .... not RACE and INTELLIGENCE
This should be titled RACE and IQ .... not RACE and INTELLIGENCE. The author(s) conflate IQ and Intelligence, while intelligence is a broader concept, and a social construct that is not bound by modern psychometric definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:180:9A4D:19DA:80F1:6579:7088 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah I disagree. IQ is used as an operationalisation of intellignce, where intelligence is the point at issue. Also scholarly works use the word intelligence in the titles so it`s the common name. Ethicosian (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) strike sock puppet  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And Race is also a social construct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.228.158.48 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Race and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525150639/http://www.pioneerfund.org/Board.html to http://www.pioneerfund.org/Board.html
 * Added tag to http://psycinfo.apa.org/psyccritiques/display/?uid=2004-17780-001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025122932/http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC/Papers/sammendrag/Accepted__Hunger_summary_070504.pdf to http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC/Papers/sammendrag/Accepted__Hunger_summary_070504.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009095003/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151103215722/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

graph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1995-SAT-Income2.png

Conclusively disproves the "muh poverty" argument. One has to resort to more exotic explanations like stereotype threat to maintain that the black-white IQ gap isn't partly genetic.68.104.4.53 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A graph is only as good as the data it is based on, says nothing in and of itself, but has to be interpreted, and that interpretation has to come from a WP:reliable source. So... you've shown nothing "conclusively". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tactical agnosticism just to uphold current narrative is just up my alley. There is nothing to interpret here, SAT score gaps are not explained by SES, end of discussion. This graph comes from wikipedia, making it WIP:reliable source. SAT scores being correlated with IQ test is the only leap you have to do here. And we have data on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB04:2C4:AB00:CBE:6B26:EEC6:CCAA (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A graph coming from Wikipedia absolutely doesn't make it a reliable source (in fact, if Wikipedia were the only source a graph relied on, it would definitely not be a WP:RS; we at least need an outside, published source for the data.) But the problem in this case is that the data is pulled from different sources and combined to push a particular interpretation, which is WP:SYNTH.  We need a source that makes that argument directly in order to include it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and update of the article
In the article lead is stated " Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found ", while in the section "Genetics of race and intelligence" is made a conclusion that " almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ/[intelligence/cognitive ability] " and so on, yet when made a research it became obvious that this section, and perhaps some parts of the article as "Twin studies" (especially related main article Heritability of IQ), are seemingly outdated and biased. See:

Twin study:
 * Socioeconomic status and genetic influences on cognitive development (2017)

Intelligence and genetic differences studies:
 * Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic (2011)
 * Improved Heritability Estimation from Genome-wide SNPs (2012)
 * GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment (2013)
 * Results of a “GWAS Plus:” General Cognitive Ability Is Substantially Heritable and Massively Polygenic (2014)
 * Childhood intelligence is heritable, highly polygenic and associated with FNBP1L (2014)
 * Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children's intelligence (2014)
 * Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings (2015)
 * Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N=53 949) (2015)
 * A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation (2015)
 * Thinking positively: The genetics of high intelligence (2015)
 * Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests (2016)
 * The relationship between cross-national genetic distances and IQ-differences (2016)
 * Evidence of contemporary polygenic selection on the Big G of national cognitive ability: A cross-cultural sociogenetic analysis (2016)
 * A genome-wide analysis of putative functional and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence (2016)
 * Genome-wide association study of cognitive functions and educational attainment in UK Biobank (N=112 151) (2016)
 * Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and physical and mental health in UK Biobank (N=112 151) and 24 GWAS consortia (2016)
 * Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence (2017)
 * GWAS meta-analysis reveals novel loci and genetic correlates for general cognitive function: a report from the COGENT consortium (2017).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Update (1):


 * The new genetics of intelligence (2018)
 * A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 187 loci and a role for neurogenesis and myelination in intelligence (2018), quote, "We found 187 independent loci associated with intelligence, implicating 538 genes, using both SNP-based and gene-based GWAS" ... "Third, we used our meta-analytic GWAS data to predict almost 7% of the variation in intelligence in one of three independent samples. The range of similar estimates across the three independent samples was 3.6 to 6.8%. Previous estimates of prediction have been ∼5% at most".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The article has a number of inaccurate generalizations and conclusions; however, unless enough editors who are interested in honest editing get involved, the bias and obfuscation will remain. What is needed is proposed rewording with Requests for comment.Phmoreno (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree. This whole article is a politically inspired unreadable mess.  Why cannot the high Wiki priests allow two articles, one promoting (heresy?)  the concept, and the other denying it, and then allow readers to examine the respective concepts?
 * 189.250.245.41 (talk) baden k. —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Primarily because that's not the way we work - we don;t do "He said, she said" pairs of articles, that's called WP:COATRACKing. We report what reliable sources say, so the only way the article can be changed is if the scientific consensus, as reported by reliable sources, changes. There's also the matter of WP:WEIGHT. The list of citations posted by Miki Filigransk above needs to be evaluated to see if they are sufficient to provoke changes in the article, or if they do not carry sufficient weight to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding IP comment, as Ken replied, read WP:NPOV to understand on which principle the article topic is edited. Personally, I presume they are sufficient to make small changes, but would let more experienced and those interested in the topic to make any conclusion and editing. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018
In the following sentences beneath the "Heritability within and between groups" subheading there are a couple of typos. < My comments in angular brackets like this >

< First > Former APA president Donald T. Campbell heavily criticized the methodology of the it's findings and the credibility of signatories. < omit the second "the" and remove the apostrophe from "it's" >

Former APA president Donald T. Campbell heavily criticized the methodology of its findings and the credibility of signatories.

< Second > A 1995 report by the APA stated that there is more plausible evidence for an environmental than for a genetic explanation, but that the was "no adequate explanation" for the black-white IQ gap. < change the second "the" to "there" >

A 1995 report by the APA stated that there is more plausible evidence for an environmental than for a genetic explanation, but that there was "no adequate explanation" for the black-white IQ gap. 2601:642:4300:2CC1:2D97:C3C6:2D36:5392 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very helpful. Iselilja (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018
Add that, but note that generically bigger brain size isn't the strongest cause of superior intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8483:e200:2d81:2d44:f84e:89e1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, which would be needed for any sorts of medical claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it is also irrelevant to this particular article. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Neanderthal admixture
Can someone add a paragraph under "racial admixture" about Neanderthal admixture. Based on the following findings:

1. Amount of Neanderthal admixture in modern humans seem to correlate with IQ (highest in East Asians, lowest in Africans). Archaic human admixture with modern humans

2. Neanderthals had larger craniums, suggesting larger brain size. Neanderthal anatomy

3. Neanderthals were probably not stupid, based on archeological findings. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

4. The amount of DUF1120 gene copies seem the correlate with brain size and IQ, and was higher in Neanderthals than in humans. DUF1220

5. Haplogroup D of the microcephalin gene seems to correlate with brain size, and is hypothesized to have been introduced to the human genome via Neanderthal admixture. Microcephalin

It's a stretch but worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not only a stretch, it's also WP:OR. You need to find a source that says exactly the thing you want to have said without using multiple sources to WP:SYNTHESIS a new fact.  But even more than that, Neanderthals were either a distinct special or a sub-species, and whatever "race" means, it doesn't apply to a distinct species or sub-species, so what you're proposing wouldn't be appropriate for this article.  (All "races" of humans are considered to be one species.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out that the human brain has been shrinking over time and that The average IQ has been growing; facts which render rather dubious the purported link between large neanderthal brains and higher IQ. If you're going to do original research, at least be thorough about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never purported to doing original research, nor that I was thorough about it. I posted a theory that I've heard tossed around on the Internet. I thought it was worth a mention.


 * Regarding the brain size, there's a weak positive correlation (0.4) between brain size and IQ. It's even written in the source that you're referencing (Discover Magazine). It says "recent MRI studies show that brain volume correlates with intelligence". It also says that the shrinking stopped about 100 years ago. It says "After a long, slow retrenchment, human brain size appears to be rising again.". And the Flynn effect has only been noted since the 30's. So the brain shrinking and Flynn effect don't even coincide. Who's not being thorough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the brain size, there's a weak positive correlation I bolded the relevant word there. You should probably check some of the papers published on that and see what the margin of error is: it's important. Finally, you should note the numerous caveats repeated throughout such studies; that measurements of IQ can be subjective and show a wide variance between testers and circumstances. (The Flynn effect has been noticed across such a huge sample size that it's almost certainly real, though.) Also: the discovery source you supposedly quoted doesn't actually say either of the things you quoted it as saying. Nor does the article, nor either of the other refs used for the pertinent quote from the article I linked you to. So it seems yours is not just a failure to be thorough, but a failure to accurately represent what the sources say, as well...
 * Finally, my point was not that smaller brains equal higher IQ; but that doing original research is a bad idea unless you're setting up a proper methodology for it, and it's never acceptable to use here. Until a reliable source says something, it's not on us to find fringe theories with cherry-picked sources to support parts of them, then present the theories as facts, or even possibilities in the article. However, if you want to do a write up about this on your blog (Wordpress has free blogs if you don't have one), taking into account all the contradicting evidence out there as well as the supporting evidence, I might be interested in reading it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded, — Paleo Neonate  – 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the science was cut and dried. Of course it's very subjective and heterogeneous, as you point out. But the general trend seem to be, again, "a weak correlation between IQ and brain volume". As for the Discovery article, it says all the things I quoted (it's on page 3 of the article). I literally just copy-pasted. Or are you suggesting that I quoted out of context? I don't think I misrepresented the article. But whatever, let's end the discussion. I will admit to being wrong about everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaTwist (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat my point, (already repeated twice and also said by at least one other editor) because you're still not addressing it; original research -which by definition includes an editor compiling cherry-picked evidence for a fringe theory not taken seriously by the experts- is unacceptable content for our articles. If you cannot find a reliable source that says it explicitly or implies it so strongly that no other possibility remains, then you cannot include it in our articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The section "Heritability within and between groups" appears to have some original work.
" In biology heritability is defined as the ratio of variation attributable to genetic differences in an observable trait to the trait's total observable variation. The heritability of a trait describes the proportion of variation in the trait that is attributable to genetic factors within a particular population. A heritability of 1 indicates that variation correlates fully with genetic variation and a heritability of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the trait and genes at all. In psychological testing, heritability tends to be understood as the degree of correlation between the results of a test taker and those of their biological parents. However, since high heritability is simply a correlation between traits and genes, it does not describe the causes of heritability which in humans can be either genetic or environmental."

The preceding cut and pasted quote has no citation and appears to lack rigor and any history of critical examination.

"Therefore, a high heritability measure does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.[48"

This quote from the article does not appear to be truly supported by the source cited. In fact the opposite. The source is in PDF and I don't have Word on this machine so it is difficult to quote, but the second half of pg 86 of the cited source directly contradicts the assertion made in the article. It specifically mentions the ability of heritability measurement to indicate both environmental and genetic factors when the source is discussing the differences and similarities found in twin studies. So this article section not only appears to be original work but it also appears false when the cited source is examined.

" In his criticism of the Bell Curve, Noam Chomsky further illustrated this with the example of women wearing earrings:..."

Noam Chomsky is a linguist. That's his expertise. I personally enjoy reading Chomsky's many interesting opinions regarding many political subjects, but this quote in no way supports any assertion regarding psychometry other than coverage of political debate. The source is used as a refutation of aspects of psychometry in this article when it is actually only qualified to be political commentary.

