Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 3

extended discussion for mediation points

The 99.86% correlation number
Above Occam wrote "If I recall correctly, the correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters is 99.86%". That struck me as a suspiciously high number so I looked for where this may have come from. It looks like it may have come from here:. Is that correct? A.Prock 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that’s the study I was referring to. I figured this study was also what TechoFaye was referring to in his own comment, “The self- identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326 DNA markers”, but I figured it was more precise to give the actual percentage number. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, that study does not say that self reported race correlates to genetic clusters at the rate of 99.86%. That number refers to how well their best model fits the filtered training data - that best model treated treated self reported Chinese and Japanese as the same race.  I can see why there might be some confusion as the article is fairly technical.  If you read the article in full, there is a discussion of various confounding factors, as well as a discussion of the difficulties the software had with separating Chinese and Japanese races.  A key quote from the article illustrates the problem of separating races with genetic clustering: "Our observations also emphasize the importance of SIRE (self identified racial/ethnicity) information: although statistical approaches using genetic marker information recapture SIRE with high accuracy, such analyses need to be guided by SIRE information."  In other words, the clusterings they produced are not genetic clusters, but genetic/SIRE clusters.  This is a great example of some of the problems that we are having.  Cursory readings of technical papers lead to incorrect conclusions, often influenced by personal points of view all editors carry with them. A.Prock 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of what we’re discussing, I don’t see why the distinction matters. This study was brought up in response to a claim that since race is a social entity, it’s bad science to search for a possible genetic basis for biological traits (such as intelligence) that vary between races.  But what this study shows is that there are also genes whose distribution varies between races, so it’s possible at least in theory for these to include some of the genes which influence IQ.


 * If we were discussing variation between races for almost any other biological trait, such as the ability to digest milk as adults or the reaction to any number of drugs, I don’t think most people would have nearly as much trouble accepting the fact that it’s possible for genes to be involved in this variation. Slrubenstein’s argument, about it being bad science to search for a genetic basis to biological differences between races, applies exactly the same to traits such as drug reactions as it does to intelligence.  But I don’t think anyone ever argues that the former aren’t genetic.  Some of the specific genes and proteins which cause these differences have already been identified; for example the tendency of Asians to be more sensitive to alcohol is caused by a variant form of the protein aldehyde dehydrogenase.


 * Given that socially-defined races can differ in genetic traits also, do you agree that it’s possible, at least in theory, for a study examining our socially-defined races to identify a genetic basis for certain types of variation between them? In the case of sensitivity to alcohol this has already been done, but I’d like you to agree that it’s possible in general, because the general principle of this applies to intelligence also. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The distinction matters very much. In fact, I might go so far as saying that this goes to the heart of the problem here. Data was presented from a source incorrectly, in a way which contradicted the conclusions of the source, and in a way which aligned with the POV issues that surround this mediation.  This is a perfect example why this mediation needs to occur.  It regularly happens that one small tidbit of a source is taken out of context and presented in a POV way which does not reflect the source or mainstream science.  It doesn't matter what I think is or is not possible.  It only matters what the sources and the literature say.  It's very important that when we refer to a source that we do so in a way which represents the content of the source, and not in a way which contradicts the content of the source.  A.Prock 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock: it might help to acknowledge the possibility, with the caveat that the research doesn't seem to support the conclusion. it's hard to argue with a possibility in the absence of evidence, and if you acknowledge the possibility we can move on to issues of balance and avoiding synth.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible that there is a study out there with those (or related) conclusions. What I personally think is possible really doesn't matter.  And I should make clear, I don't really have a strong sense of what is and is not possible in this regard.  More generally, as far as I can tell anything is possible when it comes to science.  What matters is that sources are not misrepresented, either in content or weight. A.Prock 05:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there is some misinterpretation of the 99.86% correlation between SIRE and multilocus genetic clusters. With genetic fingerprinting, one can identify a specific individual virtually 100% of the time(except for monozygotic twins). Of course this doesn't make an individual a "race". An individual is genetically most similar to members of his or her immediate family who are more similar to members of the extended family who are similar to members of the clan. This pattern continues up to, village, town, city, state, country, sub-continent, continent and world levels roughly in that order. With the right genetic markers one can determine membership within a given family close to 100% of time, this is the basis for paternity and maternity tests. Assuming endogamous indigenous populations, with the right genetic markers one can determine what village, city, state, country one comes from close to 100% of the time. Race, which is equivalent to continental ancestry is just one of several ways to cluster human populations genetically. Naturally when individuals from global populations are analyzed, individuals from the same continent will cluster together because of isolation by distance. However when individuals from the same continent are analyzed, genetic clustering is also observed. The result is, with the right genetic markers, one can distinguish the Japanese from the Chinese close to 100% time though they belong to the same continental population or "race". Wapondaponda (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this explanation, and if you’re familiar with Jensen’s research, you’ll be aware that he does also. Your comment here could be considered a concise summary of his explanation about the meaning of race on pages 421-432 of The g Factor.  We might disagree about other aspects of the article, but it’s good to see that we’re on the same page about whether Jensen’s research is based on an accurate understanding of the genetic meaning of race.


 * Ludwig, at what point will you consider us to have sufficiently resolved this issue about social vs. genetic meanings of race? I’d like the discussion about this topic to be out of the way before I start making proposals about article structure.  I don’t want to look like I’m trying to end the discussion here prematurely, but I also don’t want the discussion about this to end up getting stuck in an endless loop, the way it often did on the article talk page. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the main difficulty stems from editors reinterpreting articles in a POV manner. This is exactly what happened when you quoted the 98.86% number, and I think recognizing this error is an important step to moving forward.  Everyone makes mistakes, but if you're not willing to acknowledge them and learn from them, that means that every edit made is going to have to be checked and rechecked to make sure the same kinds of POV errors are not creeping in. A.Prock 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is meant by resolved. If it is about the existence or the meaning of race with regards to humans, I believe the mainstream position is that race does have some genetic correlates( notably skin color), but race alone is a poor descriptor of human genetic variation, since most genetic variation is found within a population rather than between them. The definition of race itself, even when applied to non-humans is problematic. Indeed almost all taxonomic classifications are arbitrarily defined. Only the species classification can be applied with some degree of objectivity and consistency, at least for sexually reproducing organisms. All taxonomic classifications above and below the species classification are not necessarily real entities but exist mainly for the convenience of taxonomists. Are races then real biological entities. One cannot predict the IQ of an individual by knowing their race. Though populations may differ in mean IQ scores, the IQ scores of millions of "blacks" overlap with the scores of millions of "whites" and other "races". For a "black" individual who has an equivalent IQ score with that of a "white" individual, what is the meaning or value of race, be it social or genetic, in distinguishing the two. Sure multilocus clusters would place them in different groups, but their IQ scores would place them in the same group. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam, I would suggest editing in your stucture plan as soon as it's ready. mikemikev (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to make sure the social/genetic issue is resolved first. This issue has come up so many times, I’d venture to say that it might be the single biggest issue that’s prevented anyone from making any progress with the article.  In the past, most discussions about new edits or proposed changes have eventually just degenerated into arguments about this topic, in which everyone rehashed the same points about it that they’d made at least a dozen times before.


 * If we can make a long-term decision about this here, I think it will make a bigger difference in stabilizing the article than anything else we’ve accomplished in the mediation thus far. If we don’t, I think it’s fairly likely that in another week or few weeks, someone will bring up this issue again and we’ll have to all rehash the same points about it that we just made here. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about a straw poll? Races are just social constructs/too difficult to define to be useful. Races are useful biological categories, with predictive power, including for IQ. (This isn't the straw poll). mikemikev (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I find it highly improbable that a straw-poll would do us any good here. We need to agree that race is a social construct with heritable components if we are to work on this article together. Those who maintain that either "race is a social abstraction" or "race is a biological reality" with no recognition of the all-important overlap between "race as a social abstraction" and "race as a biological reality" need to be shown the door in the most polite way possible so the rest of us can get on with this article. -- Aryaman (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aryaman, just to clarify, I think everyone agrees that race is a social construct. The issue is that some are trying say that it's not a biological category. (Where they're going with that I don't know, deleting the article?) I agree that the overlap between these things is an important area in the field. mikemikev (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, Ludwigs2 asks, :
 * Aprock: it might help to acknowledge the possibility, with the caveat that the research doesn't seem to support the conclusion. it's hard to argue with a possibility in the absence of evidence, and if you acknowledge the possibility we can move on to issues of balance and avoiding synth.

The problem is, science never discounts anything. It is possible - just possible - that variation in human intelligence is caused by an as yet undetected radiation directed at this plant from aliens in space. It is highly unlikely and scientists right now are getting funding for more likely things, but it is possible. Of course there is some correlaton between genes and race: blacks correlate highly for genes for brown eyes. Does this mean intelligence also has a genetic component? Well, what does it mean to ask that questio? Do we think the gene for intelligence is linked to the gene for eye-color? Gees really code for polypeptides that form prts of protiens. It is very easy for me to see how they enzymes formed by theproteins determine eye color. Genes can definitely affect intelligence, as with Down's syndrome. But there are other genetic differencs, like blood type, that do not correlate as strongly with race as eye color,l and for obvious reasons that have more to do with social functions of race than genetics. My point in bringing up all this stuff is that good scientists have to be very carefulin how they devlo hypotheses and develop their research. As Aprock shows that the souces being cited in fact are often quite careful in their claims. It is distressing to see some editorrs say that we in the encyclopedia do not need to be so carefu. That leads to inaccuracies and opens the doore to OR violations, because if we do not report scientific findings precisely, we are using them as pretexts to sneak our own views in. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That intelligence has a significant genetic component in individuals is undisputed. Academic consensus - both within psychology and beyond - supports it, and everyone here interested in seeing this mediation progress needs to accept that proposition as more or less established. Discussion regarding the permissibility or legitimacy of research performed by psychologists into the contribution of genes to cognitive development needs to come to an end.


 * Also, editorial discussion on the potential merits and/or truth-value of academic research into this topic needs to cease. We are not here to continue the academic debate, we are here to document it neutrally. If an editor cannot see the merits as well as the faults in both of the positions involved, then s/he should seriously consider whether s/he is capable of viewing this issue neutrally and whether s/he can contribute to the article in a positive, constructive way.


 * Finally, the discussion regarding the "true nature" of "race" needs to be put to bed. Our only concern here as editors is how experts use the term in their research. Properly sourced criticism of such working definitions can and should be included in the article. Arguing that some research should be ignored, discounted or otherwise marginalized because of the researcher's working definition of the concept of "race" is a tactic to be used by participants in the academic debate, not by Wikipedia editors. -- Aryaman (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a response to what I wrote? I have never disputed that human intelligence is inherited. I also do not question that, at least within some US populations, variation in IQ is largely heritable. But this dispute centers on how we distinguish between mainstream and fringe science. And I have consistently asked that we use the AAA and APA statements on race and intelligence as benchmarks for answering this question. None of your comments speak to any of my points. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, we agreed nearly three months ago to use the Neisser et al. paper as a guide to writing the overview. Hell, I wrote the thing myself, which was added upon community consensus and remains in the article in its current state. So, forgive me if I assume that point has been sufficiently addressed. -- Aryaman (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic of this section is about misrepresenting sources in a POV manner, a common problem faced here. Until we can recognize that problem.  I think we should directly deal with that.  Especially since it doesn't seem well understood that it is a problem, even in this specific example. A.Prock 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redponding to Arya: of course I accept Neisser, which is why I find some of the views you keep presenting as mainstream strange, and why i find your accusations that I am stonewalling strange. Neisser et. al write:


 * Because claims about ethnic differences have often been used to rationalize racial discrimination in the past, all such claims must be subjected to very careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, group differences continue to be the subject of intense interest and debate. There are many reasons for this interest: some are legal and political, some social and psychological. Among other things, facts about group differences may be relevant to the need for (and the effectiveness of) affirmative action programs. But while some recent discussions of intelligence and ethnic differences (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) have made specific policy recommendations in this area, we will not do so here. Such recommendations are necessarily based on political as well as scientific considerations, and so fall outside the scope of this report.


 * I have made it very clear that I support an article on debates about race and intelligence as they pertain to public policy; I also pointeed out that most of the so-called "hereditarians" are involved in public policy debates or research responding to or meant to inform public policy debates. So creating an article is a content fork, not a POV fork.  This was my proposal for including those views in a Wikipedia article, and I have been criticized for making this proposal.  I have also pointed out that thos "hereditarian" views, while important in pulbic policy debates, are fringe science.  My view comes right out of Neisser et. al. quoted above.


 * Besides European-Americans ("Whites"), the ethnic groups to be considered are Chinese- and Japanese Americans, Hispanic Americans ("Latinos"), Native Americans ("Indians") and African-Americans ("Blacks"). These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. None of them are internally homogeneous. Asian Americans, for example, may have roots in many different cultures: not only China and Japan but Korea, Laos, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Pakistan. Hispanic Americans, who share a common linguistic tradition, actually differ along many cultural dimensions. In their own minds they may be less "Latinos" than Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans Cuban Americans, or representatives of other Latin cultures. "Native American" is an even more diverse category, including a great many culturally distinct tribes living in a wide range of environments.


