Talk:Race and intelligence (interpretations)

On the proposal to merge
There is no need for this article. It can all go in to "research" futurebird 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "significance" is not defined. P0M 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This article could become a content fork
"However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called 'Criticism of XYZ'; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the 'Criticism of XYZ' section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location."

It duplicates content in the article Race and intelligence research, and I'm concerned these will start divering from each other. futurebird 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

that section of R&I research should be merged here. -- as noted in the R&I research article. --W.R.N. 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you explain the title of this article? IT makes no sense to me...futurebird 20:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the social, cultural, economic, etc. significance/effects of group differences. read the content and propose new titles as you see fit. --W.R.N. 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like "research" to me.futurebird 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I thought too. I'm simultaneously arguing that the various sub-topics of "research" do not need an intermediate "research" article, but can just have their own summary sections in the main article and their own sub-articles. There's a number of threads in the main discussion where I'm trying to make this point clear. --W.R.N. 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. We need a reserch sub-article. futurebird 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be in that article that wouldn't be in the sub-sub-articles or the main article instead? That's what I don't understand. --W.R.N. 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

slightly different version
there are 3 slightly different versions of the text in this article. they need to be merged into a consensus version. --W.R.N. 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

belongs in controversies
Seems pretty clear that any discussion of the "significance" of observed differences between variably defined groups is a matter of controversy, not research. Although arguably, many of the racialist "researchers" are simply writing polemics about the "significance", it doesn't seem to me like that's really what we should be calling research. Certainly conducting tests and recording results is research, but disputed meta-analyses of existing data doesn't really seem like research...

I would use Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior as an example of not-research. His work there isn't actually doing any research at all, but simply cataloging older studies, and then making claims as to what they mean.

Do you consider REB a research book, WRN, or would you agree that it's a polemic arguing about the significance of observed differences? --JereKrischel 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, please read the actual content of the article and then reevaluate your conclusions. The lead summary placed in the article bears no resemblance to the actual content of this article. You can write that article you're suggesting if you like, but it's not this article. --W.R.N. 08:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is definitely content that needs to be moved out of this article. Suggestions as to where to put it are welcome. --JereKrischel 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire topic of this article is different than what you wrote as the "summary" of this article. They're simply two different topics. This is a research product looking at social, economic, and cultural consequences of group differences. What you wrote was a critique of Rushton. Perhaps it's the title that's mixing them up, but the title can be changed. The actual article content should not be changed to match your idea for a different article. --W.R.N. 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Asserting consequences of group differences doesn't seem like research - it seems like very controversial assertion. We may measure differences between groups, but asserting that they are a consequence of something (i.e., that there is causality), seems a stretch.  Research may measure social differences between groups, and economic differences between groups, and even cultural differences between groups, but asserting that these differences are a consequence of measured IQ differences between groups is not research, it is opinion.


 * I think we need to find a better place for the material, if you think it fits in some other category. Certainly something like REB is an opinion piece in a controversy, not a data point in research. --JereKrischel 09:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * asserting that these differences are a consequence of measured IQ differences between groups is not research, it is opinion -- really think that one over again. scientists can have opinions about unknown matters of fact, they're called hypotheses or theories. theories are a product of research. WP aims to present all POVs. based on the amount of material in this article, clearly a lot has been written about this.


 * This article isn't about REB. Write some other article criticizing REB. This is a research topic like gaps and explanations, as I've been trying to point out every time we discuss it. You keep moving it to controversy, seemingly because you're thinking it's something it's not. Am I missing something? --W.R.N. 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * asserting that these differences are a consequence of measured IQ differences between groups is not research, it is opinion -- really think that one over again. scientists can have opinions about unknown matters of fact, they're called hypotheses or theories. theories are a product of research. WP aims to present all POVs. based on the amount of material in this article, clearly a lot has been written about this.


 * This article isn't about REB. Write some other article criticizing REB. This is a research topic like gaps and explanations, as I've been trying to point out every time we discuss it. You keep moving it to controversy, seemingly because you're thinking it's something it's not. Am I missing something? --W.R.N. 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't explained yourself well - asserting a "significance" or a "consequence" or a causal relationship is not a matter of research, it is a matter of opinion.


 * A theory and hypothesis are completely different than mere opinion, and neither are a product of research - they are a validated or invalidated by research. For example, asserting that group IQ differences explain group outcomes is not a theory unless you have a mechanism, experiments, and controls.  Murray and Herrnstein's concept of "significance" is not one of research, it is one of opinion, and it seems most of this section is built on that basis. --JereKrischel 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, you are mistaken about the science. It's that simple. Look at any quantitative/detailed social science research. It looks just like this. --W.R.N. 10:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "practical importance" still belongs in controversies. This is not research that is being described, but opinion and supposition. TBC is not a research book, it is a polemic. --JereKrischel 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Practical importance != policy implications. Look at the two sections and you'll see the obvious difference. Calling TBC or REB polemic doesn't have any bearing on the actual content of this article, which is basic social science. --W.R.N. 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out my suggestion for a "interpretations" section, instead of "practical importance". Maybe this is a better way of arranging it. --JereKrischel 10:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Belgium
Is this an error? It says the French in Belgium are of higher social position, and better educated and higher IQ than the Flemish. I thought it was completely opposite Peoplesunionpro 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of the book to check. Can you cite some sources? I copied the chart, but I may have made an error. futurebird 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)