There is likely more as the opening paragraph is so very flawed regarding heritibility measurement.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:4071:8ADA:AF10:1BA4 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect about Chomsky. His writing is also extremely influential in behaviorist psychology (eg. see here) and somewhat influential in evolutionary psychology; both fields are extremely relevant to the arguments in The Bell Curve (since they study alternate explanations for many of the things that that book attributes to genetics) and which make his responses some of the most significant and widely-cited ones out there (and therefore makes it obvious that we have to cite them here.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We should avoid citing individual studies, especially new ones.
In light of the discussion above, I think it might be worth bringing this up. We ought to avoid citing individual studies for anything on a page like this, especially relatively recent ones. From WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. If a study is worth including, it will generally pick up secondary sources pretty quickly; but since the study of intelligence, genetics, and the brain definitely falls under the "complex and abstruse fields" warning, we need to avoid citing individual papers unless they're very well-established (and if they are, we should be able to find secondary sources and use those.) We might also consider going through and finding things (especially anything particularly controversial) cited solely to a single research paper, and either find a second / secondary source, or remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Individuals
I have changed the following sentence twice:

It is well-established that intelligence is highly heritable for individuals, and many different kinds of genetically caused intelligence impairments are known. But the possible relations between genetic differences in intelligence within the normal range are not established. Ongoing research aims to understand the contribution of genes to individual differences in intelligence.

(The bolding is mine, of course.) The change is not very important. But I think it is an obvious improvement of formulation. The "for individuals" in the first sentence is vacuous. This article uses "indivudual" a lot. As far as I checked, it was motivated in the other places by the need to distinguish between characteristics of persons and characteristics of groups of persons. Here, there is no such need. If a trait is allways either heritable for both individuals and groups or not heritable at all. This is because all inheriting occurs to individuals. The groups inheritance (so to speak) is only the sum total of what the individuals inherited. The "individual differences in intelligence" part is allmost unintelligible. I think what is intended is "differences between individuals in intelligence". I removed it but will put this interpretation in there. The whole paragraph is rather cryptic, though. --Ettrig (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know why there's edit warring going on over this. BMK's edits are correct, and while they may not be perfect from a grammatical standpoint, they do clarify what the sources say. Heritability is a feature both of individuals and populations, as evidenced by that rather obscure scientific theory known as Evolution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ettrig has continued to push his edits, not waiting for a consensus to develop here. (In fact, at the moment, the consensus is against him.)  I suggest that he wait to see if other editors weigh in with their views, and what the overall consensus is, and not continue to attempt to push his edits in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The "for individuals" in the first sentence is vacuous. No, it is not. Heritability is a characteristic of populations, just like it is a characteristic of individuals. Skin and hair color, eye shape and color, height and numerous other factors are quite obviously highly heritable, and are all features associated with races. So to say that it's vacuous to specify which we are referring to in this sentence is, itself vacuous.
 * The groups inheritance (so to speak) is only the sum total of what the individuals inherited. That doesn't make the group inheritance go away. It merely provides an explanation for it.
 * The "individual differences in intelligence" part is allmost unintelligible. I had no trouble understanding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Heritability is NOT a characteristic of individuals. It is the proportion of phenotypic differences between individuals that is explained by their genetic differences. For example, an individual's height is not heritable because neither his height nor his genes vary.

What seems to be the issue here is heritability within and between groups, such as races, however operationalized. It's not about "heritability in individuals", which is a meaningless string of words.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you want to get pedantic about it, heritability is a feature of characteristics, not of either groups or individuals. But both groups and individuals have characteristics which are partially determined by those characteristics' heritability. If you want to be pendantic about one turn of the phrase, then you can damn well be pedantic about the other, as well. We're not going to take a hot button issue like this and argue over the problems with one phrasing, only to replace it with a different phrasing that has the same damn problems. That's a red flag for a POV push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Herring-bone musketeer growling lamp coffee parsimonious pillow.(Just thought I'd contribute an actual "meaningless string of words" for purposes of comparison.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheep. It was very purple kumquat of you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Heritability has a specific technical meaning that is used in the literature on race & intelligence as well as in the general genetics literature. Similarly, heritability within groups and between groups are terms used in the relevant literature. We should use these established terms in the way they are used in the literature rather than invent our own terms for use in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an academic work, nor is it a technical treatise, it is a popular encyclopedia. Our article is not part of "the literature". This is something that subject experts frequently fail to appreciate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We are not required to present the jargon, grammar, syntax or exact wording of a source. We are required to present it's meaning. This is why we have human editors, instead of bots that simply copy quotes from sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, especially Verifiability and No original research. All interpretive claims, analyses and synthetic claims included in Wikipedia must be based on verifiable sources. Sources must directly support everything you add to Wikipedia. You are not allowed to reinterpret sources and invent a new terminology on your own.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you seriously think anything I said runs afoul of any policies here, you need to go find another hobby. No-one is inventing a new terminology; no-one is engaged in original research. You need to get out of your stuffy office or basement or wherever it is you read your academic works and understand that the word "jargon" exists precisely because the common meaning of a term and the way it's used in academic works aren't always the same thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Victor Chmara: I'm afraid your argument is silly. MjolnirPants and I can make mistakes, anyone can, but we really do know the most basic rules of Wikipedia, and are extremely unlikely to have forgotten about WP:V and WP:OR. To accuse us of being unaware of them is just... well... silly.Please make a reasonable argument for your opinion, and drop this absurd ad hominem tact you've taken, because it just won't fly. If you don't have a reasonable argument – and the argument from authority really doesn't work because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog – then please drop the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, could you clarify this? Are "heritability for individuals" and "heritability for groups" different things? For example, is it possible for some trait to have high "heritability for individuals" and low "heritability for groups", or vice versa? My impression is that "heritability" is just one thing and that "heritability for individuals" as such makes no sense, but I'm not an expert in this domain. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, or at least almost right. Your analysis is correct. In the expression heritable for individuals, for individuals should be removed. When it's there, it signifies the untruth that something can be heritable for groups while not being heritable for individuals. We just met such a fierce resistance that we gave up although that resistance was rather incongruous. If you stay on here, we can make that little improvement. --Ettrig (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone ahead and been bold and removed it. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, a small change, but obviously good. So not really bold. --Ettrig (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been reverted. Can anyone clarify "heritability for individuals"? If no-one can justify it, I'll go ahead and make the change again. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question cites no sources whatsoever. I think that that's a more pressing problem than its precise wording. "It is well-established..." is extremely strong wording, and it doesn't appear to really summarize the section below it (which covers a lot of ground, but focuses more on race, mentioning only a few general intelligence studies.) If it's genuinely well-established, we should be able to find sources saying that specifically, and rely on the wording in those to inform us. If we can't find those, we need to remove this sentence entirely. EDIT: Skimming the section for the sentence that this appears to be summarizing, it also looks uncited. The sole citation that is even remotely usable is to a single study from 2009; that is clearly not enough for such sweeping language. Again, if this is "well-established" and "generally-established", finding multiple broad sources to back it up (textbooks, etc) should be easy. I suspect that some sort of sources do exist (which is why I'm placing fact tags rather than instantly removing the uncited bits), but I also suspect that their language is going to be more cautious than what we're using here, and that they will have disclaimers and other context that we ought to be including here. EDIT 2: While scanning the section in more detail to try and determine what the this uncited sentence is trying to summarize and where the factoid it states is cited to, I came across a well-cited sentence that directly contradicts it: They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. (Cited to Hunt (2010), Nisbett et al. (2012) and Mackintosh (2011).) Based on that, I'm killing the sentence entirely for now. Do not restore it without a source. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be worth looking at Heritability of IQ for more information and sources on this point. That article says "between 58% and 77%, (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%)", which is certainly "highly heritable", though IMO actually giving the numbers is better than an adverb. In any case, your "no single figure" sentence doesn't contradict that. &mdash;Ashley Y 11:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The heritability of intelligence is stated at many other places in this article, mostly with supporting references. Losing one of them is no big deal. --Ettrig (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it"
That's the title of an article in The Guardian today. It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." Doug Weller talk 11:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a bit WP:FORUM, but would reply that with Intelligence research should not be held back by its past.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made no comment, everything but my signature and the bit about it being the title of an article is a quote. Nothing forum about posting a possible source. I'm not sure of the relevance of your link but it doesn't seem to conflict with the argument being put forward in the Guardian article. Doug Weller  talk 17:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that experts on intelligence research (Rindermann survey) has rated The Guardian as one of the least accurate newspapers with regards to the topic. See here. As such, I recommend caution when using that source on the topic. Deleet (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen note in lead
The lead reads:
 * The debate reemerged again in 1969, when Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent than whites and that compensatory education for African-American children was therefore doomed to be ineffective.

This is not correct. The Jensen 1969 article did not draw that inference, neither did it advance a particular genetic claim as such. By now the actual quote from the article is well-known, so I shall not repeat it yet again. Jensen 1969 advanced genetic factors as being a reasonable hypothesis as a contributory factor. I will edit the lead to be accurate. The following 1973 book, Educability and Group Differences, proposed a 50-75% between group heritability, which is similar to his later views (Jensen 1998, Rushton and Jensen 2005, 2010). Deleet (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree on several points. The version you object to seems like an accurate summary of the key points of his work; while he didn't entirely rule out environmental factors, the key point (as literally every source we're citing on him agrees) was that he argued that genetic factors were preeminent and that this should drive public policy; that is, he "championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent", and that is a completely accurate summary of what the sources say about him.  Pulling a quote from him out of context to make it sound like the controversy was over him saying that genetics were a "a reasonable hypothesis as a contributory factor" is absurd (and obviously WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, since you're trying to contradict the coverage of all secondary sources by performing your own interpretation on an arbitrary quote.)  That is neither an accurate summary of what he was saying nor a remotely correct description of the nature of the controversy over his writings. --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Aquillion. The quote is not out of context, it is the concluding sentence about causes of racial gaps in the paper. It is well-known and cited many places when this topic is discussed (e.g. Sesardic's 2005 book). Here's the full quote (entire paragraph):
 * The fact that a reasonable hypothesis has not been rigorously proved does not mean that it should be summarily dismissed. It only means that we need more appropriate research for putting it to the test. I believe such definitive research is entirely possible but has not yet been done. So all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors. (p. 82)
 * I have read virtually every Jensen paper and every book (and most other works on the topic), so I am very familiar with the topic and do believe it is accurate (hence why I replaced the current version, which is not accurate). You are correct that some, indeed, many sources (mis)characterize his views (e.g. S. J. Gould's book). How does Wikipedia deal with a mixed secondary literature some of which contains strawmen and some of which don't? Which approach do you propose here? Deleet (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that S. J. Gould mischaracterizes his work, and I feel that the quote you listed is accurately summarized in the current lead (when combined with his conclusions about what that meant, of course.) If you want to convince me otherwise, you will need secondary sources stating, explicitly, that Jensen was not a champion for the view that Africans were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons.  In the quote above, he says but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference, which is unequivocally championing that view - it an unusual and fairly extreme view for which Jensen was the most prominent champion of his generation; and that position was the controversy that made him most notable.  The fact that he conceded that there may also be some environmental factors is irrelevant; nothing in the article or in the sentence you object to implies otherwise, but we must focus on the actual point of controversy.  Unless you can find secondary sources saying otherwise, Jensen being a "champion for the view that Africans were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons" seems to exactly summarize the important points of the quote you posted above. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The scholarly opinion of Gould's work is quite low, see collection of quotes here. You misunderstand my point. The point is that Jensen (1969) was not a proponent of that view (he suggested it as a reasonable hypothesis, per the quote), and did not draw the invalid inference claimed in the lead. Jensen later on was a proponent of that view. Furthermore, it is not an unusual/extreme view, see the quotes from prominent secondary sources here. Additionally, there's two surveys of the matter, both finding Jensen's view to be mainstream. I am happy to note that Jensen suggested that hypothesis in 1969, but the part about the policy inference is not right and should be deleted. I also want to reiterate my question: what do you propose to do when non-researchers and researchers from other fields write secondary literature on a topic inconsistent with the primary source's own words? It would seem to be a common issue on contested topics where outsiders mischaracterize the views of their opponents. Deleet (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond to questions about possible OR in your edit, which you have not addressed, and do not restore it to the article until there is a specific consensus here that there is not OR or SYNTHESIS, which are strictly forbidden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are ducking the point. We are discussing a specific interpretation, which is well-cited in the article, yet which you are disputing with nothing more than what seems to me to be a misreading of a quote.  I'm unimpressed with the handful of criticisms you dug up against Gould, but either way, if his conclusion here is as obviously inaccurate as you imply, it should be easy to find a source saying so specifically. If Gould had in fact mischaracterized Jensen as you implied, then it should be easy (given the intense and often heated debate that the topic attracts) to find someone pointing that out, rather than to rely on your own WP:OR as you're trying here.  I would also advise that you delete that subpage; it's a useless mess of strung-together WP:SYNTH and cherry-picked quotations that is only going to weaken your arguments when you rely on it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion on causes of group differences
I reverted an edit by User:MPants at work (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&oldid=830440485) concerning the relative weight given to mainstream vs. fringe/minority views. His edit comment:
 * it's not "considerable" that's just a weasel word that disguises the fact that it's a debate between the mainstream and a fringe position, and the sentence should not start by promoting the fringe position