 * And I have repeatedly rejected the association of racial data in relation to IQ tests as useful data for questions about genetics. Again, my view comes right out of Neisser et. al.  They use the word "ethnicity" precisely to move away from the word race which, in public policy debates, is associated with genetic arguments.


 * My point, following Neiser et. al, is that there is no hereditarian versus SES debate among pure scientists; this is a debate among policy makers and scientists who are engaging public policy debates. Among scientists not involved in public policy debates, the hereditarian view is fringe.  This follows from Neisser et. al.


 * So yes, I thought all these issues had been addressed. But some people here (Mike, TechnoFaye, others) keep arguing that races are biological entities and that the view that differences between groups' mean IQ scores are largely due to genetics is mainstream science.  These views keep popping up in the debate and I keep insisting that Neisser et. al. be one of our principal points of reference for identifying fringe science.  And following Neiser et. al. I still think the proper place for a discussion of the hereditarian view is in an article on Race and IQ in public policy debates. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You want to use a 1996 report which confuses South Asians with East Asians, written by Americans, about Americans (the melting pot), and makes no attempt to point out the simple distinction between race (East Asian) and ethnicity (Han Chinese, Japanese, Korean....) as your definitive text on the meaning of race? mikemikev (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you boter to read the 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) post by Aryaman, to which all of the above was a reply? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Can I ask how a scholar's involvment in public policy affects the credibility of his science? And this Race, IQ and Public Policy Scientists idea is a joke? I could say that many of the environmentalist scholars have been demonstrably communist, would this invalidate their science? Let's keep the politics out. mikemikev (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head here when you bring up the distinction between race and ethnicity. Given that Chinese and Japanese can be differentiated using genetic clustering techniques, should we say that they are a separate race or not?  A.Prock 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Different ethnicity, same race. mikemikev (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * one study from 2009 was able to clearly distinguish the Chinese from the Japanese, stating "we observe clear separation of the Japanese populations from the Taiwanese and HapMap CHB populations". Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the perspective of genetic clusters it's not possible to distinguish race and ethnicity. A.Prock 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that we can distinguish ethnic groups, but not races? Considering that ethnic groups are subsets of races this makes no sense. If they can identify Taiwanese (East Asian) and Japanese (East Asian) and Dravidian (South Asian) they can distinguish races. mikemikev (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's that you if you have a set of genetic clusters, you don't know whether a cluster represents an ethnic group or a racial group. A.Prock 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points:

I don't see a problem with associating race with loose 'continental populations' so long as that perspective can be found in reliable sources, but I think we desperately want to avoid even the appearance of synthesis here. does anyone disagree with the above?

Occam - please go ahead and start working on the proposal for article structure. I think (or hope at least) that having a concrete problem to work on will help us get past the abstractions that bog down this debate. -- Ludwigs 2 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your list above is very much synthesis with respect to this article. All of the R/I research uses SIRE information, and not genetic clustering information.  You are essentially suggesting that we reinterpret the study parameters.  When racial/ethnic IQ studies come out that include genetic clustering information, we can include results based on genetic clustering.  Genetic clusters are a function of the SIRE information, not the other way around.  A.Prock 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A slight disagreement with the statement "Research shows that race as a social construct correlates highly with genetic markers". Race does correlate highly with pre-selected genetic markers that are specifically chosen to be informative about race, ethnicity or ancestry, such as Ancestry-informative markers. At the nucleotide level, the proportion of genetic variation is small relative to other species as two random humans are 99.9% genetically alike. Of this 0.1% difference, 85% is found within any population. About 7% of the 0.1% is thought to differ between races and it is this fraction of the genome that is used for ancestry determination. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though intelligence is believed to have a heritable component, the genes which predispose individuals to high IQ scores have yet to be identified. one study involving high iq and average iq individuals failed to detect any association of genes and intelligence. This means that in this particular study, the high IQ group was genetically indistinguishable from the average IQ group. While IQ may be heritable, the failure to find a genetic association between genes and IQ leaves room for explanations other than those involving classical Mendelian genetics to explain why IQ scores vary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, I put the above list in a box (I like boxes, in case you haven't noticed), and I'm going to try modifying the statements there as we go along to try to reach a consensus. I'm making the first modification now, with respect to Aprock's and Wapondaponda's comments.-- Ludwigs 2  20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first bullet should probably read "All current research into the relationship between race and intelligence is based on SIRE information". I would remove the second bullet entirely since it has nothing to do with any of the source which study the relationship between race and intelligence.  If you think it's relevant, you should probably change it to something more like "Genetic clustering techniques can be used to generate marker based clusters which correspond to the SIRE information of the populations used to build the cluster."  The last bullet seems a bit suspect to me.  The numerous social scientific articles do not suggest that bullet four is false.  Rather, there are numerous articles which show that IQ scores are correlated with SIRE, which is an entirely different statement. A.Prock 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “Occam - please go ahead and start working on the proposal for article structure. I think (or hope at least) that having a concrete problem to work on will help us get past the abstractions that bog down this debate.”


 * Based on my experience on the article talk page, I really think that’s a bad idea. In the past, whenever anyone has proposed significant revisions to this article, not only has this unresolved definition debate made it impossible to obtain consensus for them; the new proposed changes have also actually thrown fuel on the fire of this debate, because editors would claim that these changes were based on a wrong understanding of the meaning of “race”, and we’d need to start several sub-discussions about how these changes went against the way some editors believed race to be defined.


 * It looks like this debate is getting close to being resolved, though, so hopefully it won’t be long before we can begin discussing specific changes to the article.


 * Here are my comments about your summary: I’m not sure what bullet point five is supposed to be saying.  Is it saying that there are numerous social-scientific research articles that have identified specific genes which influence IQ and which vary between ethnic groups?  As far as I’m aware, the only analyses which reached this conclusion about specific genes were conducted by non-scientists; I suggested several months ago that these analyses be mentioned in the article, but almost everyone else opposed me about this.  The conclusion that researchers such as Jensen and Rushton have reached does not involve identifying specific genes; what it concluded is just that variation in intelligence works the same way as most other traits that are highly heritable between individuals and also vary between populations (such as height, skin color, eye color, or sensitivity to alcohol):  that the variation between populations is caused by the same factors that affect variation within populations.  If this is what point five is supposed to be saying, I think it should be clarified.


 * I also have a problem with it stating about the causes of intelligence that “specific genes have not been identified.”  This part of the article describes the current state of research about this topic.  I know of two genes which have been identified as possibly affecting intelligence, DTNBP1 and CHRM2, but the research about both of them is not considered conclusive at this point, because their association with intelligence hasn’t been replicated consistently.  I would suggest changing point three to say “a few specific genes have been identified which may influence intelligence, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.”


 * Incidentally, these are the same genes I mentioned which non-scientists have shown to vary in their distribution between ethnic groups. It’s up to you whether that’s important enough to mention in your summary, but it’s at least worth mentioning this as part of the debate about whether or not such variation is possible.


 * The rest of your summary is fine in my opinion. If you change the items I mentioned, I’ll be satisfied with it. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the section in question will need to be revised. There are several candidate genes that have been proposed, but all have failed to replicate an association with IQ. However genes that suppress IQ through congenital diseases are known. I believe the two genes mentioned DTNBP1 and CHRM2 need to be removed. There is no special information about them. This publication lists about 50 candidate genes for intelligence, I see no reason to single out only two. At present, the failure to replicate an association of genes with IQ means that most of the candidate genes have been proposed in a highly speculative manner. Another study involving 500,000 SNPs states ::::::"Six SNPs yielded significant associations across the normal distribution of g, although only one SNP remained significant after a false discovery rate of 0.05 was imposed. However, none of these SNPs accounted for more than 0.4% of the variance of g, despite 95% power to detect associations of that size".
 * IOW whatever genes may influence IQ, they seem to do so in minute ways. According to this study, there is no single "Intelligence gene". Intelligence is probably influenced by thousands, perhaps millions of DNA variants acting together. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, you tried to remove the reference to these genes several months ago, and I thought we resolved this issue in the discussion about it back then. Two studies that show associations between them and IQ are  and , and I pointed out how according to the results of these studies (not the background information in the studies, which is the part that you were quoting) certain alleles of these genes can either raise or lower IQ.  I know you don’t personally agree with these studies, and I also know that other studies have failed to replicate their results, but neither of these facts are a reason to exclude them from the article.  NPOV policy dictates that we should present all of the viewpoints about these genes that have appeared in reliable sources, and studies that have appeared in the journals Behavioral and Brain Functions and Behavioral Genetics definitely meet those criteria.


 * When I pointed this out before, everyone else involved in the discussion about it agreed with me, and eventually you just dropped out of the discussion. I don’t think there’s much question what the consensus about this is, or what kind of presentation about these studies is consistent with Wikipeda policy.  Are you going to sidetrack the mediation by demanding that we rehash this discussion again now? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it will help move the conversation forward if you refrain from rushing to consensus. Doing so only distracts from the issues that we are trying to discuss.  In this case, the topic at hand is whether studies into race and intelligence speak to genetic race, or to sociological race.  I think it's pretty clear that they are all about sociological race.  I take it you do not agree.  Is that correct? A.Prock 05:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam - I note that you think it's a bad idea to start on the article structure, but it would help me out if you started it anyway. I expect that there will be some contention over it, but I think the contention is controllable, and will be worth it to have a concrete focus for discussion.  we can always archive it if it proves too troubling.


 * I've tried to add in your concerns to the box above. did I do it effectively?  I removed point 5 (since that generally seems to meet with objections).  I'm unclear on your 'identified as possibly affecting intelligence' statement: does that mean that these genes are one of several candidates for explaining differences in intelligence, or that these genes do explain intelligence, but only in certain cases, or is there some other meaning of the phrase? -- Ludwigs 2  06:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be either of the two possibilities you mentioned. The current state of research about this is what I described in my reply to Muntuwandi:  some studies show these genes to influence IQ, while other studies have failed to reproduce this result.  That could be because something was wrong with the one of the two groups of studies, or it could be because these genes influence IQ in some cases but not others.  Any conclusion we try to draw about which of the studies are correct would be synthesis, though, so I don’t think figuring out the answer to this is necessary for determining what should go in the article.


 * I also think you could have modified point #5 to something clearer, but I guess that’s not really important.


 * If you’re sure that I should go ahead with my proposal about article structure, I guess I will. It looks like this issue about social vs. genetic meanings of race is mostly resolved, in any case. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * gotcha on the meaning point. I thought it best to remove 5 because you weren't the only participant to comment on it, and I wasn't that sure of it when I wrote it.  if others think it should come back, though, I'll happily resurrect a revised version.
 * and yeah, go ahead with the structure. the trick will be to keep the conversation from breaking down into ultra-detailed disputes; as long as we can keep focused on the forest to the exclusion of the trees, I think it will be a good thing.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I’ve posted my structure proposal now, so you and other users are welcome to comment on it. I especially want to get DJ’s opinion, since several of us are hoping for him to eventually write the new version of the article, and most of my structure proposal is based on the proposals he’s made. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, no they are not.


 * "All current research in race is based in SIRE information"


 * Current research does not define "race" in any single way, SIRE is not a "definition" of either "race" or ethnicity. Using "SIRE" a person might say they are African American, or Black or just American, and these three things may apply differently at different times and places. SIRE is not a systematic biological category, and no one ever claimed it was. Indeed the question is not how "race" is defined in current research, because simply put, geneticists do not work with concepts of "race", they work with concepts of genetic variation. There are two basic models of human genetic variation, the small island model, and the isolation by distance model. Small island models propose that it is best to imagine the total population (e.g. meta-population) split into a number of homogeneous panmitic (i.e. every member of the population is equally likely to breed with every other member) sub-populations, and then model gene flow as migrations between these populations. The problem with these models is that they make a demonstrably false a priori assumption regarding population structure. Nevertheless this assumption makes it relatively easy to mathematically model genetic variation and has produced some good results. But small island models don't pretend to be based on "real life", they are models that can be useful to think about gene flow. On the other hand isolation by distance is a more realistic way to think about gene flow, but is more difficult to model. IBD assumes that discrete "populations" don't exist, and that any individual is merely more likely to reproduce with those individuals that are geographically in close proximity. So it is incorrect to think that population geneticists who are interested in human genetic variation think about "race" in any way whatsoever, what they think about is what the geographical distribution of genes is within the global human population.


