Talk:Race and intelligence (Controversies)

duplication of section in main article
what is or is supposed to be in this article that isn't in the sub-articles (as detail) or in the main article (as summaries)? --W.R.N. 09:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Deconstruction of "significances"
Forgive the detail, but it seems necessary:

First paragraph
The distribution of IQ scores among individuals of each race overlap substantially.

Doesn't seem related to significance at all.

In a random sample of equal numbers of US Blacks and Whites, Jensen (1998b) estimates most variance in IQ would be unrelated to race or social class.[1]

What does this mean? That most of the variance in IQ would be related to something else? How does this answer anything about significance?

The average IQ difference between two randomly paired people from the U.S. population is approximately 17 points, and this only increases to 20 points when the pair are black and white. When the pair are siblings, the average difference is still 12 points.

This is claiming a measurement. This isn't talking about any "significance".

The appearance of a large practical importance for intelligence makes some scholars claim that the source and meaning of the IQ gap is a pressing social concern.[4] Gordon 1997 and Gottfredson 1997b argue that the IQ gap is reflected by gaps in the academic, economic, and social factors correlated with IQ. (See "Practical importance of IQ".)

Are they arguing causality or just coincidence? Reflection is not "significance".

The effects of differences in mean IQ between groups (regardless if the cause is social or biological) are amplified by two statistical characteristics of IQ.

These statistical characteristics aren't specified.

Small differences in IQ, while relatively unimportant at the level of an individual, could theoretically have large effects for the United States population as a whole.

Unsourced statement.

According to Murray and Herrnsteins' Bell Curve, when IQ is statistically controlled for, the probability of having a college degree or working in a high-IQ occupation is higher for Blacks than Whites.

So high-IQ Blacks do better than high-IQ whites?

Controlling for IQ shrinks the income gap from thousands to a few hundred dollars. Controlling for IQ cuts differential poverty by about three-quarters and unemployment differences by half. However, controlling for IQ has little effect on differential marriage rates.

Again, we're talking about controlling for statistical analysis - where is the "significance"?

For many other factors, controlling for IQ eliminates the differences between Whites and Hispanics, but the Black-White gap remains (albeit smaller).

Source? Magnitude of the b-w gap? And what b-w gap are we talking about now? Intelligence? Once controlled for IQ? Need to be specific about what gaps we're addressing.

White populations are not homogeneous groups regarding real-world outcomes.

True for any racial population - we should note that.

Some people have attributed differential economic growth between nations to differences in the intelligence of their populations. One example is Richard Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

This isn't Nations and intelligence, this is Race and intelligence.

One suggested explanation is that verbal IQ is more important than visuospatial IQ. Some studies have shown significant variation in IQ subtest profiles between groups.

Explanation for what? Differences in economic growth? How is this at all related to "race" or significance? Are we to assume all countries are racial groups, or representative of them?

In one analysis of IQ studies on Ashkenazi Jews, for example, high verbal and mathematical scores, but average or below average visuospatial scores were found. In a separate study, East Asians demonstrated high visuospatial scores, but slightly above average, average or slightly below average verbal scores. The professions in which these populations tend to be over-represented differ, and some believe the difference is directly related to IQ subtest score patterns asserted to exist.

Talking about measurements again, not "significance".

The high visiuospatial/average to below average verbal pattern of subtest scores has also been asserted to exist in fully assimilated third-generation Asian Americans, as well as in the Inuit and Native Americans (both of Asian origin).

Again, more measurements, not "significance".

All in all, probably only three sentences are possibly salvageable. --JereKrischel 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename it to something other than "significance". You're thinking top down. You have to think bottom up. None of the material has to be "salvaged", it's all just fine in itself. It's an article that covers a coherent topic. Just not the topic that comes to your mind when you think "significance", so rename it to whatever you think it's really describing. --W.R.N. 10:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i renamed it "practical importance". i hope that's clearer. --W.R.N. 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Practical importance" still seems like a controversy, rather than research. I think some of my problem is that this section is written in such a way that a) presents limited data, b) quickly suggests a simple explanation and c) claims some sort of importance.


 * Maybe what you really want is a research sub-article with these three sections:


 * Explanations (the hypotheses being tested)
 * Test data (the results of actual tests)
 * Interpretations (the conclusions based on the actual results)


 * Could "interpretations" work better for you? We could simply link to it from under controversies to the research section...would that be a good compromise?  I'm just getting tied up over what seems to be a statement of bald fact, rather than a specific interpretation/opinion. --JereKrischel 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find these convoluted (my word) organization schemes appropriate or useful. I think the other title was more apt to the content. I'm again afraid that you're trying to manage this top down, rather than bottom up. I'll wait to give you time to think it over. --W.R.N. 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to do, WRN, is find a place where we can meet. Your material that you've collected over the years certainly has merit, but I think it needs to be placed appropriately.  Simply making the bald claim of "practical importance" seems POV pushing..."interpretations" comes across as accepting multiple POVs.  I know you may not see it that way, but could you be satisfied with "interpretations"?  It seems to balance out the research article nicely, with a clear procession of hypothesis -> empirical testing -> interpretations.  --JereKrischel 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good reason to call it "interpretations". What it is is discussion of the topic of IQ as a cause of non-IQ group differences. The differences of interest are those of practical importance. Calling it "practical importance" doesn't prejudge the magnitude or even existence of a practical importance. One problem with "interpretations" is that it is analogous in science-jargon with "explanations".
 * Also note that controversial != controversies. The "explanations" section is far and away the most controversial part of the topic. --W.R.N. 10:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "IQ as a cause of non-IQ group differences"? Again, you've jumped about five different levels of foundation there.  It almost seems like you're proposing an article Race and economics, with a theory in there that group differences are based on racial IQ.


 * Insofar as "explanations" being controversial, I think that's a bit different than how I think about it. In the universe of possible explanations, no particular explanation is all that controversial - they simply represent possibility.  The controversy comes when someone asserts that a given explanation is the true one.  I think you'll find that simply listing out the different hypotheses isn't at all controversial - it's when we get to the interpretations that the controversy bubbles.  And i think that it should be fairly self-evident that a discussion of IQ being causal to non-IQ group differences is only one very controversial interpretation of the data. --JereKrischel 11:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

you've jumped about five different levels of foundation there - JK, WP articles describe what's written in reliable, verifiable sources. they don't perform research or justify research or anything else like that. I didn't jump anything. You appear to have an opinion that certain sources have made unjustified claims, but that's completely irrelevant to what we do as WP editors. Editors don't get to use their personal opinions about the validity of an otherwise notable/verifiable topic to say that something shouldn't be described in WP. --W.R.N. 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, WRN, is that you've entered into a topic where the labels are disputed. You're right, you didn't jump anything.  But using the POV pushing language of a given party isn't an appropriate way to organize the article.  For example, would Race and intelligence (white racist researchers) be an appropriate sub-article or section, so long as some notable and verifiable source used that terminology?


 * I'm not saying we should assert one way or another that any claims are justified or unjustified, but I do assert that we should present them as claims, not as fact. And as I think we both understand, it is the interpretation of the data that is particularly controversial. --JereKrischel 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)