I disagree. I have consulted expert surveys and recent published textbooks or major reviews by mainstream researchers and they consider the question to be open with most researchers adopting a middle of the road opinion (group gaps due to some mix of genetic and environmental factors). See the 4 quotations here. Deleet (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer_Marek reversed my edit here, while giving no justification on the talk page (or much in the edit comment "likewise, not much merit to this reversion"). Please explain your edit here, especially with regards to the sources I listed. Deleet (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, is the point of contention "some" vs. "considerable"? We should narrow down the dispute as much as possible.  I feel that, in either case, we're better off keeping the lead as cautiously-worded as we can on this point given the complexity of the dispute and the unwillingness of several sources to make concrete statements.  "Some" is definitely accurate, while 'considerable' feels like a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term that risks overstating the sources.  The other parts that were removed in the edit you reverted serve to narrow down the focus of the dispute to the key point (what causes differences in test results), without the risk of presenting them in a way that implies that they are definitely meaningful in any one particular way, a position most credible sources seem reluctant to take. --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the debate is over some vs. considerable. Well, my review of all major textbooks as well as survey evidence is in line with considerable, not a mere some. The mean estimate among experts for genetic causation is ~50% in both surveys. One textbook (Hunt) wrote:
 * Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett’s extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real issue is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one.
 * [...]
 * 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 “wishywashy” 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. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place. Some of these influences may be amenable to change, while others will be resistant to change. The relevant questions can be studied. Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward. They generate heat rather than light. (p. 435)
 * I think this shows that he considers the question to be open, i.e. not settled, as well as uncertain and of major debate, with moderate positions (e.g. 50-50) being more plausible (Hunt in general is quite moderate on most questions). Deleet (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This article has problems
See https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Already read it. Been working on some of the problems they point out, because when I checked, I agreed with their assessment. In this article, it's (according to SPLC; I haven't gone over this one yet, so I'm not quite ready to endorse their claim) a problem of balance; we're giving too much weight to the fringe stuff and not enough to the mainstream. I'll be looking into this over the next several days, at least (not into the weekend, though). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding "far right" whatever that means, this article is controlled by non-expert egalitarians like Doug Weller and Maunus, contrary to mainly hereditarian academia. 31.205.66.133 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to agree with the SPLC. The lede does not accurately reflect the article. It suggests that there's a documented correlation between race and intelligence, then almost immediately seems to grudgingly admit that there probably isn't. The body meanwhile, in the "Validity" section, casts serious doubt on the validity of the concepts of race and objective intelligence testing. That's a huge disconnect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck Mikemikev sock. I'm clearly not controlling the article, just trying to keep the socks off. Doug Weller  talk 15:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Correlation between race and intelligence is not a particular meaningful phrase. Does this refer to self-identified race/ethnicity or actual genomic ancestry? The first is well-documented (e.g. Roth et al 2001), while the second is not (no published study to date using genomic methods, unless you count Akshoomoff 2014 who reported some quite indirect results). There is however a well-known relationship between intelligence and skin tone in admixed populations (reviewed decades ago by Jensen 1973, but there are recent studies too), and there is obviously a strong relationship between skin tone and genomic ancestry (Parra et al 2004), so some have proposed that the two relations reflect just that (Lynn 2002). I advice editors against reading obviously partisan outlets like SPLC and taking their word for granted about what is and is not mainstream belief by experts within the field. Instead, I recommend reading recent textbooks (e.g. Haier 2017, Hunt 2011), review articles (e.g. Plomin and von Stumm 2018) and surveys of expert belief (e.g. Rindermann et al 2016), which are quite in line with the current lead. Deleet (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements to the lead. What do you think of the SPLC's argument that the article gives undue weight to the views of Rushton and Jensen? Has that been addressed at all? Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The SPLC's article accurately reflected the expert consensus as has been conveyed to me by a number of experts, both through academic and popular publications and personal communications. The article itself cites enough sources to get you started in seeing that, and you can see it most clearly by searching for scholarly articles in the subject while discounting anything published in Intelligence or Frontiers in [fill in the blank], both of which love to publish works claiming there's no consensus, or that the consensus is that there's a measurable link between race and intelligence. I had barely begun to address that (by including more mainstream thought and spending less text describing the fringe position) when I decided there was no point and basically retired from editing.
 * I stopped editing partially because I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours: which starts by saying "Correlation between race and intelligence is not a particular meaningful phrase" and then immediately goes on to argue that there's a documented correlation between race and intelligence. If partisan bullshit like that (see "...obviously partisan outlets like SPLC..." if you doubt there's any political component there) is acceptable because the editor is being polite and not edit warring, then what's the fucking point of even trying to fix this shit? It's the people who actually care about accuracy and verifiability who are going to end up getting pissed while the POV pushers just keep smiling and acting like they're just "trying to improve the project" by making sure that what WP says about this subject is pretty much the opposite of what the expert consensus is.
 * But you want some advice on this particular situation? Read the comment above yours. Look at what journal the "surveys of expert beliefs" was published in. Look at how cheap those "textbooks" are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?), read the actual nature article cited (which absolutely does not correlate "race" and IQ, contrary to what the comment suggests), look at the way it uses decades old (and discredited) research to build to a conclusion that even that research doesn't explicitly state. If you find the argument there compelling, consider that the following uses the exact same argument: Hair color is genetic. Obesity has a genetic component. Therefore, there must be a correlation between hair color and obesity. Makes perfect sense when you're talking about a notion that exists in the public consciousness already, but once you apply that logic to something novel, it becomes obvious how utterly shitty it is. But that's what we get, not only from SPA editors like this, but from racist psychologists and the occasional misguided defender of scientific inquiry who cry foul over over the "suppression" of scientific research into the relationship between race and intelligence all while ignoring the fact that it's about as valid a subject of inquiry as would be research into the relationship between personality and astrological sign. Sure; they can argue that race is related to ethnicity, which is real, but they ignore the fact that I can turn around and argue that astrological sign is related (via conception date) to a host of socioeconomic and genetic indicators which play a role in personality.
 * Now, understand that that is the level of obfuscative bullshit you are going to have to wade into in order to deal with this. This is one of those "smart people arguing for stupid ideas" things that one so often hears about but so rarely encounters. If you can stomach dealing with that shit long enough to tire out the defenders of this stupid theory then I wish you luck and good fortune. May you persevere where I faltered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps the solution is to create a separate article for the Jensen Debates or the public debate over race and intelligence or something along those lines. The problem isn't just that people are intentionally placing undue weight on Jensen; the problem is that he and a few well-funded think-tanks supporting him have had a massive social impact even if their scientific impact is vastly overstated in the article, which means that they're heavily over-represented in sources relative to their actual scientific impact.  Having separate articles for race and intelligence as a scientific concept and for the public / political debate over the topic could resolve this issue.  Even more than Jensen, The Bell Curve in particular is essentially a pop-sci book that had massive political impact but nearly zero scientific significance.  This is essentially the approach we take on Evolution vs. Creation–evolution controversy, for instance, where there is a lively political debate worth covering, but not much of a scientific one. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Test Outcome and IQ used Interchangeably
This article continually confuses Tests and Assessments, such as "SAT" and "GRE" with IQ measures. These are completely different types of assessments. A group's SAT or GRE score trends says nothing about its IQ trends.

Regular school assessments are heavily influenced, by Education, preparation and cultural importance of education ( cultural differences ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.19.110 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to review the sources of this page and edit the page accordingly, it appears this page was (allowed?!) to be edited in a manner that uses false references (literally dead links or links to other links that are dead, LITERALLY). And it seems to be the ones denying or attempting to mystify whether or not there is any correlation between race and intelligence. Very disappointed to see fake crap all over this page. Give us the real nitty-gritty truth and cut the crap.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4501:7D75:F130:2F4B:AFE4:607F (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to know what is "false", so why don't you list all the falsities here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @157.130.19.110 - SAT and IQ scores are definitely not synonymous, but given high g-loading of the SAT tests, they can be used to reasonably (albeit roughly) approximate group differences in IQ.
 * On an unrelated note, the section "research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences" should be re-titled "genetic influences on group differences in IQ," or else "research into genetic influences..." while the environmental section should be re-titled "research into environmental influences...." Otherwise, the article fails to present a neutral tone.

Superfluous article?
As most of the text is clearly trying to explain why there is no such thing as a connection between external morphology and intelligence in humans, the article could just be "See Race. There is no evidence of a connection between race and intelligence." The text from here could be shortened and put there as part of the controversies about race.

It could also be put under "Political uses of the IQ Test in the 20s century" here History of IQ Testing or something similar, to preserve the precious research done on the matter.