 * "Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers"


 * I've explained to you before that this is incorrect, there are no genetic markers for "race". What we have is a statistical analysis that correlates markers, please see the infobox in the article Lewontin's Fallacy, where I have explained how clustering can be produced. Clustering is not based on individuals sharing markers, it is based on using correlations among populations. Some researchers maintain the clusters are no more than statistical artifacts derived from discontinuous sampling schemata. If the article is going to maintain that "clusters" are really "races", then it is going to be a very pov article indeed. Just because a group of Wikipedia editors who seem to have a personal and fundamentalist belief in the existence of biological "race" choose to interpret a single research article in a specific and biased way, that does not mean that genetics as a whole has "proved" race. Anyone who cites a single research article as "proof" of the existence of biological "race", even thought hat article says no such thing is obviously guilty of the worst sort of pov pushing. If Ludwig's is prepared to countenance introducing this sort of misrepresentation into the article, even though he has been told again and again that this is not what the article says, then he's clearly not anything like a disinterested mediator. Try this review article on for size (NB this is a review article, we should noty be conducting "interpretations" of research data on Wikipedia, we do not publish the beliefs of editors, nor their personal interpretations of primary data from research papers, we only publish the conclusions of those papers):

"The strong clinal patterns in Figure 1 in the main text seem to be at odds with work that has described human genetic diversity as discontinuous or 'clustered'. For instance, using the programme STRUCTURE, Rosenberg and colleagues identified six groups of genetically similar individuals ('clusters'), five of which correspond to major geographic regions, suggesting reduced gene flow at continental boundaries. These two apparently incompatible representations of human genetic diversity led to numerous reanalyses of the HGDP-CEPH datasets and prompted debate on whether human genetic variation could be better described by clusters or clines. STRUCTURE reveals gradients of ancestry proportions even under a model of strict IBD. If sampling is heterogeneous (sampling sites are themselves clustered) then the data will reveal genetic clusters that are biologically meaningless. Serre and Pääbo, investigating this through simulations, argued that the clusters described by Rosenberg et al. were caused by the discontinuous nature of the sampling scheme used for the HGDP-CEPH panel and found that, by sampling individuals uniformly across the globe, a picture of continuous, clinal variation emerged. Rosenberg et al. subsequently explored several sub-sampling strategies and reached an opposite conclusion: clusters remain even when sampling uniformly across the globe. They suggested these clusters were genuine and attributed their presence to slight discontinuities in the patern of IBD previously identified, which is consistent with reduced gene flow at geographical barriers such as the Himalayas and Sahara. These different representations of human genetic diversity are, however, not mutually exclusive and several authors agree that human genetic diversity can probably be best explained by a synthetic model, in which most of the population differentiation can be explained by IBD, with some discontinuities arising from barriers to dispersal. In other words, human genetic variation might be best explained by a combination of both clines and clusters. However, clusters explain only a minute fraction of the variance relative to clines. As mentioned in the main text >75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra ~2% of the variance. 'Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world' TRENDS in Genetics (2007) 23:432-439."

"Some authors have thus advocated taking a shortcut using the ethnic background of patients to capture a fraction of the genetic (and environmental) variation underlying traits of medical relevance (Burchard et al. 2003; Risch et al. 2002). How well such a strategy may perform depends on a series of factors, including the number of genes involved in the trait as well as patterns of past and present natural selection that affect those genes (Keita et al. 2004). More crucially, the success of any strategy based on ethnicity depends on the ability to classify human populations into discrete ethnic groups. There is near consensus in the recent literature that while human genetic diversity is largely clinal, humans nevertheless cluster into five or six broad ethnic groups, roughly corresponding to continents... There is disagreement as to how meaningful those clusters are in a medical context, but there have been very few challenges to their existence. Serre and Pääbo (2004) did suggest that the clusters were artefacts generated by heterogeneous sampling and that they would vanish if more populations were analysed. Our recent work provides some support to their claim. We show that geographic distance from East Africa along likely colonization routes is an excellent predictor of neutral genetic diversity n a large number of human populations (n=51; R=93%). The smoothness of this relationship suggests no obvious macro-geographic pattern, such as a step-wise decrease in genetic diversity corresponding to a severe bottleneck following the colonization of a continent. This result does question the existence of previously defined ethnic groups. 'Geography is a better determinant of human genetic differentiation than ethnicity.' Human Genetics (2005) 118:366-371"


 * Research suggests that intelligence may have some heritability through individual bloodlines (parent to child). A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.


 * Don't confuse heritability (an estimate of the contribution of genes to the variation of a trait within a population) with inherited. Heritability is as much a measure of environment as it is a measure of genes. There's some confusion on this because the word heritability can be used to mean the same as "inherited", though in the context of genetic variation it means something very different to inherited. Yes there is a high correlation between intelligence in parents and intelligence in their children, that is, intelligence tends to run in families. This is strong evidence for a genetic component to intelligence. But it is not evidence for any genetic link in average between group differences. It is impossible to quantify the extent of the genetic contribution to intelligence, all we can do is estimate the genetic contribution to the variation within a population, and as I say, that's as much a measure of environmental contribution as it is of genetic contribution. In effect we might be estimating the range of different stimulating environments within a population when we make this measure, as much as measuring anything to do with genes. It is not really correct to say that a few genes have been identified as "likely candidates". Some alleles have been identified that may or may not be associated with the evolution of brain size in primates. To link this to intelligence is more than a little absurd, there is zero evidence that this leap of faith is warranted. So your statement should be reversed, it should say that "Alleles that may be associated with brain size have been identified, but there is no evidence that they are involved in intelligence."


 * "There is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above."


 * Completely wrong assumptions.


 * 1 There is no evidence whatsoever that there are "genes for intelligence", some geneticists maintain that thousands of genes affect intelligence, and that all have a small effect, which is why we can't find any in association studies.


 * 2 There is much dispute that these "clusters" are anything more than a statistical artefact.

Frankly Ludwigs if you are going to make these assumptions in the article that the article is going to have to be huge and go into as much depth regarding the non-existence of biological "race" as the Race article does. I'm deeply disturbed by your wholescale acceptance of the validity of a single point of view in this discussion, you ignore every piece of evidence against the existence of biological "race" (the consensus position amongst geneticists, biologists, anthropologists and population geneticists) and support an interpretation by a wikipedia editor of a single paper that does not even make the same claims the editor is making. I'm deeply worried by your lack of balance and wholescale acceptance of a racialist and fringe pov that you apparently want to include in the article, to what end you want to damage the project I do not know, but your bias is apparent and frankly quite blatant. I have zero confidence in you as a so called "mediator". More like a promoter of a single pov. Alun (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Alun - I am not taking sides, but I can only speak from what I know and see. Sometimes it's of value to make a clear and definitive statement, even if that statement is wrong.  People will correct it, and the conversation will advance, which is all I'm trying to do here.  I'm ok with you accusing me of ignorance (I'm trying to be ignorant as a mediator), but please don't assume that I'm trying to promote a POV, because that will just confuse things. So, to be clear: no statement I make here has any value except as it helps to clarify issues of create a consensus.  Consider anything I say as a suggestion, and please correct and revise as needed.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, may I suggest rephrasing the first line, "All current research in race is based in SIRE information" to read "All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information?" It might seem obvious given the nature of the mediation, but it is often better to be as precise or circumscribed as possible.  I do not know if this would satisfy Alun ...? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Alun, would you agree to my proposing that Ludwigs2 change the third bullet point to: according to geneticists, 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factiors? Ludwigs2, I say this wodering if it makes more sense to say what we all agree that scintists actually have shown, rather than what they have not shown. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, I confess I have one problem with the second line: "Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers." Some self-identified Whites actually have more melanin cells than some self-identified lacks.  We may be talking about outliers in oth groups, but I do think this is so.  Would it be more constructive to say, "Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain markers generally considered to be biological and inherited?"  Alun, would you care to tweak this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wobble, do those changes meet with your approval? I will make them as soon as you confirm (with any alterations you might suggest).  -- Ludwigs 2  17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

99.86% - convenience break

 * OK Ludwigs I can see the value of your making a short summation. This would be my proposal:


 * I've changed some of these quite a lot, but the points still address the same issues. I think it's important to note that all of the research into the distribution of human genetic diversity has been conducted for biomedical purposes. For example in diagnostics a physician might rule out cystic fibrosis as a diagnosis for an African American because of the low prevelance of that disease in Africa. That might be a bad decision because many African Americans have a significant European ancestry. Clustering is disputed because an African American with, say 50.1% African ancestry will still "cluster" with other Africann Americans, but may well be genetically much closer to some European Americans than to some African Americans. Clustering is not a measure of genetic similarity, it is a fallacy to believe that it is, though many professional geneticists fall into the trap.
 * How do my changes look to you?Alun (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not object to any of these bullet points ... Ludwigs2, does this move us further down the right track? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This version of the summary goes against a pretty large portion of what the rest of us have resolved up to this point. And I don’t just mean matters of wording; I’m talking about specific viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, that we’ve agreed should be acknowledged, and which Alun’s version of the summary flatly rejects.  One example of this that we just discussed a few days ago is the papers published in Behavioral and Brain Functions and Behavioral Genetics which found that certain alleles of DTNBP1 and CHRM2 can raise IQ.


 * Ludwig, I hope you’re not going to throw out the consensus that the rest of us have gradually built about this over the past week based on the objections of a single editor, particularly an editor who’s already stated that he has no respect for the mediation process the way you’re handling it. By discarding all of the points in this summary that the rest of us have come to an agreement about, you would be basically re-starting the entire discussion about it from the beginning, and there’s no telling whether we would be able to come to an agreement about it again this time around.


 * The three changes that Slrubenstein suggested in his comments above aren’t a problem, in my opinion, although I think the third one is a little superfluous: the research about this involves genetic markers, so what’s the point in beating around the bush and calling them “biological and inherited” rather than just saying “genetic”?  Other than that, though, his proposed changes might be a good compromise between what Alun is demanding and what the rest of us have agreed on. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No - again, let me be clear about the approach I'm trying. This is a particular solution (based on hermeneutics) to long term debates. the process, basically, involves making some statement (any statement) and then allowing people to modify, edit, and expand that particular statement progressively.  I won't consciously make any changes that anyone objects to, and I will revise anything that needs revising.  The main advantage to this approach is that it requires people to work on a common focus, rather than juxtaposing and defending different ideas.


 * I'm just waiting for Wobble to respond (because he's the one with the current major objection, and I don't know how to incorporate the large chunk of text he gave above); once that happens, we can revise this statement and present it for a new round of revisions. -- Ludwigs 2  17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I continue to dispute the inclusion of details regarding speculative "intelligence genes" such as DTNBP1 and CHRM2. Intelligence is a complex phenomenom, likewise we expect the genetics of intelligence to be equally complex. According to a number of recent studies, simplistic explanations of genes for intelligence tend to be unsatisfactory. I would support a statement that indicates that there are a number of candidate genes, though none has consistently replicated an association with intelligence. DTNBP1 is a prime candidate for a schizophrenia gene, though the association is controversial. There are about a dozen SNPs in this gene and a few have been tested for an association with intelligence. So far it has failed to consistently replicate an association with general cognitive ability.

Luciano et al. 2009 suggest that "at best there is 'equivocal' association with general cognitive ability or IQ". One paticular SNP that was an IQ lowering variant in an earlier study turned out to be an IQ raising variant in this study. DTNBP1 continues to give weak signals of an association with certain cognitive-schizophrenia related variables, such as working memory, however the associations are inconsistent, sometimes reversing the direction of the association. Most importantly, the association of commonly studied SNPs with "g" or "IQ", which is the focus of this mediation, has consistently been non-significant.

As for CHRM2, No Association Between Cholinergic Muscarinic Receptor 2 (CHRM2) Genetic Variation and Cognitive Abilities in Three Independent Samples is pretty comprehensive. In short, while genes for intelligence may exist, it appears that insisting on only these two genes may be barking up the wrong tree. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, everything you’re bringing up now was discussed at length several months ago, and the conclusion of that discussion was to keep the article in its current state. Why are you insisting on rehashing the exact same points now that you made back then?  Most of the users who were involved in the discussion about this at the time are also involved in the mediation process; are you hoping that they’ll have changed their minds about it during the time since then?


 * Ludwig, I would like some advice from you about what to do here. Is it necessary for us to have another detailed discussion about whether to mention the papers about these two genes? --Captain Occam (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain Occam, can you point to the place where we decided tokeep the article in its current state? There are many people who are officially part of this mediation. I am concerned that some are being excluded. For example, while I admit my memory can be faulty, I do not remember to signing on to such an agreement.


 * I am concerned that some editors of Wikipedia forget that others have real lives and careers that can force them to absent themselves from a discussion for several days or several weeks. My own career depends on my doing original research and by its very rules nothing I do at Wikipedia counts.  So sometimes I have to drop out for a couple of weeks.  I do not think that this justifies excluding some participants in the mediation from making certain decisions.  First, this would unfairly reward people who have lots of spare time.  Second, it is impractical.  Even if muntuwandi or I have to drop out for a month, youknow very well we will be back.  We have both been editing Wikipedia for years, and will edit Wikipedia for years to come.  This very conflict has been going on for years and I think that means it makes perfect sense to take our time resolving conflicts.  Remember, the more people who support a particular resolution, the more stable the result.  What we want is stability, and a few people making a decision while some long-standing contributers are absent (and yes, I would apply this to me and Muntuwandi versus Captain Occam and others too, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander) will not achieve stability.  Ludwigs2 has explained his "hermeneutic" approach to mediation and I think it is serving us quite well.