/!\ rant /!\ Alternative text: "Any Neanderthalian was smarter than you are." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibidibabidi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Bibidibabidi (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy
(I am posting here since the page is locked and I did not have an account, but I still wanted to point this out before I forget, please feel free to remove if that's not the right way.) In the "adoption studies" section, it is said that Tizard et al. (1972) tested Black, White, west Indian and mixed children on four different tests. In fact, if I read the study well, no Black children were part of the study. Also, they only report 3 tests, not 4, and it might be worth noting that two of them were on verbal skills and one was non-verbal, the latter being the one showing a significant difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antovigo (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it and fix it if I can verify what you're saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, having read into this, you are not correct. The "West Indian" children are black; this was just the editor who wrote the section being somewhat less specific. The test results table shows only three tests, so I've made that change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As a non-native English speaker I did not know the expression West Indian and understood they were people from the western part of India. However the article still mentions "Africa and West India", which is not exactly true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antovigo (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! I've removed the reference to "African", so it should be good now. Thank you for pointing this out, and welcome to Wikipedia! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018
Please change '1.1' to '1.2' in the section "United States test scores" I dont have any sources, but if 1 is 15 then 1.2 is 18. X tomcat x (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Standard deviations don't work that way. For example, look at this example.  Going from 1 to 2 standard deviations from the mean is a decrease of roughly 0.2 units, whereas going from 2 to 3 standard deviations is roughly a 0.05 unit decrease. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Archaeological data
Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The section only cites one study - this doesn't objectively conclude that "archaeological evidence does not support claims by Rushton and others." Further commentary from other anthropologists or archeologists would be appropriate.
 * This doesn't directly represent hereditarian arguments on the matter. Would it be more appropriately included under potential environmental influences? Please discuss.
 * The section only cites one study - this doesn't objectively conclude that "archaeological evidence does not support claims by Rushton and others." Absent any contradicting archeological evidence: yes it does. Welcome to epistemology 101, lesson 1: If all the evidence points to X, then the amount of evidence relative to arbitrary measures of sufficiency is irrelevant, and it can be confidently stated that X is true, subject only to the usual caveats of philosophical skepticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) So does this study represent all of the evidence? Does it represent the opinion of the archaeological community?
 * 2) Should we not at least (briefly) elaborate on how this evidence fails to support the hereditarian claims?
 * 3) If there is no contradictory evidence, would this belong more appropriately under the environmental section?
 * 4) Out of sheer curiosity, are there any websites where I can read more about this principle?
 * Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless and until you find additional sources containing such evidence.
 * No, see WP:OR.
 * No, that makes no sense at all. I have no idea why you think "no contradicting evidence" changes archeological evidence to something else.
 * You can read about it right here. Try Epistemology, Skepticism, Truth, Certainty, Uncertainty and Occam's razor. I would recommend further reading than just WP on the subject, but I don't see the point in mentioning more advanced works before you've read the primer, as it were. Yes, it is a huge subject that needs a lot of reading. My "welcome to epistemology 101" comment was not intended to be belittling, but a humorous nod to the complexity of it (though I do feel that the way I explained it was rather simple and easy to follow). To read more about how specifically that principle is used here on WP, read WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken.
 * To clarify, I had in mind citing examples from MacEachern's study.
 * Understood.
 * Thank you. DrPepper47 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re your point 2: That is still OR. Any analysis or discussion added to the article must be directly sourced to an RS. That is not to say that the subject of the analysis must be sourced, but the analysis itself. So we can't say anything about the evidence unless what we say is, itself accurately attributed to a reliable source.
 * Getting back to the original topic: If we only have one source covering a subject that could be covered by a large number of sources, each with it's own focus, then we are at a bit of an impasse, as we can only say that which our one source says. We are at the mercy of that source, as it were. This would include us pointing out outliers, or comparing and contrasting different datums included in the original source. Unless the source explicitly says it, or it is a logically inescapable conclusion from what the source does explicitly state, we cannot add it to our articles. Our rules against original research are extraordinarily constraining, and this is intentional. It takes quite a bit of time to learn to work within them, so don't be afraid to ask questions or make talk page proposals like this while you're still new here.
 * In this case, I don't actually believe there could be all that much evidence collected, and as such, not too many reliable sources written about it (even the source itself agrees with me on this). Furthermore, in this case, the one source we have is well-accepted, uncontroversial and widely cited. In other words, it's as close as science can get to the fabled "last word" on a subject, and in addition to being unimpeachable reliable, is almost certainly true in any sense of the word.
 * I mention this last due to your commentary in the merge discussion above: your statement of fact about racial differences is demonstrably untrue, as even a reading of this highly misleading article can show. It is, in fact, the scientific consensus is that there is no appreciable difference in measurable intelligence between "races" or even ethnicities (and furthermore, that race is an essentially meaningless concept), but significant (if minor) differences between social classes and groups on opposing sides of the "recently oppressed" line of demarcation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that more sources regarding an archaeological perspective on race and intelligence can and should be added to the section being discussed here. I would recommend considering this one, though it is from 1999 and thus may be too old. C. Loring Brace, in addition to the article I just linked, has written about this subject elsewhere too (e.g. this book). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  00:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

My, this has been a busy summer; I don't want to indent this discussion out of the page: DrPepper47 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "Any analysis or discussion added to the article must be directly sourced to an RS." That's what I meant. Sorry if I need to clarify my points a bit.
 * 2) Interesting points. (I wouldn't really say that I'm "new" to Wikipedia as much as I may be a casual user. :P)
 * 3) To qualify my statement on race/IQ differences: it is an empirical fact that, on average, black Americans under-perform white Americans (who average roughly 100 points) on IQ tests by roughly a full standard deviation of around 15 points; this gap persists (perhaps to a smaller extent but still notably) even when controlled for socio-economic status. Now, to acknowledge the elephant in the room - yes, racial discrimination in the United States has resulted in contemporary socio-economic setbacks for black Americans, which I will concede have to account for at least part of the gap; I also fully understand that race is largely disavowed in anthropological taxonomy. However, although there is more genetic variation within than between "races," this doesn't mean genetic distances between black and white populations in the United States are not significant. A modest correlation has been observed between latitudinal genetic distances and IQ, supporting an evolutionary explanation for IQ differences between nations; before this study, there was a scientific consensus that genes explain a small but noteworthy part of this variation. Scientists who have studied the black-white US gap have not yet reached a consensus; it's plausible that at least a small part of it could be explained by genetic variation.
 * Ignoring the fact that you're now just explicitly pushing scientific racism based on some -frankly- rather shitty evidence, what does any of this have to do with archeological data? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was only a response (albeit late) to your last comment in this section; I am posting my next response in the scientific racism section. DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider merging this with the page on Scientific racism.
I'm not sure what the difference between the two pages is. --2601:189:4203:133D:C02:CFBF:AB6B:94EC (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - This article is about theories concerning race and intelligence. The other article is about practices arising out of those theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - Scientific racism is a value laden term, thus fails NPOV. Mainstream sources concern this topic without calling it scientific racism. See also this previous discussion about Phil Rushton (can't find the link right now). Deleet (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - There is a real disparity in IQ scores between racial groups in the United States, which is not entirely explained by socioeconomic disparity, evincing a real disparity in cognitive ability. The scientific community has not reached a consensus on what causes it; categorizing legitimate research into it as "racist" is dismissive and intellectually irresponsible. DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:MPants at work:
 * First of all, I’m not “pushing” anything – out of respect for the editing community here, I have not made any edits to the article since our exchange over the issue of archaeological data – partially because I’ve been busy, but more so because I want to study this topic further before continuing to edit.
 * Rather, I made an educated suggestion in response to your statement about the issue. My evidence is not “shitty”:
 * Roth et al.’s 2001 meta-analysis, which reviewed over six million participants and was peer-reviewed by a well-respected journal of applied psychology, is one of the most comprehensive studies of this issue.
 * Snyderman and Rothman surveyed hundreds of academics with relevant expertise. The APA stated in 1995 that “no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.” Hunt and Haier have echoed in 2010 and 2016 that the cause of the gap is still unknown. Unless you can cite evidence to contradict these sources, we are at the mercy of them.
 * The 2016 Becker and Rindermann study was peer-reviewed by another well-respected psychological journal. While it does not conclude this debate, it does suggest a possible genetic component to the US racial gap.
 * With that said, arguing for the existence of a genetic component to the American racial IQ gap does not constitute scientific racism; IQ is not a measure of innate human worth. Furthermore, racial differences in intelligence – regardless of what causes them – do not justify the reduction, abandonment, or let alone reversion of efforts to ameliorate them. To the contrary, Arthur Jensen testified against segregation in the 1960s and called for increased emphasis on “efforts to improve the education of the disadvantaged,” pointing out that equality in associative learning abilities. Hans Eysenck explicitly stated that if the gap were of partial genetic origin, then “we are in duty bound to try and set up countervailing environmental pressures which would as far as possible redress this balance and bring the [African American] up to white standards.”
 * Anyway, can we respectfully agree to refrain from character attacks on this talk?

DrPepper47 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a character attack and you really need to learn how to parse words better and draw logical distinctions if you can't figure that out on your own (that wasn't a character attack either: it was advice; good advice, given bluntly and without undue courtesy).
 * Also, you were explicitly pushing scientific racism with that comment below, as well as with your comment here. So even if that was commentary on your character, it would be accurate.
 * In addition, your "evidence" is, in fact shitty. You claimed that the 1 standard deviation held true "even when controlled for socio-economic status", however the study you cited ''explicitly states that socio-economic variables may "partially obscure the interpretation or causality of the exact effect of job complexity on standardized group differences. We encourage basic research into this issue below."
 * But the shittiness doesn't end there: Right before the passage I quotes (the paragraph immediately preceding it, as a matter of fact), the study warns about how one particularly large study that showed a large difference between black and white test scores has a disproportionately large effect on the results of this study itself. Yet you conveniently left out the fact that the results of this study might very well not be reflective of the actual intelligence of white vs black people. Indeed, you claimed that the difference was "an empirical fact".
 * You then proceeded to cite a number of studies equating either genetics in general or ethnicity (a markedly different category from race) with recorded IQ test scores without ever addressing any of the most commonly cited problems with such research, such as the correlation between functional intelligence and IQ test scores or the difficulties in defining "race" and equating it to ethnicity, and capped it all off by citing a 1987 survey to make a claim about the state of modern psychology.
 * So in case you didn't understand me: Your evidence isn't necessarily shitty because it's fundamentally flawed. Your evidence is shitty because you either don't understand it or are willfully misinterpreting it.
 * As a final note, this is an (old, and stale) move discussion. This is not the place to discuss the veracity of scientific racism. Nor is any other page on wikipedia. Go to stormfront.org (or wherever the hell they're located at) or some other site willing to entertain racism to have that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Group differences and scientific consensus
@User:MPants at work:
 * You are absolutely right that I do need to parse my words more carefully. I did not intend to imply that the full standard deviation persisted when controlled for socioeconomic status or that the Roth study supported that. When I said that it “persists (perhaps to a smaller extent but still notably) even when controlled for socio-economic status,” I meant that there is still a perhaps reduced but still notable racial gap when controlled for socio-economic status. I did also say that socioeconomic disparities have to account for at least part of the gap, but ignoring that – I now recognize my serious faults in failing not only to articulate my own point but also to cite any evidence. I only had access to the abstract for the Roth 2001, so I recognize my error in failing to investigate it more carefully and recognizing the potential for error in its estimate.
 * Nonetheless, the APA stated that the “Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites” on intelligence tests (with the caveat however that the gap may have shortened in recent generations,) that it does not simply reflect socio-economic differences, and that caste- or culture-based explanations have little direct empirical support.
 * I’ll take it on good faith that you did not intend any insult, and I’ll apologize for my comment – it was passive-aggressive and foolish on my part, thus completely out of place. However, accusations of racism are very serious to make and serve to foster resentment if made lightly or without substantiation. What have I suggested that fits such a charge? And how am I “pushing” it?
 * I understand that ethnicity is not the same thing as race, and I did not unduly neglect epistemological problems facing scientific conceptions of “race” or intelligence. Although I may have jumped the gun by calling Rindermann et al’s survey a “consensus” (given the low response rate), I never stated that the studies were conclusive – only suggestive.
 * I never intended to imply that the Snyderman and Rothman study summarizes the current state of psychology; rather I cited it because it was one of the last known surveys of scientific opinion on the issue. To reiterate, the APA and respected experts such as Hunt and Haier have stated since that the causes of racial differences in intelligence test scores are not definitively known. Do you have any evidence to refute this?

DrPepper47 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you honestly expect that you could claim you "did not intend to imply" something which you had previously stated both explicitly and forcefully, and I would not immediately spot that as a bald-faced lie? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for more citations
The citations are somewhat old. These are suggestions for newer sources written by authorities - would they be acceptable in this article?
 * James R. Flynn, "Reflections about intelligence over 40 years", Intelligence, October 2018.
 * R Plomin & I J Deary, "Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings", Molecular Psychiatry, 2014/2015.

I don't like that groups or regions that today suffer from low IQ are pinpointed so often in this article ("subsahara" is mentioned 11 times, and Africa(n) 30 times). But why not mention ethnicities and regions that have extraordinarily strong IQ, for example Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence and East Asians? And why not mention their average IQ? Would such an addition be deleted? 193.10.113.47 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of 'white' and 'black'
This page is currently inconsistent regarding the capitalization of the words 'white' and 'black.' Does anyone else care about this, or have any ideas about whether the words should be capitalized or not if we make it consistent? If found this: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/language_corner_1.php. Let me know if anyone else cares about this. Carlsonaar (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They should NOT be capitalized. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now fixed and consistent. I have no idea what the justification was but it isn't proper English, which is why they have all been removed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresented source
On Dec. 31, KingBoru made this edit, cited to the Handbook of Psychology by John R. Graham and Jack A Naglieri. However, this source seems to have been misrepresented. The source does not take a strong position for or against IQ tests being culturally biased, but is generally critical of the view that group differences must be due to cultural bias. Here's a quote from the page of the book that's being cited (p. 58):


 * The belief that any group test score difference constitutes bias has been termed the egalitarian fallacy by Jensen (1980, p. 370):


 * This concept of test bias is based on the gratuitous assumption that all human populations are essentially identical or equal in whatever trait or ability the test purports to measure. Therefore, any difference between populations in the distribution of test scores (such as a difference in means, or standard deviations, or any other parameters of the distribution) is taken as evidence that the test is biased. The search for a less biased test, then, is guided by the criterion of minimizing or eliminating the statistical differences between groups. The perfectly nonbiased test, according to this definition, would reveal reliable individual differences but not reliable (i.e., statistically significant) group differences. (p. 370)


 * However this controversy is viewed, the perception of test bias stemming from group mean score differences remains a deeply ingrained belief among many psychologists and educators. McArdle (1998) suggests that large group mean score differences are “a necessary but not sufficient condition for test bias” (p. 158). McAllister (1993) has observed, “In the testing community, differences in correct answer rates, total scores, and so on do not mean bias. In the political realm, the exact opposite perception is found; differences mean bias” (p. 394).

This source does not support KingBoru's edit: "critics largely [believe] that the Intelligence Quotient itself has inherent biases, and thus that differences are due to a cultural bias." What the source actually says is that there are varying views on whether IQ tests are biased, but the prevailing view among intelligence researchers is that differences do not mean bias. Since this edit misrepresents the source it's citing, I suggest that it should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:B1C5:9930:DB87:DB26 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Kingboru has added this material twice before, first with no source, and next with an unreliable source (a study.com video). Now back again with a new source, but it's used incorrectly (I was wondering about it when I saw the edit, but didn't check it out, I guess I should have). I'll revert it again for now. Deleet (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner James Watson
Now that Nobel prize laureate James Watson has come forward decidedly in favor of this, you have to mention him and change "there remains some debate" to "the issue is the subject of ongoing debate" or similar.

Come on wikipedia, show that you are actually neutral and unbiased. This is the lithmus-test of neutrality, because the issue is so full of anger and hatred. Here is just a Nobel laureate, with a scientific opinion, and then all the world throws hate at him. His comments just lift the lid placed over this huge taboo. Wikipedia can either allow uncomfortable positions a neutral and fair treatment, or it can let emotion win over science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.244.164 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nobel Laureates have a history of losing their minds. The Curies endorsed psychics, Alexis Carrel became a Nazi collaborator, and Linus Pauling decided Vitamin C cured everything. It's called 'Nobel disease', and it is quite well known. Sumanuil (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, the same guy who was just stripped of his various honors?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources rather than original research. Until reliable sources begin characterizing the debate as "ongoing" due to James Watson, we cannot just change it on our own. Leugen9001 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys joking? His request is absolutely reasonable. Your responses are awful; using "Nobel disease" as a reason to dismiss his request and pointing to something that is more political than scientific like Watson being stripped of his honours is below all critique. 31.208.27.41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His views seem notable because he is a nobel prize winner not because he shows any expertise in the field. Unless we have high-quality sourcers seriously discussing his ideas, as opposed to calling them out as racist etc, inclusion should not happen. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, Francis Crick (the other DNA discoverer) also seems to have endorsed this view privately as shown in these letters. Deleet (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Imagine coming to this article, which is full of "high-quality sourcers seriously discussing his ideas", not knowing this, then commenting based on the fact that you know exactly nothing about the subject. Imagine being that kind of person. 82.10.143.238 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of two sources, re-ordering of Environmental Influences subsections
My changes were to the Environmental Influences section were reverted "so that I [] can look at this material."

To make this review process easier ... there was a long list of small edits, so here is an overall a summary of my changes:

1. The biggest change was a zero-byte "minor" change. I re-sorted the sub-sections so they started on the most objective/mathematically measured causes, like nutrition, and ended with the most speculative/hard-to-measure (i.e. no explicitly measured correlation) at the bottom. The Environmental Influences section had previously started with the weakest, most controversial evidence, and this struck me as deliberately prejudicial. A person skimming, rather than reading all the way through a very long article, would never get to the strong and generally accepted evidence, backed up by hard numbers. They would likely start at the top of the section, see only the weakest and most subjective evidence for environmental impacts on IQ, and skip to the next section without ever seeing the strong evidence on the subject. My other changes were as follows:

2. I added one secondary source, from  U.S. Department for Health and Human Services medical training  materials intended for pediatricians. I referenced it based on the following quotation: "Lead poisoning is found disproportionately among black and Hispanic children exposed to lead-containing dust found in older, dilapidated housing. New immigrants and migrant families are more likely to live in low-cost, hazardous housing." In context of the wiki article, it was used as follows: "childhood exposure to lead, associated with homes in poorer areas causes an average 4-6 point IQ drop, " The primary DHHS page is here: Upon review, it links to a more recent version of the same training materials, here. The new version shows the same link between poverty, race, and lead exposure, but doesn't have the same exact quotation.

3. I re-referenced an existing in-page primary source on blood levels of lead in children, specifically this one:

4. I added another primary reference to support the existing primary reference on blood levels of lead, here:. In context it was used as follows: "childhood exposure to lead, associated with homes in poorer areas, causes an average 4-6 point IQ drop,

5. I clarified the section tagged to make it clear what direction the associations were (for example, rather than "breastfeeding" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "low rates of breastfeeding."   Instead of "lead" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "lead exposure".  Instead of "nutrition" being associated with low IQ, I changed it to say "poor nutrition." JDowning (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Okay, JDowning. Except for the primary sources you added, I'm generally okay with the changes you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding primary sources on lead which do not investigate its role in race/IQ is WP:SYNTHESIS 81.155.56.66 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I left out the new primary source when making the edits, as discussed above. Although the primary source was directly relevant, it was still a primary source when better, secondary sources were available.  I later found this Open-Access review article, which found an average (but highly dose-dependent) 6.9 IQ point drop with environmental lead exposure. The journal is published by the U.S.  National Institutes of Health and has a high impact factor, so I am going to go ahead and add the reference now. JDowning (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * JDowning, per what is stated in the discussion seen here at Talk:Child abuse, make sure that you don't confuse what a review is. Also, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not all journals are created equal. Certain journals are more reliable than others. Some are not reliable at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn As above, I checked the impact factor with the SciMago Journal Rank (Q1), and the journal is directly published by the US agency in charge of environmental hazards (full title: U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services).  The article had 14 different authors, all working for reputable organizations (universities, hospitals, multiple national institutes of health).  The specific article pooled and compared the data from seven international population-based longitudinal cohort studies, by working with the authors of the original studies to obtain the original data sets.  They also compared the study methodology.  Overall this is much more in-depth than a surface comparison of literature, and I would consider it a review.
 * I do not understand your specific objection to this specific paper, especially in terms of reliability of the source. Additionally, environmental lead exposure causing an IQ drop is accepted science. Lead is a strong, brain-damaging neurotoxin; I've not come across a single paper claiming otherwise.
 * I understand this is a very controversial article, but you are the one and only editor to object to my sourcing in 13 years of editing wikipedia. Objecting to a Q1-journal article directly published by the NIH based on 'reliability' is ... I don't know what to say.
 * I agree I made a poorly-sourced addition to Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation last week, which is why I didn't complain when you reverted it. After your reversion, I realized I had mis-read at least once of the referenced sources; I agree it was a terrible addition and needed deletion.  I've been more thoroughly reading sources since then.  Let's move on, please.


 * JDowning, I did not state that I object to that source. I am informing you of how sourcing works for medical and psychology articles here at Wikipedia. Psychology articles are also an aspect of the medical field. I am also pointing you to how we should generally source any academic topic. New editors confuse what literature reviews are time and time again. They are also prone to using poor journals. So are editors who usually do not edit these types of articles. You have not been consistently editing medical and psychology articles for thirteen years. By this, I mean that, looking at your contribution history and seeing that you have been focused on other types of topics at times, you have had significant gaps in your editing. For example, you edited a bit in 2009, didn't return until 2012 and edited a bit in 2012. If you had been consistently editing these types of articles even for five years (and I don't mean toxicity type of articles or gene articles), you would have come across editors like me. And by that, I mean WP:Med editors. You recently edited the P-glycoprotein article. Our medical editors usually are not at those kinds of articles. But as you can see from this edit, one of our former medical editors (who is currently no longer with us) took an interest in that article. He would have appreciated this systematic review you added to it. I appreciate it as well. Thank you. I don't mean to come across as someone inhibiting your work. I just want you to edit well. You haven't discussed matters on talk pages a lot, which speaks to you not being as familiar with this site's rules and protocols as more experienced Wikipedia editors are. Just because an edit has not been objected to does not mean that it's a good edit. If you did not read the discussion I pointed you to above, I suggest you read it. I suspect it will be a good idea to address one or more of your edits at WP:Med in the future. You say "let's move on, please.", but I'm not stuck on past edits you have made. You are showing up to articles that are on my watchlist. And some of your latest edits indicate to me that you would benefit from some WP:Med guidance. Until then, yes, we can move on. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. And WP:Pings only work with a fresh signature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22_Reborn, I apologize for taking fair criticism personally, and thank you. JDowning (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

___

The role of test bias
Aquillion deleted a paragraph summarizing the role of test bias in score differences. Edit summary is "Trimming the second paragraph of this section; note that the date of the 'rebuttal' is earlier than any of the citations in the first paragraph, which makes this construction (using it as a response to later scholarship) absurd. Only the 2011 refs for Hunt and Mackintosh are really useful here, but we lack cites to them.". I think a more sensible approach here would be to look for more sources as well as the specific pages in the books in question. I believe both of these books have recently been put online on LibGen, so one can consult them there. Furthermore, there are many sources since the ones cited before. Here's some examples: http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Sackett,%20Borneman,%20&%20Connelly%20(2008).%20AP.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?id=EcsaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT328#v=onepage&q&f=false, https://books.google.com/books?id=4fmnDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false. Finally, it is not true that all the sources in the above paragraph are newer, there's 3 older ones (1983, 1988, 1988, i.e. all before 1996 APA piece). Deleet (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Either way, it is inappropriate for us to put such WP:UNDUE weight on the AMA piece - we fold four sources (Cronshaw, Verney, Borsboom, and Shuttleworth-Edwards, all dating to after it) into one sentence, then give the AMA piece almost an entire paragraph to "reply" to them despite being published earlier. Obviously it needs to be trimmed down to give it weight comparable to the individual studies cited in the first paragraph.  I was going to re-add it with the appropriate weight, but on re-reading it I realized that it's being misused in any case - it is specific that it talks about the tests being unbiased in the sense of predicting educational attainment (From an educational point of view, the chief function of mental tests is as predictors, and, further in the same section, Considered in this light, the question is whether the tests have a "predictive bias" against blacks.)  You have to read the entire paper, not just one "clobber-text" line; the section that is summarized in the conclusion, and which serves as the sentence for that cite, is based on that paragraph, and therefore refers to them being unbiased only in the sense that they do in fact accurately predict educational attainment.  Indeed (and this was the most alarming thing to me when I read it), another section in the same paper, further up, clarifies that cultural differences may indeed result in different test outcomes - it's not disagreeing with most of the first sentence (they even acknowledge in the paragraph you quoted that cultural differences may be the cause of the the disparity; they noted only that the tests are 'unbiased' in the sense of producing unbiased predictions of future educational attainment, which is a far, far more limited statement than the implication the previous text had - ie. that the tests provided an unbiased assessment of hypothetical general intelligence.)  Also, I'll note that the cites you provided above say essentially the same things - that tests are accurate for the purpose of predicting future success.  We have to be extremely cautious to make that distinction clear when citing such sources.  Those authors are much more careful in their wording, in other words, than you are being here; we have to reflect their caution.  I think for now the best thing to do is to rewrite the relevant sentence into "the tests do accurately predict future educational attainment" and avoid making broad statements outside of that.  In that sense there isn't actually a conflict between the two sets of sources (which is, again, part of the problem with the previous framing, which tried to use the AMA paper to cast doubt on the sources in the first paragraph, when in fact there's little disagreement between them outside of the fact that the AMA paper, which was older, noting that the role of cultural differences hadn't been fully studied yet - something that can obviously be chalked up to its age.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no conflict between the idea that the tests are an accurate measure of general intelligence and the idea that group differences may be the result of culture. General intelligence isn't 100% genetically determined, so it's possible for both of those things to be true. Earl Hunt's 2011 book (p.425) says, "The differences in test scores across racial/ethnic groups almost certainly reflect a real difference in the distribution of cognitive skills across racial/ethnic lines", and the book then describes several possible social causes of the differences (as well as possible biological causes). In this context, "unbiased" means that the tests accurately measure what they're designed to measure, without saying anything about the underlying cause of the differences.