 * That Muntuwandi is raising this issue tells me, naive empiricist that I am, that the issue has not been resolved. And frankly, my own understanding of the science is that Muntuwandi is right.  I see no grounds for casually dismissing his points. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue was discussed on the NPOV noticeboard sometime last summer, I think. It was part of a much larger discussion about how to describe the research on this topic involving specific genes, as well as whether to mention the analyses conducted by non-scientists that found the distribution of DTNBP1 and CHRM2 to vary between ethnic groups.  (The answer to the second question turned out to be no.)  Since I don’t remember anymore specifically what month it was that we discussed this, though, I’m not sure how to find it; I’d rather not have to search through several hundred archives from the noticeboard looking for it.


 * The reason I have a problem with Muntuwandi making these points here is because they’re the exact same points that he’s made multiple times before. When he has in the past, other editors have explained why even though the studies finding a relationship between these genes and IQ need to be balanced against other studies that failed to reproduce this relationship, this is not a reason to exclude either group of studies from the article; NPOV policy demands that we include both viewpoints.  When this has been explained to Muntuwandi in the past, he’s usually just stopped responding.  Even if the reason for this is because he had real-life obligations that prevented him from continuing to participate in the discussion, shouldn’t it at least be his responsibility to read other editors’ responses to his points?  The fact that he’s repeating the exact same points that he made before, without acknowledging anything that anyone said in response to them previously, suggests that he hasn’t.  If you want to think of this as meaning that the issue isn’t resolved, then so be it, but I don’t see how repeating the exact same discussion and probable outcome is going to cause it to be any more resolved than it was after the previous discussion about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was any significant support for inclusion of this information from other independent editors. I have made these same arguments before and, I believe they remain outstanding in that no satisfactory response has been given. All else being equal, recent studies should carry more weight than older studies. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources states "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field".
 * In this case some initial studies proposed an association of these genes with IQ, while later studies are either inconclusive or have completely failed to replicate an association. In the case of DTNBP1, the initial study estimated that the risk alleles lowered IQ by only 0.37 IQ points. So these genes are not the smoking gun. Another complication is that the risk alleles have frequencies that range from 9% to 47% in European populations, so it seems that these alleles are distributed in all populations making them poor candidates for any alleged racial differences.
 * Slrubenstein has made an important point about consensus or the assumption of consensus. WP:CONSENSUS and specifically WP:CONLIMITED states, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, all of the points you’re making here have been discussed at length already. Whether or not you were satisfied with other editors’ responses to them doesn’t change what conclusion was reached.  We’ve discussed how with two contradictory groups of studies, the oldest of which is from 2007, this issue can’t yet be considered resolved either way.  And we’ve also been through at least one of the studies almost line-by-line, to show how what you’re claiming in your second paragraph is based on a misreading of it.


 * If Ludwig thinks that we really do need to discuss all of this again now, then I guess we can, but the amount of time this required last time isn’t something I’m willing to devote to it again unless he decides for certain that it’s necessary. And either way, if we discuss this again we will be rehashing the exact same points we made in the previous discussion about it, so I don’t see what reason there is to assume that doing so would accomplish anything we didn’t accomplish last time. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

alright... it seems to me that (despite appearances) there's actually a lot of consensus for the statements given above. Alun incorporated slrubenstein's suggestions, of which Can'n Occam generally approves. the sticking point seems to be over the inclusion/exclusion of research about specific intelligence genes and their relationship to race, but what I can't figure out from the discussion is which of the following points is sticking: It seems to me that the first point is contentious in the scholarly world (there is some research that supports the claim and some research that opposes it, and scholars are split in their opinions on the matter); the second point strikes me as largely speculative, based on the assumption that the first point is true. am I assessing that correctly? If I'm in the right ball park, then I suggest we approach it by making note of any significant perspectives that suggest intelligence does or does not vary by genetically defined groups, and then introduce the first point only far enough to point out that the issue is currently undecided in the scholarly world. this would amount to a change in the fourth point above to say something like "Several genes have been proposed as having an influence on IQ, but current research has produced mixed results on the existence of those effects, on their strength, and on the extent to which they vary across different groups in the human population." comments? -- Ludwigs 2 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the question of whether these genes actually do relate to IQ.
 * the question of whether the genes assumed by the above point vary by race.


 * I had a lot more problems with Alun’s version of the statement then just the fact that it explicitly rejects the idea of any currently known genes affecting IQ. The reason I brought up that one point in particular is because we’d just been discussing it recently, so it required less explanation for me to explain what was wrong with this part of Alun’s statement than it would have for me to explain this about most other parts of it.  But you shouldn’t assume that was the only problem I had with it just because it’s the only thing I mentioned.  I’m also willing to bet that if we wait until Varoon Arya or David.Kane resumes their involvement in this discussion, they’ll feel similarly to me about most of Alun’s changes being unacceptable.


 * Do you need one of us to go through all of Alun’s proposed changes, and explain what’s wrong individually with each one of them? Assuming that each of them needs to be debated individually, I probably don’t have time to do something like this on my own, so if that’s what you need it’ll have to wait until some of the other editors involved in the mediation show up again.  I also don’t think this should be necessary; everyone but Alun was fine with the most recent version of the statement that you came up with.  I don’t think we should be operating under the assumption that his proposed changes are going to be made, so that any alterations to them need to be individually pointed out justified. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want a point by point debate. what I would like is for you to try to recraft the statements in a way that you think would be acceptable to Alun and everyone else.  You seem to understand his perspective well enough to disagree with him in detail; do you understand his perspective well enough to find some common ground of agreement?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “You seem to understand his perspective well enough to disagree with him in detail; do you understand his perspective well enough to find some common ground of agreement?”


 * I think so, although that’s a separate question from whether Alun is interested in a compromise himself.


 * I said before what I think the best compromise would be: the first two changes that Slrubenstein suggested in response to Alun’s initial objections.  Slrubenstein suggested changing “All current research in race is based in SIRE information” to “All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information”, and his second suggestion would result in the third bullet point being changed to say “Research suggests that 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factors. A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.”  Both of those changes are fine with me, and since Slrubenstein was the person who suggested them, I would assume that he also thinks they adequately address the objections that Alun brought up.


 * I still don’t understand the purpose of Slrubenstein’s third suggestion (changing “genetic” to “biological and inherited”), so I can’t say I approve of that one, until and unless someone explains why changing this aspect of the wording would be an improvement. We can discuss that now if you think that’s best, or we can just go with Slrubenstein’s first two suggestions. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first point is already in the bulleted list above. the second point has a rough approximation of slr's change - is it not close enough, and how would you change what's there to make a compromise?  the third point is a minor wording issue which we can iron out later (unless you want to suggest a compromise revision now).  what else is not working for you?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you make Slrunbensten’s proposed change to the first point? In your own version of the list, it still says “All current research in race is based in SIRE information”; Alun and Slr wanted it to be clearer that this is referring specifically to research about race and IQ.  They also wanted it to be made clear that the literature about the heritability of IQ generally describes it in terms of what percentage of the variation in a given population is due to genetic factors.  Heritability can be described in terms of parent-to-child bloodlines also, but that’s not the way it’s described in most of the professional literature on this topic (at least not the literature which discusses race), so I think their idea was that it’s better for us to describe it in the same way that the source material does. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the version just after the new page break - are we seeing different things? -- Ludwigs 2  00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The version right after the most recent page break is the one proposed by Alun. Is that what you’re referring to?  I think I already made it clear I have a lot of problems with that version, even if the aspects of it suggested by Slrubenstein aren’t among the parts of it that I have problems with.


 * What I was suggesting was to just make the first two modifications Slrubenstein suggested (and no other modifications) to your own summary that you last updated on February 9th. Do you understand what I mean now? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with the bullet points listed above. I specifically dispute the inclusion of the two genes in the article. They are not central to this mediation process, but nonetheless I disagree with there inclusion. My proposal is to create the article genetics of intelligence as an article specifically devoted to candidate genes for intelligence. This article can give a general summary about what is known and unknown about DNA variants that may affect intelligence. A link to this article can be placed in race and intelligence. I also believe there is somewhat of a mainstream position on the genes for intelligence which includes the following points:
 * Since intelligence is partially inherited, it is possible that DNA variants contribute to intelligence differences between individuals.
 * Some genes that lower IQ indirectly via genetic disorders or other illnesses are known.
 * At present, there is no replicated evidence of genes that contribute to intelligence differences between healthy individuals.
 * The mechanisms by which genes contribute to intelligence is at present poorly understood. Reasons why association studies have not succeeded in detecting a relationship between genes and IQ may include
 * Several polymorphisms may contribute to IQ differences, and the contribution of each individual DNA polymorphisms to IQ may be to small to detect with conventional methods.
 * DNA polymorphisms that contribute to intelligence may respond uniquely in different individuals. This is because these polymorphisms may be influenced by other external factors such as other genes(epistasis) or environmental factors, which are unique to every individual.

Deary et al. list about 30 loci that have previously been associated with IQ differences. I think for the RI article, it is more pertinent to give a brief summary of what is known about genes that affect intelligence rather than name-dropping two random genes. I gather that these genes were introduced into the article because Captain Occam learned of them from an internet forum. The previous discussion can be found in this RS noticeboard archive Wapondaponda (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “I gather that these genes were introduced into the article because Captain Occam learned of them from an internet forum.”


 * So that’s why you want to remove this information from the article! We saw something almost identical to this with the Race and genetics article, and discussed it for around a month there.  In that case it was your dogged determination to remove a chart from the article because you’d figured out that I was the person who had added it, and based on what you’d read that I’d written at a website outside Wikipedia, you’d concluded that my reasons for adding it to the article weren’t valid.  Since your reason for wanting to remove the chart was based on my motives, rather than any specific Wikipedia policy, there was nothing anyone could do or say to stop you from endlessly searching for a policy that this chart violated.  Now I understand why nothing anyone has said about why these studies should be mentioned appears to make any difference to you.  Again, this is only a matter of policy inasmuch as you can find a way to try and justify removing the information; my motives are what really make the difference here.


 * Ludwig, based on Muntuwandi’s behavior with regard to these studies as well as in the race and genetics article, I think we can be pretty certain that he’s never going to be OK with them being mentioned as long as I’m the person who added the reference to them. If the information gets removed and then added back by someone other than me, that’s probably not going to change how he feels about it, as long as I’m the person who’d added it originally.  I know this because that particular situation happened with the chart in the Race and genetics article, without affecting his determination to remove it.  It’s up to you how this situation should be dealt with, but I think it’s important to understand what it is that we’re really discussing here. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My concerns are not directed at any individual but rather at the mention of specific candidate genes. I would raise the same concerns regardless of who originally added them. My chief worry is that mentioning specific genes, out of context, may tacitly give a misimpression that somehow these genes are involved in racial differences in intelligence. When in reality no publication has yet made such an assertion. The specific genes are leftovers from the dispute about citing internet forums in scientific articles because bloggers were speculating about these genes. If we are going to go with the suggestions made by Alun and Slrubenstein, then there will be no need to mention any specific genes as the summary states "Despite several attempts, no genes have been discovered that boost intelligence". Wapondaponda (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “My chief worry is that mentioning specific genes, out of context, may tacitly give a misimpression that somehow these genes are involved in racial differences in intelligence. When in reality no publication has yet made such an assertion.”


 * I know this has been pointed out before, but readers who reach their own conclusions about something while reading a Wikipedia article are not engaging in original research unless they include those conclusions in the article. This is a pretty basic policy.  Since the article itself doesn’t claim that these genes are involved in racial differences, if your reason for wanting to remove this information were because you have an actual policy concern about this, there would be nothing else to discuss on this point.


 * I’m not able to assume good faith about your conduct here so easily after seeing you bring up what you think are my motives for adding this information to the article, as well as misrepresenting what we were disputing originally. (We were disputing whether or not we could cite articles in The New York Times and the journal Medical Hypothesis, which were reporting information that had been previously discussed by bloggers before the mainstream press picked it up.)  In the case of the Race and genetics article, it took around a month to get you to admit that my motive for adding the chart to the article was the only real reason you cared about removing it, and that you were just searching for a policy you could find to justify this.  If you want me to assume you aren’t doing the exact same thing here, then you need to behave differently from how you were behaving then.  And that includes not endlessly trying to remove the same content from an article, over a period of several months, while never even acknowledging the rebuttals that other editors give to the justifications you provide for this.  If you keep doing his, then as far as I’m concerned it’s pretty clear that you’re doing the same thing here that you did at Race and genetics, and we just haven’t yet reached the point where you’re willing to admit this. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you state your rationale for including these genes in the article. Better still, how do you suggest the genetic of intelligence be handled in the RI article. I have stated my suggestions above. My position in short is that all we need is a summary of what is known. Specific genes are not immediately relevant to RI, because many candidates are known, but none has replicated and none has been associated with RI in reliable sources. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I’ve explained this before, but here goes again:


 * Before I added anything to the article, it already discussed the question of specific genes affecting IQ; consensus determined that the article should talk about this before I came on the scene. However, the most recent piece of information it had about this was the 2005 literature review in American Psychologist which found that no papers had yet been published on associations between specific genes and IQ.  The purpose of a literature review is to identify what papers exist about a topic, not to judge whether those papers are accurate or not.  So by saying that the literature review failed to identify any papers which linked specific genes to IQ, the article was leading readers to believe that no papers about this link had ever been published, while in fact some of them had been published in 2007.