 * The 2008 Sackett paper (authored by a mainstream academic, published in a reputable APA journal and well-cited) doesn't directly address the question of whether the tests are measuring a real difference in general intelligence, but it's using the term "unbiased" to mean more than just the extremely narrow conclusion you've described. The paper's conclusions are summarized in this paragraph:


 * We offer a very positive appraisal of the evidence (a) that tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance, (b) that validity is not an artifact of SES, (c) that coaching is not a major determinant of test performance, (d) that tests do not generally exhibit bias by underpredicting the performance of minority group members, and (e) that testtaking motivational mechanisms are not major determinants of test performance in these high-stakes settings.


 * This paper provides a useful summary of what the mainstream position is with respect to test bias, so I think this paper's conclusions should be included in the article.


 * I disagree about the prominence that should be given to the APA piece. This summary is considered very authoritative by researchers and the citation statistics show it: it has 3.4k citations on Google Scholar. I don't think it is undue to rely heavily on this source despite its age. I recognize the conflict here between WP:RS_AGE and relying on authoritative, academic secondary sources. Nevertheless, modern textbooks, such as Hunt 2011 above, offer about the same view as found in the APA statement. On this topic, it is possible to find recent papers by various scientists (many outside the field) saying just about anything one wants. To avoid an incoherent article, it is important to stick to the most authoritative sources, which are well regarded reviews and textbooks by mainstream academics published by reputable university presses. Deleet (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said here refutes Aquillon's points. In fact, nothing you said here even addresses their main point, which is that the validity of tests for performance says nothing about whether or not the tests are biased because it doesn't address whether or not the real world performance is influenced by the same or similar biases. The Sackett paper (actual, working link to it is here) is clear on this distinction:
 * Note that the magnitude of group differences on the test and the magnitude of group differences on the measure of performance are not the same (e.g., White–Black test d = 1.0; White–Black job performance d = 0.35). An intuitive notion may be that the two should be the same and the fact that they are not signals bias in the test. We note that there is generally no reason to expect the two to be comparable unless the test in question is the sole determinant of the outcome of interest. (emphasis added)
 * So any suggestion that the Sackett source argues that such tests are unbiased in a general sense is obviously spurious; they are only unbiased in the sense of their being a strong-but-not-perfect correlation between predicted performance and actual performance regardless of minority status.
 * And we are already aware that Hunt thinks test scores are unbiased; he was the president of ISIR, the ornate gazebo smack in the middle of the walled garden of "scientific" racism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood the point Sackett is making in the part you quoted. That paragraph is saying that group differences in job performance are smaller than group differences in IQ, because job performance is influenced by many other factors besides intelligence (such as motivation, personality factors, etc). This paragraph has nothing to do with whether IQ tests underestimate the real cognitive ability of minority test takers. Sackett is quite clear on this point; his paper also states that "(the assertion) that these mean differences can be interpreted as evidence of bias in the tests [...] is unequivocally rejected within mainstream psychology.".


 * As a more general point, maybe re-read the WP:RS policy. Earl Hunt's textbook is widely considered one of the best books available about human intelligence (see e.g. this paper). Last year, when I cited several sources to demonstrate what the mainstream opinion is, you rejected the textbook sources because these books didn't cost enough. You rather strangely said, "Look at how cheap those "textbooks" are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?)" Note policy in Tendentious_editing. I also suggest you moderate your language. Calling stuff you dislike bad names (what even is "ornate gazebo smack"??) is not proper discussion etiquette on Wikipedia.


 * To recap the usual policy: articles like this one should be based on authoritative academic sources such as the Sackett paper, Hunt's textbook, the APA report, Gottfredson's mainstream statement, and survey results of researchers. All of these indicate about the same thing in this case. Deleet (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I know what the authors were discussing, and in the discussion of the expected vs. actual delta the authors happened to make a reference to the general sense of the tests being biased, wherein they note that the only reason to expect job performance to correlate strongly to test performance is when one discounts the job performance measurement entirely and apply the test results to both measures. The only reason that doing that is a bad idea is the knowledge -common to the authors, the intended audience and most editors here who can read these sorts of papers properly- that whether or not the tests themselves are biased says nothing about whether other measures of intelligence are biased.
 * At no point does the paper come to the conclusion that the tests are entirely free from bias, and it is statements like this, scattered throughout the paper which explain why. This has been explained to you twice now, by two different editors. The problem has nothing to do with the reliability of the source, it's your interpretation of the source. It's saying "These particular proposed mechanisms of bias are untenable because [insert reason here]," and you're trying to make it say "All proposed mechanisms of bias are untenable because these few are." Learning to read and understand the deliberate and overt specificity of statements in a mainstream science publication is someone you have to do if you want to understand them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  06:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @MPants You have grossly misunderstood Sackett et al's paper. They were in fact conveying the opposite of what you think, which is to say they believe the tests are unbiased based on the preponderance of evidence. The paper is a response to specific assertions commonly made by those claiming the tests are biased, explaining how large-scale studies and meta-analyses do not support these assertions. They note this explicitly in the introduction and discussion sections of the paper.


 * The reason they highlighted the magnitude of group differences on the test and in performance not being the same, was to dismantle criticisms that arise from the observance of this difference. They explain how observing a difference between the test and criterion does not signal test bias, as there's no reason to expect the two to be comparable unless the test in question is the sole determinant of the outcome. This is why the part you quoted is under "Assertion 7: Minority group performance matches majority group performance" (it was an assertion they were addressing).


 * Another of the assertions that they address is this one: "Lower minority group mean scores show that tests are biased". This is the assertion that they are saying is rejected by mainstream psychology. In other words, they are saying that the preponderance of evidence indicates that test bias is not an adequate explanation for group differences in average scores. 2601:42:800:A9DB:3065:EEA1:68A0:2F32 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, for fuck's sake, why do people who don't know how to read a scientific article insist upon reading scientific articles? I've already explained that the paper nowhere comes to the conclusion that the tests are unbiased, full stop. If either of you had any real competence reading scientific papers you'd grasp the importance of this. This article responds to 8 specific arguments which were "current in the literature" (those scare quotes are there because none of those arguments appear in academic literature in the recent past, they're merely the straw men that get parroted in pop-science literature and political discourse) at the time of it's publication. It does not respond to all arguments, and indeed, only responds to one argument directly alleging test bias, and that's not an argument which is presented in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has implied there aren't other arguments, or that the paper addressed every argument. However to say "the paper nowhere comes to the conclusion that the tests are unbiased, full stop" is a bit misleading as the authors conclude with this:


 * While each of these assertions, if true, would constitute a serious challenge to the continued use of such tests, our conclusion is that none of them are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
 * ...We offer a very positive appraisal of the evidence (a)that tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance


 * So, while they aren't saying the tests are without a doubt unbiased, they are saying there is no evidence to support they are. In any case, I think most would agree it's fair to use this source in the test bias subsection to support the claim that test bias isn't an adequate explanation for group differences. 2601:42:800:A9DB:90D:CB64:5302:7138 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * they are saying there is no evidence to support they are No, they aren't. They are saying that "...tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance".
 * As I've already pointed out; valid != unbiased should be something that anyone reading this sort of paper understands on a fundamental level. If you don't understand that, then you have no business discussing this subject. In addition, the paper nowhere addresses the issue of the metrics by which "short-term and long-term academic and job performance" are gauged and whether or not those are biased, and I earlier provided a quote where they specifically acknowledge that there are factors influencing such metrics by way of pointing out that the only reason to espect a 1-1 correlation between IQ testing and later performance is if the IQ test is used as a gauge of performance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that anyone who starts their posts with "Oh, for f**k's sake" probably isn't winning the argument. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead
Add to lead: "In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans." Benjamin (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And why should we add that to the lead, especially given the issues with studies and reports on this topic? See WP:YESPOV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is stated in the wiki voice. Is it seriously contested? Benjamin (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Stating it in Wikipedia's voice is the problem. And given how debated this topic is, I'm surprised to see you asking, "Is it seriously contested?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You think it shouldn't be stated in the voice? That's another argument to be made, but I didn't think that was so in question, considering that it's been pretty stable. Why haven't you changed it already? Or am I misunderstanding you? The impression I get from reading that section is that it isn't seriously contested, but the interpretations, implications, etc of it are. Benjamin (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are stating. You proposed that we add the following to the lead: "In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans." It's not in the lead. Nor should it be. It shouldn't be lower in the article either, unless properly sourced (as in not supported by a WP:Primary source) and given WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is stated lower down in the text of the article:

"In the United States, individuals identifying themselves as East Asian tend to have higher average IQ scores than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans. Nevertheless, greater variation in IQ scores exists within each ethnic group than between them.[46]"

That claim, it appears, is stable, sourced, and stated as fact in the encyclopedic voice. Do you not think it should be? Benjamin (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding that piece, I can't see what that source states, but the text is attributed to a decent source -- the "Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education, Volume 1" from Sage Publications. I still don't feel that this US-centric piece should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify why you think that is seriously contested and shouldn't be stated in the wikivoice? Benjamin (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a loaded, or at least confusing, question. Looking at the page via Google books, this is summary of a single paragraph in a section which specifically provides more nuance and context. As a whole, the section is specifically about testing bias and how these tests are used. The bit about racial discrepancies is context for this discussion, so taking it in isolation risks cherry-picking. Context always matters, and this isn't the proper way to present this one source, because it's omitting important surrounding context. Both the preceding paragraph, and the following paragraphs go to lengths to explain the significance of SES, and multiple forms of testing bias. Highlighting this one factoid seems inappropriate. The section specifically calls Jensen's approach "untenable", but he is cited, by name, in the very next paragraph based on a single primary source! This suggests that the source was used for convenience, not with an eye to neutrally summarizing it's message. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel free to reword it to offer a more global perspective, please! Benjamin (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Benjamin, why not make the changes you're proposing yourself? I posted two other sources below that might be useful. 2600:1004:B14A:8BE2:8D9F:A931:DC0B:141E (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added, "In the US, Asians tend to have higher IQ than do Caucasians, who, in turn, have higher average IQs than African Americans. Global measures follow similar trends, and correlate with economic development.", which follows what is said in the lower sections pretty closely. Of course many of the individual studies are controversial, but the existence of the broad trends isn't, and the place to go into more detail about it is in the sections. Benjamin (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest citing Hunt's textbook for that sentence (I am assuming that is the source your summary is based on), instead of leaving it unsourced. 2600:1004:B114:DC1:C5:3D6A:D631:504A (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are two other sources that support the proposed wording.

WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation by Weiss et al.

Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt. Although it's primarily about the U.S., this section of Hunt's textbook also mentions that the U.S. results are mirrored by international differences.

I was specifically looking for sources that discuss the higher average scores of East Asians in addition to the Black/White IQ gap. There is much more data about the latter than about the former, so if more sources are needed about the Black/White IQ gap, I can provide others.

I don't think the existence of the test score gaps (as opposed to their cause) is particularly controversial, so I would support that being mentioned in the lead. 2600:1004:B158:19EF:CC22:1E30:B10C:B541 (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. No consensus at all to add this to the lead. Grayfell's argument still stands. It is WP:Undue. And the IP-hopper is suspicious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, why do you think it is so controversial? What sources are there that directly contradict this view? I think you're confusing the controversy about cause and interpretation with controversy about the existence of the trends themselves. Benjamin (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is about more than what is controversial. This whole topic is controversial. This is about WP:Due and what Grayfell stated above. You haven't given a valid reason for why this U.S.-centric piece should go in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course this is a controversial *topic*, generally, but no, this is not "all" controversial, in the sense that some things are stated in the encyclopedic voice, as I said. You've previously said that it shouldn't be stated in the encyclopedic voice, but you've yet to provide any source that directly contradicts it. I already said that I'm open to more global wording, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would *help contribute* to that, rather than just automatically reverting. I frankly find it a bit ridiculous that the lead for the article on race and intelligence doesn't even directly mention the relationship that is what the article is fundamentally about. Benjamin (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What don't you understand about WP:Due and what Grayfell stated above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not undue to say what the sources say, unless there are other sources that say otherwise. Benjamin (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you taking this seriously? It's not undue to say what the sources say... except when it is undue, which is all the damn time. The source specifically and cautiously discusses many inter-related points, and you would copy only one of those points to the lede of the article while ignoring everything else the source says? No. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously invoking WP:NOT? That's obviously not appropriate, as this falls clearly within the scope of this article, and is already in the body. Benjamin (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The proposed change will not occur because it is loaded with false implications. The topic of this article is race and intelligence so naturally readers would interpret that text as implying that certain "races" determine intelligence. Reliable sources have explained that such an interpretation is (a) unfounded, and (b) very probably false. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am still not aware of a reliable source that actually directly contradicts the claim. Are you? Benjamin (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When replying, please engage with the substance of the comment you are replying to. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation of the implication. If you want to take something to mean what it doesn't say, that's your problem. Benjamin (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy at stake is WP:DUE. Promoting some information to the lead would mislead readers. This topic is under discretionary sanctions and there is no requirement that policy be debated endlessly. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources agree. It's not undue. Benjamin (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this disagreement is going to be resolved on this page. Perhaps we should use one of the options listed at Dispute resolution. 2600:1004:B115:1AE1:E190:C8F6:BC01:AA48 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral summary of older sources
I have removed the citation of Rushton & Jensen from Race and intelligence, and rewrote based on Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. I believe this report is a reasonably fair summary of the academic consensus at the time it was written. While both J. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen are still occasionally cited, neither can properly be described as part of the mainstream. Even when published 15 years ago, this would've been controversial. The paragraph was not presenting this information as historical context, it was implied that this was part of the current understanding of the issue. I dispute this, and many reliable, academic sources are available which discuss the flaws in their research. We do not have to accept these criticisms, but we should not ignore them and pretend that this is widely accepted. As I said above, the source cited in the previous paragraph specifically calls Jensen's approach "untenable". For us to be citing him without comment in the next paragraph seems untenable as well. We should, at a bare minimum, use the existing sources to provide context. I think the easier solution is to just remove this mention.

I would like an additional opinion on how much weight to give Roth et al. A large percentage of this article's citations happened after it was added to this article, which seems odd for an article from 2001. At least a couple of those citations are from blatantly unreliable fringe outlets, as well. Maybe it's fine, but these are red flags. Regardless, some of the claims it supported are contradicted by the "Intelligence" report cited in the previous paragraph, this should be contextualized based on more recent sources.

I am also concerned by the selective quote from Neisser et al. I do not disagree with the sentiment, per say, but is is misleading. The "Intelligence" report goes to extreme lengths to explain what "bias" means in this context, and explains exactly why proper IQ tests are not "biased" against African Americans in the general sense. I don't think it does a particularly good job of doing this (it says that such tests are not biased because the are designed to be predictive of academic success, but earlier it specifically says that IQ tests are now less accurate at predicting success for African Americans, so...) Regardless, its authors clearly recognized that this was an important point. The quote doesn't seem harmonious with this source's underlying point. Since "Intelligence" report is many pages, most of which would be irrelevant to this article, we need a more concise, more current, and more comprehensive summary. Citing a handful of studies from random decades isn't appropriate for something so controversial.

This is the summary I wrote:


 * In response to the controversial 1994 book The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a task-force of eleven experts, which issued a report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" in 1995. Regarding genetics, the report emphasizes that how genes are expressed would be influenced by environment, including interpersonal and cultural influences, and therefore "all genetic effects on the development of observable traits are potentially modifiable by environmental input, though the practicability of making such modifications may be another matter."


 * Regarding group differences, the report reaffirmed the consensus that differences within groups are much wider than difference between groups, and that that claims of ethnic difference in intelligence should be scrutinized carefully, as this had been used to justify racial discrimination. It also acknowledged limitations in the racial categories used, as these categories are neither consistently applied, nor homogeneous (see also race and ethnicity in the United States). The report described Asian Americans as having average IQ scores similar to the national average, despite having "compiled an outstanding record of academic and professional achievement" since the end of WWII. The report speculates that this was due to cultural or temperamental differences.  "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" comments that Hispanic American immigrants came from many substantially different backgrounds, making comparisons more difficult. Hispanic test scores tend to be below non-Hispanic white Americans. This disparity is influenced by linguistic differences, as some tests (such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) are biased towards English-language fluency.  Native Americans were also described as too diverse to easily categorize. The report notes similar linguist issues as with Hispanic Americans, as well as a very high prevalence of middle-ear infections, both of which negatively influence verbal test scores. Groups living near the arctic, such as Inuits, were noted to have very high visual-spatial test scores.  African Americans have generally tested lower than white Americans. The report cites studies indicating that this disparity was decreasing as African Americans had been testing significantly higher. The report also noted that African American achievement scores (as distinct from IQ scores) has also been improving. The cause of this shift may be connected to demographic changes, as both family size and parental education levels both correlate with IQ scores, and both had shifted more significantly in African Americans than among other populations.

After looking at this, I decided that this was far too long for a twenty-some year old source, and have tried to trim it to stick to the summary paragraphs or the relevant section. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am okay with the Rushton and Jensen source being removed from that section, because that source is primarily about the cause of the gaps, which isn't the focus of that section. However, the Roth source should not be removed. That source is one of the largest and most heavily-cited meta-analyses ever done about racial test score gaps, and it has been cited over 30 times since 2018 alone. If other scholars in the field regard that paper as current enough to continue citing it, then it should be current enough for Wikipedia's purposes also.


 * Also, if you wish to complain about the article being out of date, there is a much larger issue than its citing of older sources such as Roth and Neisser. The article currently states that there are almost no known genetic polymorphisms that are consistently associated with variation in cognitive ability, cited to a source from 2012, but according to more recent sources polygenic scores are now able to predict ~10% of the variation in intelligence. For the article to state that almost no known genetic polymorphisms are consistently associated with intelligence is not just a case of possible undue weight; it's a demonstrably false statement. This issue was previously discussed on the talk page here, but no one made any of the changes proposed in that discussion.


 * Considering your history with respect to this topic, I am not sure that I trust your ability to neutrally update the article to reflect the current state of research about polygenic scores. But in any case, with respect to updating the article, addressing that issue should be the top priority. 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected article request
This subject is pretty sensitive so i'd like to censor Wikipedia if possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.110.215 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit undone??
Why was my edit of today undone??Tesint (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are talking about diff which added "There is also no evidence that these differences are purely environmental in origin" to the lead. First, the way Wikipedia works is that an editor has to justify why text should be included rather than the reverse. Second, the WP:LEAD has to be a summary of the body of the article—is that text in the article? Third, text must be supported with reliable sources, otherwise it is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

But it appears to me that the preceding statement, that there is no non-circumstantial evidence of a genetic component, also violates each one of those rules. Would it be OK if I deleted that?Tesint (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarking a little further, it seems to me that the statement that there is "no evidence" for a genetic component does not appear anywhere else in the article, and is moreover, only true if one uses the strictest definition of what is "evidence" and the loosest definition of what is "no evidence". Legally, evidence is anything that makes a reasonable person more or less likely to believe a legal conclusion. So, eyewitness testimony is not proof, as an eyewitness may be mistaken, but it is evidence. Testimony may be false, but it is still evidence. In the scientific realm, when we are discussing phenomena spread out over populations in the millions, it is a little hard to see the difference between circumstantial and non-circumstantial evidence. It makes a lot of sense in a murder trial, but not here, where by the very nature of the issue evidence will tend to be statistical.

To my way of thinking, if you interpret the term "evidence" in such a manner that it is true to say that there is no evidence for a genetic component, than it is also true that there is no evidence of the other conclusion, that the difference in test scores is entirely environmental in origin.Tesint (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to me to violate the (aforementioned) rules, as the lede explains, there is uncertainty and currently no non-circumstantial evidence (i.e some argue that there is evidence but it is not non-circumstantial, meaning there is as yet no direct evidence.). But, as the lede also goes on to relevantly explain (mentioning existing "circumstantial evidence" in reference to the preceding sentence): "some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found." (Thus there are those that posit or suggest a genetic component but there is as yet no proof or direct evidence of a genetic component. Some researchers suspect that such a component is plausible while some other researchers disagree.) :So it seems to me that this accurately sums up the state of the research per the sources and the uncertaintly around the issue, and there appears to be no need currently to delete anything. Also, I am (bellow) notifying the user Johnuniq to whom you responded of your replies (in case they did not see them). Skllagyook (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The user Tesint seems to have been responding to you in their messages above) but did not ping you. So I am pinging you here to notify you of their responses.Skllagyook (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the comments, thanks. It all boils down to WP:RS and WP:DUE which depend on the precise proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive detail of debate in summary section?
The summary of 'Environmental influences on group differences in IQ' strikes me as overly detailed--it has a blow-by-blow description of an academic debate. I propose shortening, as follows:
 * The following environmental factors are some of those suggested as explaining a portion of the differences in average IQ between races. These factors are not mutually exclusive with one another, and some may, in fact, contribute directly to others. Furthermore, the relationship between genetics and environmental factors may be complicated. For example, the differences in socioeconomic environment for a child may be due to differences in genetic IQ for the parents, and the differences in average brain size between races could be the result of nutritional factors.[75] All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap. However, currently, the question is whether these factors can account for the entire gap between white and black test scores, or only part of it. One group of scholars, including Richard E. Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Joshua Aronson, Diane Halpern, William Dickens, Eric Turkheimer (2012) have argued that the environmental factors so far demonstrated are sufficient to account for the entire gap. Nicholas Mackintosh (2011) considers this a reasonable argument, but argues that probably it is impossible to ever know for sure; another group including Earl B. Hunt (2010), Arthur Jensen,[19] J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have argued that this is impossible. Jensen and Rushton consider that it may account for as little as 20% of the gap. Meanwhile, while Hunt considers this a vast overstatement, he nonetheless considers it likely that some portion of the gap will eventually be shown to be caused by genetic factors. JDowning (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence before the strike-out probably needs to go, as well. It is providing a false balance between the mainstream view (that race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless) and contributes nothing but confusion to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree on the additional strikeout. That would leave this sentence as the end of the paragraph: "All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap." [emphases added].  This is uncontroversially phrased and a good summary, so the next sentence ("However, currently, the question is...") is repetitive. JDowning (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please provide some citations re. "race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless". To me, this looks like an attempt to remove coverage of significant researcher opinion by some other route than what WP:DUE prescribes. Deleet (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thed'd be about 90% of the sources at Race (human categorization). Damn, you fancy yourself a "researcher" yet you are unaware of basic facts about the state of current research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1. No "damns" please. Be civil.