 * I never thought it was worth the trouble to it would have required to challenge the pre-existing consensus that the article should discuss the topic of specific genes, or that it should mention this literature review. But it’s necessary to balance the conclusions of the literature review against the newer studies that render it out of date, in order to avoid misleading readers about what literature exists on this topic.


 * Do you understand this? It doesn’t seem like it should be such a difficult point.  Even if you think there’s something wrong with these studies, it’s misleading to tell readers that there are no studies linking specific genes to IQ, which is what it amounts to if we present only the conclusions of the 2005 literature review about this and don’t explain why it’s outdated.


 * Varoon Arya is probably going to be rewriting a large portion of the article whenever we get around to that aspect of the mediation, so if he decides this section of the article needs to be rewritten, we can discuss that when it happens. But as long as we’re going with the structure that the article currently has, which includes the “molecular genetic studies” section and the reference to this literature review, what I just described is why I think it’s necessary to mention these studies about DTNBP1 and CHRM2 also. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have no problem with a complete discussion of genes related to intelligence, including the ones you have mentioned, but only in the appropriate article, in this case genetics of intelligence. In fact I would gladly contribute to such an article. I believe arguments about which studies are correct should take place in genetics of intelligence and not in RI because, at present, there is very little, and in most cases nothing, connecting the candidate genes with the RI controversy. You have not directly addressed why DTNBP1 and CHRM2 should be singled out from the other candidate genes and mentioned in this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “You have not directly addressed why DTNBP1 and CHRM2 should be singled out from the other candidate genes and mentioned in this article.”


 * Since the point is to balance the outdated 2005 literature review that said there was no research linking specific genes to IQ, the only “candidate genes” worth mentioning here are those for which there’s peer-reviewed literature that specifically concluded they influence IQ. Are there any genes other than DTNBP1 and CHRM2 for which this is the case?  If there are, I’m not aware of them.  If there aren’t, then I’m not “singling out” these two genes; they’re the only two worth mentioning in this context. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems we are not on the same page. I have frequently mentioned Deary et al. 2009, which AFAIK, is the most recent review of all genes linked to intelligence. The review mentions several other candidate genes, some appear to have been identified recently, after DTNBP1 and CHRM2( CHRM2 became a candidate in 2003). Looking at the other candidate genes listed in Deary et al., nothing stands out about these two. Microcephalin or ASPM (gene) are probably more notable as they have been specifically linked to the RI controversy. It seems that the selection of only these two is arbitrary, and rather meaningless to the controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(reset) Ludwigs2, I think we are hitting a very specific issue where your hermeneutic approach may be timely and helpful. As I understand it, there is some discussion among geneticists about the relationship between certain loci and intelligence. Review articles by psychologists or psychometricians have concluded that there is not yet sufficient evidence to link these loci to race. If I am right, the debate here is thus: one side says, since the psychology article concluded that there is no or not yet evidence that these loci correlate with race, it means that this issue was discussed in a psychology article, which means that it is relevant to accounts of discussions of psychological research on race and IQ, even if all we say is that the conclusion was there is no conclusive evidence. The other siede says, since the conclusion was there is no conclusive evidence for a link, it is therefore not relevant to discussions of race and intelligence, therefore not relevant to the article.

Frankly, I sincerely believe that if this were any other article, there would be a brief mention that some people have suggested that there is a genetic basis for the difference among races but that so far research has show no connection, with a link to the article on genetics and IQ or heritability ofintelligence or whatever it is caled, and that could all be done in no more than two sentences and end the case.

But maybe I am confused about the two sides. like I said, here we need Ludwigs2' hermeneutic scalpel. Have I misrepresented the conflict? Ludwigs2, can you clarifythe issues here??? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, if you can link me to specific papers which support other genes influencing IQ that you think are more relevant than the two it currently mentions, I would consider having the article discuss them in addition to or instead of the papers about DTNBP1 and CHRM2. I added the information about those two genes to the article sometime in 2008, I think, so it’s definitely possible that there’s something better it could be replaced with by this point.  I don’t think the information about studies supporting this should simply be removed, which is what you’ve tried to do in the past—at least not without restructuring certain parts of the article so that mentioning them is no longer necessary—but I don’t have a problem with revising the section that talks about them. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See link posted above . It's not at all clear why genes which have nothing to do with race, and whose links to intelligence are currently inconclusive, merit any kind of mention in this article. A.Prock 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You apparently haven’t read the above discussion. When I first became involved in this article, consensus had already determined that it should talk about the 2005 literature review which failed to find any published papers linking specific genes to intelligence.  If that paper is going to be discussed—and I never thought challenging this was worth the effort it would have required—then it was also necessary to show how its conclusions were out of date, because papers linking specific genes to intelligence had been published after the literature review.  Mentioning only the literature review, and none of the papers which render it obsolete, is misleading because it suggests that there are no papers suggesting a relationship between IQ and specific genes.


 * That’s what’s necessary in order to balance the outdated literature review: papers which argue in favor of a connection between IQ and specific genes.  Therefore, the paper you linked to is not useful for this.  Understand? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just pointing out the link to the article you were looking for, and specifically stating my position on the subject. A.Prock 02:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article you linked to isn’t relevant to what I’m asking for, and neither is the fact that nothing linking these genes to race has been published in the academic literature. Do you understand my point about what else we need to include if we’re going to discuss this literature review?  That’s the only reason the studies about these two genes are being mentioned. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I think I see the problem on this particular point. if we include the research (e.g. the 2005 lit review) that fails to find links between specific genes and intelligence, then we need to balance it with some understanding that this is not a conclusive finding, and research is ongoing. If we want to include the research that suggests that particular genes are related to intelligence (the DTNBP1 and CHRM2 stuff) then we have to balance that with something that shows the relationship to race is not established. does that cover it?

If so, let me suggest we handle it this way: discuss the 2005 review (or something more current if its available) that finds no specific link, point out that it's not conclusive and that research is ongoing, and then add the DTNBP1 and CHRM2 stuff into a footnote as an example of possible results in ongoing research. The footnote allows it to be included (even though it's a bit off topic for the article), and lets it balance the other material without taking on undue weight. would something like that work? -- Ludwigs 2 02:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That’s a fairly good summary of the issue, although the specific problem I have with the 2005 literature review is that the conclusion it reached—that no studies have been published which link intelligence to specific genes—is actually false as of 2007.


 * I think your proposed solution would work, as long as the literature review isn’t discussed without mentioning this about it. I’ll also add that the examples we give of newer research don’t necessarily have to be the ones involving DTNBP1 and CHRM2, if there are more relevant examples of genes for which at least one study has concluded that they influence IQ. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's still not clear to me how this level of detail relates to the article. I'm all for briefly summarizing the Genetics of intelligence article, and linking to that article for the details.  Is there a specific rationale to include a list of genes none of which have been conclusively linked to intelligence?  A.Prock 05:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * as I am understanding it, the main point in listing specific genes would be for balance, to keep things from looking like there is no research being done, or like the issue has been decided. The genes themselves are not specifically important, and if another means is found of balancing the issue properly I don't think anyone will object to not using the specific gene references.  They are not important in themselves, but only to keep things balanced; is there a better way to do that?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think all that can be communicated with an effective summary of Genetics of intelligence and linking appropriately. It's certainly the case that this is an active area of research, and I don't think we should suggest otherwise.  On the other hand, maintaining up to date details like the results of the latest study into a particular gene seem (to me) a bit off topic for the article.  A.Prock 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, simply creating a "see also" or "further information" link to genetics of intelligence is sufficient for balance. There will be no limitations to any discussion on genes and intelligence in such an article as long as they are reliably sourced. I believe there is consensus on the current status of genes and intelligence, I don't think anybody is disputing that the candidate genes only have a marginal influence on IQ, and that this influence has failed to replicate. Both Zinstock et al. and Burdick et al. who proposed DTNBP1 as a candidate gene for intelligence, both discuss weaknesses in their own hypotheses, such as weak correlations, small sample size and heterogeneous samples. So I don't see a need for "balance" since their isn't much of a controversy. I am not specifically familiar with the 2005 review, but I feel the 2009 review is more recent and should take precedence. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a problem here with the way people are communicating. My suggestion for the summary was, I think, fair. But then CO states that "papers published in Behavioral and Brain Functions and Behavioral Genetics which found that certain alleles of DTNBP1 and CHRM2 can raise IQ". But what do these papers actually say? In fact the results are equivocal. We need to be careful about "interpreting" the results from research papers. We need to remember to use secondary and tertiary sources as much s possible. The results of research papers can represent unreproducible results. As Wapondaponda says above. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that CO suggestion that somehow this single paper "proves" a link between "race and intelligence" is far from the sort of unbiased point of view we need to include in Wikipedia. Wapondaponda's posts clearly support my original wording. What does a gene that equivocally is associated with schizophrenia have to do with the debate? If CO wants to claim that there are unequivocally certain alleles that are associated with intelliegnce, and that these alleles have been shown to occur in some populations at a higher frequency than other populations, and that this is partly the cause of the IQ gap (all these criteria need to be met for this claim to be relevant to the article), then frankly CO needs to provide at least a review article that makes this claim. Let's remember that when we cite research papers we need to stick to the claims that are made in the conclusions of the papers in question, and to include all caveats within that conclusion. Mostly though we shoud be citing review papers, right? As A.Prock states, it's unclear what including genes with non or semi-reproducible association with intelligence has to do with "race" and intelligence. Clearly there is no substance to CO's claim regarding genes and intelligence, and therefore his objection to my changes to the summary seems moot. Alun (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “Indeed I'd go so far as to say that CO suggestion that somehow this single paper "proves" a link between "race and intelligence" is far from the sort of unbiased point of view we need to include in Wikipedia.”


 * Where have I said anytime during this mediation that the reason I want the article to mention these genes is because I think they contribute to the IQ difference between races? I’ve more or less accepted that we can’t cite the New York Times and Medical Hypothesis articles that talk about this idea, and therefore can’t include it in the article.  Ludwig correctly summarized the reason why I want the papers about these genes to be mentioned, and it has nothing to do with this.

99.86% - convenience break #2

 * My objections to your version of the statement aren’t related to this either, and I think I’ve already made that clear. You need to read what I write about this more carefully before you put words in my mouth like you’re currently doing. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

wow, for people who basically agree with each other you all sure do come off confrontational. so, let me ask if I can close this thread with the following as resolved: "The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established link between race and intelligence, note that the research is inconclusive and ongoing, and give a brief summary of the 'Genes and Intelligence' article (or use other sources) as necessary to give proper balance to genetics-based research."? -- Ludwigs 2 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a reasonable resolution to me. I did branch the topic below in it's own section before you posted this, so if you close it here, please either close it there, or delete the section. A.Prock 18:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is almost fine with me also, but I’d like to suggest one change. I think you should change the first sentence to say "The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence".  I think the APA statement shows that there is an established link between race and intelligence (or more precisely, race and IQ), but research is inconclusive as to whether genetics are involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Captain, I would agree with you if you changed "link" to "correlation." Can we do that? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally when one is talking about a trait being influenced by genes, one refers to it as a “genetic link” rather than a “genetic correlation”, so I think saying “genetic link” is clearer. Why do you have a problem with this wording? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood Captain Occam and I apologize. I will simply say: am not fully satisfid with his replies to Muntuwandi and Wobble. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It explicity dismisses race/genetic arguments. It does speak to a significant correlation between ethnicity (although I have no bjection to using "self-identified race" as synonymous with ethnicity in this context) and IQ.


 * I think here you are completely missing Wobble's and Muntuwandi's points. I am restoring a point Ludwigs2 archived, because given your response I now believe it is highly salient.  But to be clear: I have no objection to suggesting there is a correlation between race and average IQ scores.  I, Wobble, Muntuwandi, and possibly Aprock seem to agree that the APA statementand genetic research does not suggest otherwise.  Yet you keep arguing against this consensus.


 * Above Muntuwandi and Wobble make some very astute and sensible points about the care that we need to take abou citing emerging scienific research in articles - the importance of providing adequate context, including all caveats and conditions, and also about the importance of doing this in appropriate articles (in this case, not Race and IQ but other articles specifically addressing research on genetics research and IQ).


 * I do not see anything in your edit that responds in substance to what either Muntuwandi or Wobble write. You seem to suggest that you continue to insist on citing recent research, the meaning of which is quite unclear, in the race and IQ article withut responding at all to Muntuwandi's or Wobble's concerns.


 * You do begin by saying womething I genuinely find puzzling: "Where have I said anytime during this mediation that the reason I want the article to mention these genes is because I think they contribute to the IQ difference between races?" But Occam, why do you bring this up?  You are missing the point if you think that Wobble is concerned with what you think about IQ and genes and race.  This is not about what youthink, and obble's main points were not about what you think, they are about how we use certain sources in our articles.


 * Captain, you seem to be taking Wobble's comment personally, and I do not think that is constructiv. The issue here is not what you do or do not think about race and IQ.  The questions are: how do we use sources?  How do we distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority, and finge?  I think both Wobble and Muntuwandi are suggesting something i agree with and if they have been vague about it I will try to be clear and concrete: despite NOR's distinction of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - a distinction I have always supported, but that has often been contested and sometimes on very reasonable grounds - there are some texts that really waver between what we for policy purposes call primary and secondary sources.  An article in Science is not just a presentation of the results of some assay.  But some science articles, especially in more specialized journals, come very close to being what we for policy purposes call primary sources.  They often present for the first time data that can be interpreted in any number of ways and the interpretation of which may in fact be quite difficult.  What i get from both Muntuwandi and Wobble is that such sources have to presented very carefully.  Perhaps we should not be relying on them at all.  Some science articles, especially those that are making raw data public for the first time, are suggesting conclusions that authors and editors hope will spur research by others, atempts to reproduce the experiment, debate over the analysis of the data, and this may take some time before people have any confidence over the meaning of the data.  Such an article simply cannot be used like some other article that describes an experiment that has been reproduced several times and forwards an interpretation that is informed by considerable debate and discussion among scientists.  It takes time before practicing scientists accept the claims of any given article as anything like a "fact."


 * I think Muntuwandi is saying this: When we use such sources, we need to explain to readers the context for the article, which might require us to explain something about how scientists work, what it means and what it does not mean when something is first published, and how scientists receive such articles. I think Muntuwandi is saying that then it comes to articles on genetics research, all of this important context belongs in articles that are specifically on genetics research.  His conclusion, that DTNBP1 should be discussed in the article on genetics and intelligence because that is where all the caveates can be explained, and that we just provide a link to that article here, seems to me to emminently sensible.


 * Captain, we are not discussing your personal beliefs about race and intelligence. We are discussing how to talk about DTNBP1 or other alleles or loci in this article.  Muntuwandi and Wobble both make what i consider very important points: that there is no significant view among scientists that this gene causes intelligence.  So we are not even talking about a minority view.  This is something that as best I can tell does not even meet the common-sense understanding of "view."  Now, maybe one day there will be enough research to extablish a strong claim (even if it is still considered arguable) that a certain gene is strongly lined to intelligence.  But our articles are not science fiction.  We do not write about what might happen in the future.  If that particular future ever comes to pass, well, then someone can add the information to Wikipedia.  Since Wikipedia can be up-dateds at any time, we do not have to try to guess what will be significant scientific views in the future.  we can afford to wait.


 * We are trying to mediate disputes so let's try to find principles we can all agree on. Captain Occam, maybe you do not agree with everything Wobble said.  That is okay, in mediation we just have to find something.  Here are two things he wrote that I agree with and think everyone with sommon sense would agree with:


 * (1)"Let's remember that when we cite research papers we need to stick to the claims that are made in the conclusions of the papers in question, and to include all caveats within that conclusion." This is pretty much just policy.  But it seems to me that with regards to the paper that have been presented as if they support the claim that a certain gene causes or is strongly connected to intelligence, well, if we include it in this article, we willhave to add LOTS of caveats and qualifications.
 * (2)"Mostly though we shoud be citing review papers, right?" I think this is emminently reasonable. Who contests it?  When article like the ones we are talking about have so many caveates and qualifiactions and do not rise to standards of significance, we are far better off relying on review articles that are taking the pulse of where scientists are at the moment, what is considered established and what is considered debatable.  And Muntuwandi makes one final and to me undebatable point: more recent reviews are better thanolder reviews.  Can we at least agree on these principles to move forward in the mediation? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the APA states: "It is important to realize that the causal links between psychemetric ability and social outcomes may be indirect. Children who are unsuccessful in-and hence alienated from-school may be more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors for that very reason, compared to other children who enjoy school and are doing well." I have no objection to quoting this in the article. But really, I am quite confused as to why Captain Occam will not ocmpromise with me and use the word "correlate" rather than "link" to describe the relationship between race and average IQ scores. He writes above, "I think the APA statement shows that there is an established link between race and intelligence (or more precisely, race and IQ)," when the fact is, the APA statement says no such thing. I understand entirely Wobble's and muntuwandi's concerns bout how editors have been using sources, how we need to be vigilant to represent sources accurately.


 * I do not want to get into a semantic war with Captain Occam. If he just mens to say that race in the US is predictive of one's IQ, but we do not know why, well, I think i could agree with that.  But the APA statement, like so much other research, minimizes or dismisses genetic explanations.  Like Muntuwandi and Woble I am concered about representing scientific reearch accurately and in context.  I am also concerned about undue weight issues.  Are we really close to a compromoise?  Ludwigs2, if you think we are, could you articulate what you think it would read like now? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, do you want me to reply to all of this? I think it’s pretty obvious how long this next iteration of the debate is going to go on if that’s what you want, as well as the fact that it’s not going to involve anything we haven’t discussed already.  As I mentioned on your userpage, discussions about this aspect of the topic never really have an “end”.  On the article talk page they just continue like this for a few weeks or months until either one of the editors involved in it gives up, or something happens in their offline life to prevent them from continuing to participate in it.  At that point the discussion usually becomes dormant for a little while until someone (either the same editor or a different one) tries to make a change to the article, at which point the cycle resumes.


 * I can’t tell for sure whether you’re OK with letting the cycle continue like this, having now moved from the article talk page to here. Your archiving comment that Slrubenstein removed suggests that you were hoping to avoid this, though, so I don’t want to risk interfering with the mediation by helping to sustain something that you were trying to prevent.  Please let me know what you want me to do here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to reply to all of it. I know it would certainly help my understanding if you could answer two questions:  Do you have a real problem with using the word "correlation" instead of "link"?  Are you fine with simply summarizing Genetics of intelligence and putting all the details of genes behind us? A.Prock 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, I’m not sure what it is you’re asking here, because “Genetics of intelligence” isn’t an actual article—the link you posted just redirects to Heritability of IQ. If you’re talking about this section, though, I’d be OK with the current article summarizing something like this.


 * I’m not sure I understand what there is that still needs to be resolved here. I already said that I agree with Ludwig’s suggestion about how to summarize the research about this, as long as it’s made clear that this uncertainty is about whether there’s a genetic contribution to the IQ difference, and not about whether the IQ difference exists at all.  My main concern is that we not give the impression that this issue is completely resolved, or imply that there’s no published evidence linking IQ to specific genes.  Even the heritability of IQ article mentions that there’s evidence of this in the case of CHRM2, although also that it hasn’t been replicated consistently.


 * As for using the word “link” instead of “correlation”, I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to be worth having a lengthy debate about it, if that’s what you’re asking. As I said before, I just think using the word “link” is clearer in this context, and I also don’t think there’s anything inaccurate about saying “there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence”.  If Slrubenstein understands now I was suggesting, I’m hoping he won’t have a problem with this wording either. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is trying to "hide" information linking genes to intelligence. As previously mentioned, I would be willing to contribute to an article "genes and intelligence". Neither is anyone implying that the matter is in anyway resolved. Research is ongoing, and most likely, at some stage in the future, there will be a major breakthrough in the genetic and biological basis of mammalian intelligence. If and when such a breakthrough occurs, wikipedians will address it, and if it has any implications for RI then it can also be addressed in RI. But at present, based on what has been published, such a breakthrough has not occurred. There are plenty of leads, but most or all have turned out to be blind alleys. My concern has been the reverse of CO's, and that is giving the impression that speculative leads are major breakthroughs. If all are in agreement, then we move forward on the text for the particular section, either in the final write up, or it can be changed in the article right-away. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your clarifications. It's not always easy to track all of the various contributions, and your answers did a lot to help me understand what you were saying.  I do agree that it seems we are at (or near?) consensus regarding this issue.


 * Ludwig2, would it be possible to put a faq or similar structure at the top of the mediation page which summarizes the consensus points to date? A.Prock 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * well, my habit to this point has been to archive the sections with summary boxes in them. would a centralized FAQ be useful?  I'd meant to make one later to post on the actual article talk page, but I can certainly do here if you prefer.
 * I take it then that we can archive this section as resolved, using the summary I provided above (just for fairness, I'll use a combined 'link/correlation' wording to resolve concerns of that word choice). -- Ludwigs 2 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * “I take it then that we can archive this section as resolved, using the summary I provided above (just for fairness, I'll use a combined 'link/correlation' wording to resolve concerns of that word choice).”


 * When you do, please don’t forget to include the word “genetic”, to make it clear that the uncertainty we’re talking about is for genetic explanations rather than for the IQ difference as a whole. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just a slight problem with the statement "there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence". Most of the studies that have been investigating links between genes and intelligence have not been concerned with the "race and intelligence" controversy. Rather their goal has been to identify genes that influence intelligence in any population. Many of the association studies use or create homogeneous samples (same gender, age, nationality, SIRE, or SES) in part, to minimize the "noise" from external/environmental influences. In short association studies aim to discover links between genes and intelligence within some relatively homogeneous population rather than between populations. I believe the current statement gives the impression that there is active research into genetic links between race and intelligence, when this doesn't appear to be the case. For example Deary et al. 2009 in their review of candidate genes for intelligence, make no mention whatsoever of race. I propose amending the statement to "there is currently no established link between genes and the variation in IQ".

As a side issue, this has been one of my concerns with the datacentric model, because as can be seen from genetic association studies, few or no mainstream scholars have been publishing genetic association studies concerning the race/IQ debate. There were debates last year that appeared in "Nature" about whether scientists should actually investigate genes, race and IQ, but at present this is not the case. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "there is currently no established link between genes and the variation in IQ".


 * Strictly speaking this isn't true. For example Down's syndrome. I think "there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence" is accurate and appropriate. mikemikev (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption is that we are referring to the variation in IQ among healthy individuals, though "healthy" is a subjective term. Strictly speaking, Down's syndrome is a chromosomal disorder caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. So there probably isn't a single "Down's syndrome gene" and it isn't necessarily heritable. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with saying "there is currently no established link between genes and the variation in IQ", which is that it sounds like it’s saying that IQ might not be heritable at all. I know that wasn’t the intended meaning, but it’s easy to misinterpret the sentence as saying that.


 * Can’t we just go with the phrasing that Ludwig suggested? Based on Mutuwand’s previous comment (February 19th at 15:49) I really thought this issue was resolved, and I was actually expecting Ludwig to archive this discussion yesterday.  If people who were previously fine with this statement are going to start changing their minds about it now, there’s no telling how long it’s going to be before we can resolve this. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The core issues are resolved but some minor details need cleaning up. While I agree with the statement "there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence", it still needs to be sourced. The studies that have been searching for correlations between genes and IQ haven't considered the RI controversy, so we can't use them as a source for such a statement. This is what Deary et al. 2009 state in their review of molecular genetic studies
 * "The heritability of g is substantial. It increases from a low value in early childhood of about 30%, to well over 50% in adulthood, which continues into old age. Despite this, there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences"
 * "Despite its high heritability, it is not possible confidently yet to name one genetic locus unequivocally associated with the quantitative trait of intelligence."
 * I believe this statements represent the current position on genes and IQ, but race isn't a variable. If what appears in the article is consistent with the above statements, I am not fussy about the wording. I don't mean to drag this issue indefinitely, but since this is dispute resolution, it is best to speak now or forever hold your piece. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

well, from my perspective, we seem to have gotten into a persnickety wording phase, which is actually a good thing (it means the major issues are resolved and we're down to bickering over the scraps). tomorrow midday I'll close this discussion as (mostly) resolved (unless there is a serious objection), and we can save the detailed work for when we actually start rewriting the article. -- Ludwigs 2 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE Debate
I feel that the issue of WP:FRINGE has to come to a conclusion. We've attempted it before, but the discussion always devolves into a pissing contest, with no clear result emerging. Apparently Slrubenstein and I are the main contenders here, though I suspect several other editors have strong opinions on this matter. I'd like for us to discuss this at length with the goal of reaching a conclusion so we can put the issue to rest and move on to other things.

If I may be so bold, I would summarize Slrubenstein's main concern in the matter of WP:FRINGE as that he does not want to see a "fringe" view, in this case hereditarian explanations of the IQ gap between the races, presented as a mainstream academic thesis. Taken at face value, this is a perfectly valid concern.