2. Quote: ...have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute... contains 5 weasels in a row. Ditto for the other passages here. Zezen (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Damn hardly seems uncivil in this context. You are responding to two people who are blocked from editing. If you have a specific proposal, I suggest making it in a new section. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So you're defending the uncivil behavior of an editor who was indefinitely banned for his incivility. Noted. Jwray (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, neither of them were blocked for uncivil behavior, but that hardly matters, does it? How is this snide comment productive to improving the article? Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It contributes to keeping the discussion civil, by (correctly, IMO) pointing out that your attempt to dismiss his behavior is hypocritical. --Toomim (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about sourcing
Under the section entitled “Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences” there is the following quote: ”Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap“ attributed to Essentials of Psychology: Concepts and Applications by Jeffrey Nevid. I own this text and can not find anything close to what is quoted above (on page 71 or anywhere else). Why is this quote being sourced to this text? 2600:1012:B060:F6B5:890C:5905:A65C:6A91 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The citation lists page 271, not page 71. Per Google Books, this page directly and unambiguously supports this statement. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a critical distinction that needs to be made. Our article has the following text: "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap." However if you look at page 271 it actually says "increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ".  You can see for yourrself.  This is a contentious article, and it suffers from contributions that are taken out of context, misquoted or plain biased.  As a result, it's important to be very careful when making changes to the article.  The text does not say (paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates environmental factors are more important than genetic factors in explaining the racial IQ gap".  It says (again paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates the importance of environmental factors in explaining the racial IQ gap ".  There is a significant difference between the two quotes.  Even one or two words can have an impact on a quote and change its meaning considerably.  99.48.35.129 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "...indicates the importance of environmental factors..." is so pointless it's almost tautological. "Importance" is relative and requires context. The source says "...increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". Both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and I am fine with that phrasing. The only part I have contention with is the unsourced portion - the part of the quote that says "..environmental factors not genetic ones are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap. " In other words, get rid of the "more important" and the "not genetic ones".  These are completely unsupported - it's simply not an accurate representation of the text.  The rest of the quote is fine though. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This is fully supported by the cited source. The quote is in answer to a question posed by the preceding paragraph: Are these racial differences in IQ genetic or environmental in origin?"
 * The following paragraph further contextualizes this: "Another factor arguing against genetic explanations..."
 * As I said, both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone else could give us their opinion, since it appears we both (in good faith) interpret the text differently. user:aquillion, as a veteran Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to this article, what do you think about the passage in question? 2600:1012:B023:455C:5CFA:B52F:4775:F684 (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Grayfell is clearly misinterpreting the text. Imagine that A is 1 and B is 10. Now add 1 to A so that it is 2. Yes, that means that A "increased." That increase does not mean that A is greater than B. Just because something is "increasing in importance" does not mean that it is more important or significant than other things. The source does not say what this article claims that it says. 2601:600:877F:B570:1D70:FD9B:22CF:959C (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the above it is clear that you know this a contentious article with a contentious past. As such, you are welcome to contribute as a shifting IP but in an article like this other editors know that an infinite amount of time could be spent debating shifting IPs. However my view is that a reliable source would not comment on the importance of some factors if their effect were ten times smaller than other factors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "shifting IP". I was the on who made the original comment and all the follow ups with the exception of the comment using the analogy of A and B (which I agree with by the way).  In any event, there is no policy prohibiting an unregistered user from contributing.  I even asked for feedback from other users.  If we stick to the subject at hand, it is apparent the source is being misrepresented.  Not sure why no one is willing to discuss this. 2602:301:772D:62D0:A585:D95F:8304:25BB (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with the criticism, this is plain wrong and needs to be changed. The source text expresses that one factor turned out to be more important than previously thought, it did not conclude that this one factor is more important than the other. Let's set the bar higher than this, please. Flyingtart (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Flyingtart. The phrases "more important" and "not genetic ones" are clearly unsupported.  I am removing them. --Toomim (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Contentious non-mainstream sources
Is there any good reason why works by Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray or Arthur Jensen should be used as citations here? In any instance that their claims are notable rather than their works, that can be supported by objective sources describing them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two possible ways of structuring this type of article. One is to cite only sources that provide impartial summaries of the debate, such as Hunt, Neisser and Loehlin. And the other is to structure it as a back-and-forth between two camps: between individuals such as Jensen, Murray, Rindermann and Gottfredson on one hand, and individuals such as Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer on the other. This article takes the latter approach. I am not sure whether this is the best approach to use, but as far as I can tell, the article has taken this approach for pretty much as long as it has existed.


 * On a topic as controversial as this one, I suspect that it sometimes isn't possible to have as high-quality an article as could exist on an uncontroversial topic. Even if an article taking the former approach could theoretically be of higher quality, such an article could never be stable, because proponents of each camp will always try to make sure that that the article mentions all of their camp's major arguments. This article has been relatively stable lately, and I would be opposed to restructuring it in a way that's likely to destabilize it. 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is that researchers such as Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer are very much mainstream scientists, whereas the individuals I mentioned are decidedly not. It is completely unencyclopaedic to present information as though there are two valid sides here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Nisbett is not mainstream either. (His social psychology research is relatively well-regarded, but not his writings about human intelligence.) Have you read the academic reviews of his book Intelligence and How to Get It? It was criticized for misrepresenting that field by nearly every psychology journal that reviewed it, yet it is extensively cited in this article. If the citations to Jensen, Murray, etc. are to be removed, then the non-mainstream sources on the opposite side would have to be removed as well. (However, I am opposed to doing this.) 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the first sentence of my last response again. There is no debate here, as people like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray are completely disregarded. Intelligence and How to Get It is a mainstream source but we should use the best possible sources, not simply a combination of opinions. This is not the right article to evaluate any controversy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read the academic reviews of the book? I asked you that question, but you didn't answer it. The book received four reviews in major psychology journals, and all four of them are mostly negative.    Perhaps you'll disregard the first review because it was written by Rushton and Jensen, but there is no reason to disregard the other three. Much like The Bell Curve, Nisbett's book received lots of media attention, but was critically panned by professionals. (And I am assuming you don't consider The Bell Curve to be mainstream.) 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant at all to whether that work is mainstream or not, which in turn is not relevant to what this section is about. Publications being reviewed is a very regular part of academia. However, the only thing negative from what you have linked is from the second review. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're holding Jensen, Rushton et al. to a higher standard than you would other scientists, without any real justification why. These are all professional psychologists with works published in reputable journals. There views are no less "mainstream" than that of Nisbett, who has rather extreme views himself. Ultimately, this issue is a matter of scientific dispute, so we include all reliable sources in the debate. This is in contrast with something like global warming, which is not at all in dispute, and so for that reason we do not take the climate denial position seriously. CompactSpacez (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jensen, Rushton et al are treated as non-mainstream not because they are doing bad science, but because their arguments do fit at all well with contemporary conventional wisdom. We should have the courage to treat their views with respect, even if what they say is uncomfortable. ---Asteuartw (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are countless scientists who have looked at Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, etc. and methodically pulled-apart their out-dated, biased, and pseudoscientific work. They have documented precisely why it is, in fact, "bad science". Scientists in many fields have been doing this for decades right up until today. The reason this is necessary is because it is "comfortable" to ignore the deep flaws inherent in their work, and this has lasting and detrimental consequences. If they are held to a higher standard (which I dispute) it is for a good reason. They are not merely treated as non-mainstream, they have been increasingly pushed to the fringes by more modern research. Euphemistically brushing this off as "uncomfortable" ignores the mountains of data that has been collected, and research that has been done with that data. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite ironic that you'd refer to "modern research" and "mountains of data" in this context. Here is an actual example of the research that's currently being done on this article's topic: A discussion of this study's limitation can be found in this thread at Twitter:  For the reasons explained there, this study can't be regarded as the final word on race, ancestry and cognitive ability (and nobody is claiming that it should be). However, it's an important new piece of data that other research will likely build upon in the future.


 * Here is why I'm bringing this up: you say that the newest research is increasingly pointing towards the conclusion that's the opposite of the one taken by this study. If that's indeed the case, what actual recent research have anti-racist academics produced to support the opposite perspective about the cause of racial IQ gaps? For that matter, when is the last time anti-racist academics have engaged directly with the new data being produced in this field at all? As far as I'm aware, the last academic book or paper that has made a serious attempt to engage with this type of data was "Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments", which is now more than seven years old. There certainly is a constant supply of new political arguments trying to prove that someone is a white supremacist or a eugenicist or whatnot, but on a scientific level, the arguments being presented by anti-racist academics in the present are the exact same arguments that were presented in response to The Bell Curve 25 years ago. These contemporary, but very old arguments invariably rely on claims such as that IQ tests do not measure a real ability, which are not taken seriously by the vast majority of psychologists. (See Gavin Evans' book Skin Deep for a typical example of this type of argument.) This actually is a regression, because a decade ago academics such as Nisbett and Turkheimer were making a serious attempt to engage with the new data being collected about race and IQ, but for the most part that is no longer happening.


 * People who follow research about genetics and intelligence are beginning to take notice of this shift, and you're seeing the effects of that on talk pages such as this one. More importantly, academics are taking notice as well. For example, Russell Warne is currently working on a new book about human intelligence, to be published by Cambridge University Press, in which he plans to discuss the MDPI study I've cited above. If the academic literature contained any rigorous critiques of this study's methods, Warne would discuss those as well, but thus far anti-racist academics have remained silent on this study, as they have about most of the other recent data collected in this field. This is an example of how shifts in the nature of an academic debate eventually come to be reflected in secondary sources, such as Warne's upcoming book.


 * The way sourcing is supposed to work at Wikipedia is that when a shift occurs in an academic debate, and that shift is reflected in secondary sources about the topic, this change in the perspective taken by secondary sources should come to be reflected in Wikipedia articles as well. When the shift in this particular debate eventually comes to be reflected in current secondary sources that discuss race and IQ, I hope you will allow Wikipedia policy to be followed in that regard. 2600:1004:B12B:E713:9053:2CEF:444F:5063 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You make it far too obvious when you refer to "anti-racist academics" pejoratively. Your opinions on certain researchers are irrelevant, as are the opinions of every other editor. If mainstream academics do not want to engage with some particular study, this means nothing to what the mainstream and scientifically accepted views on the issues are, and on how we display them. Currently this article implies that people like Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton have been on one side of a scientific debate, rather than the fringe people who were largely discredited by mainstream science that they actually are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the Wikipedia principles on Reliable sources. It does not matter whether a particular academic is seen as credible, or non-credible; mainstream, or non-mainstream; contentious, or consensus -- Wikipedia's policy is to include all majority and minority views that appear in "reliable, published sources".  It is the publication's reputation that matters -- not the authors'. The views published by Rushton, Lynn, Murray, and Jensen clearly appear in reliable published sources, like the American Psychological Association, and furthermore they cite numerous studies that have been published for over 100 years.  Thus, their views should be included in this Wikipedia article.  The fact that they are minority views means that it is even more important to include them.Toomim (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)