My main concern in regards to WP:FRINGE is that I don't want to see a "minority" view presented as a "fringe" or "pseudo-scientific" view unworthy of serious academic discussion. This, too, is a perfectly valid concern.

If the above is correct, then our central conflict here is over whether the hereditarian position is a "fringe"/"pseudo-scientific" view or a "minority" view. In what follows, I shall present my own reasons for viewing the hereditarian position as a "minority" position which deserves proportional coverage in the article. I would appreciate it greatly if other editors would comment on each one, either voicing agreement or disagreement so we can identify where, exactly, the rubbing points are.

5 reasons why the hereditarian model is not "fringe"

1. The proponents of the hereditarian model are on equal footing with their peers in terms of qualifications and academic standing. In fact, Jensen, probably the most prominent proponent of the hereditarian model, was called to testify before a hearing of the U.S. government on this subject, so it should be clear that at least one of the proponents of hereditaranism has very good credentials. While it is certainly the case that highly qualified scientists can make bogus and idiosyncratic claims, we cannot reject the work of hereditarians as "fringe" on the grounds that they are not recognized as qualified experts in their field, as is generally the case with the authors of "fringe" theories.

2. The arguments advanced in favour of the hereditarian model are presented in respectable academic journals, and are debated in earnest by their detractors in those same journals. While it is certainly the case that academic journals can publish work containing bogus and idiosyncratic claims, we cannot reject the work of hereditarians as "fringe" on the grounds that it is viewed as beneath serious consideration by the academic community, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars.

3. The only academic study to be conducted on the popularity of environmental and hereditarian models for explaining the difference in IQ between races concluded that 45% of polled experts believed that the difference is a product of both genetic and environmental factors while 15% believed that the difference is due to environmental factors alone. 24% believed that there is insufficient data for coming to a conclusion, and only 1% believed it is due to genetic factors only. While it is certainly the case that this study may have been conducted improperly (though there has never been any such criticism of the study) or that, if conducted today, the results would be different (a completely speculative claim), we cannot reject the hereditarian model as "fringe" on the grounds that it is only held by a tiny minority of scholars, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars. The fact is, we simply do not know how many scholars hold which views today, and the evidence we do have indicates that the hereditarian model is, assuming it has declined at all in popularity, a significant minority view. Whether the 15% holding to the 100% environmental thesis has gone up considerably is also entirely uncertain.

4. The APA report states that neither the environmental model nor the hereditarian model have proven successful in explaining the IQ gap. While the hereditarian model suffers from a lack of direct evidence, the environmental model suffers from the inability to account for known facts. The APA concludes that we still do not know what causes the IQ gap, though we may expect more in the way of tangible results from the environmental model, as at present the hereditarian model can only provide us with evidence which strengthens a probability indirectly. While it is certainly the case that the APA report can be seen as rejecting one part of the hereditarian model as suffering from insufficient evidence, we cannot reject the hereditarian model as "fringe" on the grounds that it has been deemed unfit as a serious scientific thesis, as is generally the case with the work of "fringe" scholars.

5. According to Wikipedia policy, a "fringe" view is one which "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The hereditarian model is not "fringe" according to this definition for the following reasons:


 * a) The prevailing or mainstream view as embodied in the APA report is that we do not know what causes the IQ gap. (This position was also held by 24% of polled experts in 1987.) Taken at face value, this means that both the environmental and the hereditarian model depart from the mainstream view in that they propose to know what most scholars agree is not known. However, this is to be expected, as they are attempting to overcome a recognized gap in our knowledge, and doing so is tacitly supported by the APA.


 * b) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" require, among other things, evidence that the environmental model is, indeed, the prevailing or mainstream view. There is no such evidence to my knowledge. The only evidence available shows that for every expert holding the environmental position, there are three holding the hereditarian position.


 * c) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" must demonstrate that it departs significantly from the mainstream view. Granted that we can establish what the mainstream view is, it remains unproven that the departure in this case is significant. In fact, the similarities between the two positions far outweigh their differences, and both are equally valid hypothetical models for explaining the IQ gap. Their difference resides in one point only, and that point remains one of serious academic discussion.


 * d) Claims that the hereditarian model is "fringe" must demonstrate that is has little or no scientific support. This is clearly not the case, as the Jensen & Rushton report makes is clear that hereditarians support their arguments through a careful analysis of scientifically gathered data, and do not rely upon wild conjecture and/or speculation. Further, they feel themselves in a position to successfully refute the arguments of their opponents on both logical and evidential grounds, and do so forcefully.

For these reasons, I feel justified in maintaining that the work of hereditarians is not "fringe", and that it deserves adequate coverage on Wikipedia as a minority view. As I said, please review each point and comment accordingly with a view towards concluding this dispute for good. Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Heritability is a measure of the portion of variation within a group that arises from genes. It does not apply to variation between groups.  This is something that every geneticist knows.  Some psychologists do not know it, but this does not surprise me since most psychologists are not trained in genetics whereas geneticists ... well, imagine how damn hard they work for their PhDs in genetics.  This is also why when one book by Rushton was mailed, for free, to all the members of the American Anthropological Association, most threw out the free copies and many complained to the AAA leadership. This is why Rushton is considered fringe. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Psychologists such as Jensen are fully aware of this, Slrubenstein. If you had read through the extended exchange between Lewontin and Jensen (1970), for example, which occurred as a result of his Harvard Educational Review article published a few years prior (1968, I believe), then you would know that this point has been addressed at great length in the literature. It was not grounds for dismissing his position as "fringe" in 1970, it was not grounds for dismissing it as "fringe" in 1987 (when 45% of polled experts agreed with him on this point), and it is not grounds for dismissing it as "fringe" today.


 * I would appreciate it if you could indicate which of the points I listed above you agree with and which you disagree with so that I can find out exactly what your reasons are for insisting that any and all things hereditarian be labelled "fringe". Please place your comments directly beneath the point you are referring to so we can keep everything relatively organized. -- Aryaman (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya wrote:"The prevailing or mainstream view as embodied in the APA report is that we do not know what causes the IQ gap. (This position was also held by 24% of polled experts in 1987.) Taken at face value, this means that both the environmental and the hereditarian model depart from the mainstream view in that they propose to know what most scholars agree is not known."It's important that we are clear here. This is not what the APA report says. One sentence is being taken out of the broader context of the report. The report clearly differentiates between environmental effects on intelligence which are well documented, and genetic/hereditarian effects for which there is no direct evidence. If we are going to use sources, it's of the utmost importance that we do so faithfully. With respect to the specific bullet points the APA directly addresses (a) (b) (c) and (d) in such a way as to indicate that the hereditarian model was not the then current scientific model. A.Prock 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your last two statements are correct. However, you (again) either fail to grasp or fail to admit that the hereditarian model proposes a roughly 50/50 mix of environmental and genetic causes. Many of those same environmental factors discussed in the APA report are also advanced as part of the hereditarian model, and cannot be seen as only supporting the 100% environmental thesis, if at all. It seems that very few here realise the theoretical extremity of the environmental position, and think that any study which claims an environmental factor as influencing intelligence is a strike against the hereditarian model and in favour of the environmental model. It's not. -- Aryaman (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the hereditarian model just fine. This section isn't about the particulars of the hereditarian model and whether or not I personally understand them (I do).  It's about whether or not it is considered WP:FRINGE.  According to the (a)-(d) criterion, the APA report indicates that it is WP:FRINGE.  I should add that I have no trouble with presenting the hereditarian viewpoint in the article, as long as it is clear that it does not represent current mainstream science.  I think this is where it gets muddy.  It's not the research which is WP:FRINGE, various conclusions are.  A.Prock 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really havwe anythinjg to add to this. Aryaman presented my position in the basic conflict accurately.  I would only add that I think there may be a need to distinguish specifically between Jensen, Rushton, and Murray and Herrnstein.  Jensen is taken more seriously by other social scientists than the other three, at least when it comes to this debate.  I do not know why, I only see that this is or seems to me to be the case. So in my mind, we can move closer to agreement if we disaggregate this "hereditarian hypothesis" and talk specifically of the views of Jensen, Rushton, and Murray and Herrnstein.


 * The Neiss et. al. document makes it clear that using biological race to explain between group differences in average IQ is fringe. That we do not yet have a clear explanation for the average differences does not mean that all explanations are fringe.  In fact, I think the issue here is not "explanation" but "direction for research."  If a significant amount of the difference is heritable, then it would be reasonable to invest money into looking for the gene or cluster of genes that are the cause.  I think it is a misrepresentation of the mainstream (as I see it) view that the cause of the difference is environmental.  The point of such a statement is not obviously to say we have found the cause, it is to say that we know where to prioritize our research.  It makes more sense to invest money in research into possible environmental causes.  The article - Captian Occam, please take note - has to be clear about this.  We are not really talking about two competing causes or explanations, because niether side yet knows what the real cause is.  In fact, there may be many different causes.  A 100% environmental "view" can still suppose that there are many different "causes."


 * At stake here is not just a question of what is minority versus what is fringe, at stake here is clarity about the argument. I think characterizing it as an argument between two "causes" misrepresents the science and muddies the waters.  No one knows what the cause is. There are in fact two questions: (1) where do we look for a cause?  Is it a gene or set of genes?  or is it something in the environment, which can be any number of things.  (2) Is there a proper treatment?  Murry and Herrnstein make this very clear, the question is how to deal with economic inequality in America, and, some have argued, world-wide.  How should governments invest their money?  These are real questions that are being debated.  And it is very evident that many of the so-called hereditarians are advancing their theories in the context of these public policy debates.  I am not trying to stonewall anyone.  This is just a fact and I do not see how anyone can deny it.  One reason money is invested into research on the causes for IQ differences is because the results have value and the value has to do with public policy, including how we invest money in educational resources and in social welfare programs.  The Neiss et. al. document which we have agreed is a starting point addresses this issue directly: it notes that much discussion of the correlation between race and IQ occurs in the context of public policy debates, and that Neiss et. al. will not address that set of debates.  I think Neiss et. al. made a wise choice and I do not see why we do not, also: an article on public policy debates, including the contributions of sociologists and psychologists and people with PhDs in education to those debates, and another article on the pure science.  Wikipedia articles reflect the distinction between pure and applied physics, I do not see why we cannot doe the same here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If I may throw in a couple of comments about 'fringeness' does that help any? -- Ludwigs 2 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A 'fringe' view generally implies a fairly significant departure from the core research assumptions of the related field(s). Offering an opinion that goes against common knowledge in a given field is generally not fringe: it may be right or wrong, but as long as it can potentially be tested under the field's established research model it is 'proper' research.  ideas become fringe when their proponents (who may be well-established scientists) start rejecting the very research methodology that would be used to test the idea, often because that methodology works against the theory.
 * Any given idea may have some researchers with fringe approaches and some with conventional approaches. There's nothing wrong with saying researcher X presents a fringe idea, whereas researcher Y (who holds a similar perspective) is not fringe because he hasn't stepped out side of the research model

This is helpful - I don't disagree with any of this. But I do think we have to deal with another variable: different disciplines. It seems like people with PhD's in Education use the term "heritability" differently than people with PhDs in biology. Is it possible for a fringe theory in biology to be mainstream in Education? To go directly to Arya's first point on why the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, he states that Jensen is a scholar on equal standing with others. I think this is the point of the problem. In the Jesus article some people have tried to add views that Jesus was a reworking of an ancient near eastern myth. The leading sources for this theory are PhDs - one has a PhD in geology, the other in English. The consensus at that page is that this does not qualify them as authorities on Jesus - one would ned a PhD in classics or ancient history etc. We have shcolars from five different disciplines who have made claims about race and intelligence: anthropology (biological as well as cultural anthropologists), sociology, psychology, and biology. Is it enough to say one is an "academic" in good standing, or must one be a "biologist" in good standing? My approach has been to take biologists and biological anthropologists (which would include population geneticists and molecular geneticists) as the point of reference for claims about heritability. So this is one major point of dispute.

I want to note that in every other regard I agree with Aprock's points. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think these concerns can be handled with proper contextualization: make clear the perspective each author is coming from, clarify any differences in language in the article, and make the interdisciplinary differences clear as part of the over-arching debate. any author who can't be properly contextualized that way probably is fringe (though I'll leave that as a matter for case-by-case judgement).  -- Ludwigs 2  19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as the context clearly illustrates what the mainstream scientific understanding is, that sounds fine. A.Prock 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the practical question is how to eal with disciplinary differences, and conflicts between disciplnes, into the structure of the article. I also still see a diference between scientiss responding to public polic debates, and developing research projects that are driven by public polcy agendas, versus pure research. Do we handle that by two articles, as I have suggested? Otherwise, what is the best way to handle hat in the structure of one article? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to solve the WP:FRINGE issue. But, instead of talking about whether a particular theory is fringe or a particular scholar is fringe, I think it much better to focus on a specific article. Consider Jensen & Rushton's Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Does this article meet the definition of WP:FRINGE? If Yes, then I don't think it belongs in the article. If No, then I think that it does. In other words, instead of saying "The heriditarian position argues ..." or "Rushton argues ... ", we can just agree that "Rushton and Jenson (2005) argue . . ." If we can reach consensus about a list on non-fringe articles (and I think we can), we can just restrict most/all of the Wikipedia article to them and avoid having this fight every few weeks. David.Kane (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't have time to read the whole thing, but the conclusions article certainly have the patina of fringe. It would be useful to see who referenced the survey, and in what way.  That's not to say that the conclusions shouldn't be represented in R/I.  Rather, they need to be labeled as speculative and outside the mainstream.  A.Prock 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to find reactions to specific articles, but here are two comments in a long thread that include dozens and dozens of other studies which show a wide variety of results with respect to R/I ,. I don't have time to go through any of these at the moment since I'm heading out for vacation.  But please consider the wealth of research into the topic before relying on Rushton and Jenson as a representative survey of research. (ETA, see also .  A.Prock 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In the hope of reaching a compromise, we have agreed that the article should present the purely academic (non-political) side of the race and intelligence debate within the wider context of the human sciences. This would mean including a statement to the effect that:

"For disciplines such as biology and anthropology, the concept of "race" is now considered too imprecise to be of any practical value in advancing our current state of knowledge, as the means and methodologies of those disciplines have long since overcome the constraints which made the concept meaningful in the first place. For example, though "race" can be used in a meaningful way when discussing the distribution of particular medical disorders and the success of certain treatments, the fact that we are able to create personal genetic profiles makes doing so largely superfluous. In the social sciences, as well as in criminology, race remains a useful concept provided it is understood as a primarily social construct, though one which may have important biological implications, both for population groups as well as for individuals. In the study of race and intelligence, those biological implications become of central importance."

As far as I understand the situation, nothing I have just written should be considered contentious or POV in any way. I do not object in the least to prefacing the article in such a way, as to do so helps to contextualize the research. As I see it, that should satisfy the requirements of contextualization as understood under WP:MNA.

As Aprock said, and I'd like to quote him:

"It's not the research which is WP:FRINGE, various conclusions are."

This is why we suggested a data-centric approach in the first place. The research into race and intelligence is not "fringe" by the standards of Wikipedia policy. Some conclusions drawn from that research, however, are considered highly contentious - and that is true for conclusions of either type. But the only such conclusion I can see as being properly labelled "fringe" is the view that 100% of the IQ difference between races is genetic in origin. It was a fringe view 20 years ago, and it very likely remains a fringe view today.

We are spending too much energy on labelling views and too little on neutrally presenting the work of these scholars. One thing upon which nearly all experts agree is that the environment plays a vital role in the appearance of differences in IQ between races. Jensen, for example, was one of the first to confirm that proper nutrition is probably the most important factor influencing the development of cognitive ability in the last weeks of gestation and the first weeks after birth, and has noted that malnutrition during this period has a permanently detrimental effect on intelligence in later life. He also warns that, in those populations where malnutrition has been a problem, any collected IQ data must be treated with great caution. By sticking researchers such as Jensen into a "hereditarian" camp, we obscure the fact that they have been highly active in researching both genetic and environmental factors which might influence intelligence. The only part of Jensen's psychometric work which is contentious is his claim that the high heritability of IQ within groups combined with the fact that environmental factors have been hitherto unable to account for all of the IQ gap between groups lends a good deal of credibility to the notion that the residual differences (typically between 40% and 60% after correcting for known environmental factors) are non-environmental or genetic in origin. This is sometimes referred to as the "Default Hypothesis", and he is not alone in the attempt to corroborate this hypothesis with findings from other disciplines. None of this work departs from the mainstream in any significant way. In fact, Jensen's detractors (most notably Lewontin) can admit that the Default Hypothesis might very well be true. What they focus on - and rightly so - is that Jensen can provide no direct evidence for this claim - only a deductive argument corroborated by tangential evidence. Pointing out the weaknesses in someone's work and dismissing it as "fringe" are two different things. The first is roughly equivalent to saying "Possibly, but without better evidence, I'm not convinced". The other is the way scholars call "bullshit". Though Jensen's conclusion in this particular matter is not popular, and does not enjoy the support of the APA, his work is "mainstream science". Can we agree on this?

To Slrubenstein regarding "policy" issues: I would like you to read Eugene Rabinowitch's article Jensen vs. Lewontin: A Comment published in the BAS from May, 1970. (It is freely available online.) I think this position needs to be presented first in any discussion of the policy aspect of the race and intelligence debate. I hope you agree.

Further, I don't see what makes a "hereditarian" who comments on policy issues any different from an "environmentalist" who comments on policy issues. You can't seriously claim that hereditarians are the only ones trying to influence public policy through their research. So, what is your point here? -- Aryaman (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally be happy with a data-centric view. The problem with that is that there is far too much data (30+ or 100+ years worth) to present all of the data.  The problem then becomes one of selecting a representative set of data.  And biased selection of data can lead to cherry picking, something which Nisbett accuess Rushton and Jensen of .  Of course, in a world of he-said, she-said, Jensen and Rushton are just as quick to accuse Nisbett of the same .  Moving to a data-centric might not help too much when it comes to avoiding POV issues. A.Prock 09:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That depends entirely upon us as editors. If we can agree that everyone is working towards the same goal in good faith, then we can discuss how to go about sorting out the data in a fair and neutral way. It would be helpful if the involved editors would procure copies of the major works so we can mine their bibliographies for material. But, I don't want to get ahead of where we're at in the mediation.
 * If we have reached some kind of agreement regarding this issue, I'd like for it to be made explicit. We seem to agree that, while research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article. If that is the case, then I can consider the matter resolved for the remainder of this mediation. -- Aryaman (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I generally agree. It's a fine distinction, but one that I think is more than reasonable.  I just hope this doesn't mean we are going to start putting Rushton's race and penis size data here.  :) A.Prock 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, that kind of material should be filed under "corroborative" evidence and, provided it's only advanced by one scholar (I think Rushton stands alone on the vast and perilous frontier of penis-size correlations ), can be listed under his or her name. -- Aryaman (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Social vs. genetic
Above, Aryaman wrote the following, which to me still shows we have failed to mediate a major issue:
 * If you want to say that this study produced data on "sociological race", I could agree provided that it meant nothing more than that these children were selected based on their membership to a particular race as identified by society at large. But if you want to say that, by virtue of this fact, the study says nothing about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in those children, and that, in turn, it says even less about the role of genes in the development of cognitive ability in the population for which they were chosen as a sample, then I think I'd have to disagree.

No problem with the first sentence, but t=what comes next is hard to believe. First, the grammar of the next sentence "That it therefore says nothing about the roe of genes" is just weird, and suggests some kind of sophistry. If race is a social construct, then statements about race are about a social construct. Now, do we have data about genes? Well, the fact that we have data on a social construct is neither here nor there. Isn't the logical thing to say, "If you want to say that a study that has genetic data says nothing about the role of genes, I would have to disagree with you," well who would not support that claim? My point: I can imagine that someone has data on race AND data on genes. In this case, it is ludicrous for someone to say that the data on race means we can say nothing about genes. Obviously if there is genetic data, the presence of additional data on race does not nullify that. That said, it is a simple fact that data on self-identified race says little to nothing about anything except a finite set of genes. In the best of cases, what race tells us about genetics is pretty slim. There is no scientific reason to think it can tell us anything about those genes involved in intelligence. In fact, the official statements of the AAA and APA make it clear that such suggestions are fringe science. The way to make scientific claims about the role of genetics in intelligence is through twin studies. Now,if you have done a study on racially distinct groups using twin studies, you would indeed have some knowledge of the role of genes in intelligence. But lacking twin studies, I have not seen any research on race and the inheritance of IQ that suggests that data on race is revealing of genetic influence. Arya, you can believe all you want, but fringe science is fringe science. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Ludwigs2, there is no genetic definition of race for humans (for other species it is the smae as subspecies but there is only one living subspecies of Homo). All the data correlating race to IQ scores relies on self-identified race, i.e. identification with a social construct. I know of no research in which IQ tests and genetic tests were done together. Now, there is a lot of solid research on genetics and intelligence, but this literature, based on twin studies, is about genetics and not race. To combine the two by Wikipedians is original research. When a PhD combines the two, it is fringe science and viewed as fringe science by psychologists (APA statement) and anthropologists (AAA statement). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in a mediator role and I can't make judgements of this sort, so you don't need to respond to me. Honestly, I suspect that what's happening on this particular point is mostly a misunderstanding - different people are using terminology in different, incommensurate ways - and that if you all spend some time talking about what you mean rather than worrying about what's right and wrong, you can iron it out very quickly.  I can rewrite the quote box to reflect that, if it makes things better; just let me know.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that our normal concept of race is not based on a genetic definition.  Likewise I'm pretty sure that most everyone understand that while genetic testing has shown population clustering, it has not been able to delineate races.  The main point is that most of the research that has been done into R&I has been with respect to our "normal concept of race", and not any sort of genetic definition of race.  What this means is that any and all conclusions are about our "normal concept of race", even ones about heritability in a population.  That this point is so difficult to speak about in moderation is a clear indication why the article has so many problems.  There is a lot of confusion about what heritability in populations defined by social constructs means.  In particular, the existence of such heritability does not speak to whether the concept of genetic race is well defined.A.Prock 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, we're very close to coming to an agreement here. If we can agree that at least some of the differences which constitute our lay concept of race are genetic in origin (as you indicated in the above section), then we should also be able to agree that a study which selects on the basis of lay race classification may tell us something about genetic difference, particularly if that study has been specifically designed to isolate environmental and social factors. Can you assent to this as theoretically possible? -- Aryaman (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, I'd like your response to this question, as it seems to be a central rubbing point. -- Aryaman (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly genes are responsible for a lot of the traits associate with genes. That's very different from saying that you can look at someone's genes and determine their race.  And I'm happy to agree with the fact that through genetic clustering you can create a classification procedure which has a certain amount of success in separating people according to our sociological concept of race.  All I'm saying is that if studies are based on sociological race, then the conclusions they reach -- by definition -- relate to sociological race, not genetic race. A.Prock 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question, it just repeats what you've already said. Do you agree that a study which selects on the basis of our "sociological" conception of race can provide information which allows us to draw conclusions regarding the genetic contribution to cognitive development? That's the one that I would like to have answered. -- Aryaman (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're asking me to speak to the legitimacy of the various studies, I'm afraid I can't do that for you. I suspect that some studies are good, and some are bad.  The proper arbiters of your question is scientists in the appropriate field.  A.Prock 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, this discussion came about in an attempt to clarify your insistence that research claiming to provide results relevant to the genetic contribution to cognitive development in races be prefaced with the disclaimer that the results of said research apply to "sociological race" only. The reason clarification is needed is because what you are requesting and what the studies themselves are investigating, e.g. the genetic contribution to cognitive development in various races, are largely if not entirely incommensurable - not because these studies apply to "genetic race", but because they apply to genetic (i.e. heritable) components thought to be statistically characteristic of those sociological groupings called "races". Prefacing such a study with a statement claiming it only applies to "sociological race", i.e. race as a social construct, obscures the fact that these studies, though starting from "sociological races", are inherently geared towards identifying heritable components within those groupings, and thus make claims which go beyond "race as a social construct".


 * Now, either you agree that these kinds of studies are theoretically and scientifically legitimate, or you do not. I'm not asking you to give your opinion upon whether a particular study was conducted properly or whether its data has been analysed correctly. Ultimately, I'm asking whether we can edit this article together on the agreement that it will deal with science which researches the connection between sociological races and the significantly heritable characteristic of intelligence. If you reject the ability of such studies to make scientifically legitimate claims regarding "race" as a social construct with heritable components, then this mediation will stall until it is realized that your contention is not so much with this area of research as it is with the enterprise of behavioural genetics. If that is not the case, however, we can dismiss this extraneous editorial discussion of "sociological" vs. "genetic" race and get back to presenting the academic dispute in a neutral fashion.


 * The distinction set up below between "race as a social construct" and "race as a biological category" is an inflammatory and largely false dichotomy. The options provided might sell newspapers, but no serious scientist would stand behind either of them without reams of clarification. Since we've been asked, I'll present my own opinion: Race is a social construct based on an informal and imprecise averaging of characteristics believed to be heritable, i.e. genetically influenced and/or determined. Honestly, I think (nearly) everyone would be able to agree with that definition. But, then again, I would think that, no? -- Aryaman  (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've said several times, including in the edit you're responding to, that such is possible. How many different ways do you want me to say it?  I'm not sure what you're getting at with your false dichotomy point.  If you're saying that SIRE information can be used interchangeably with genetic clusters, I'll refer you to the discussion in the source of the 99.86% number below where the authors conclude that is specifically not the case.  A.Prock 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason this keeps going in circles?
 * Editor A: "X is neither black nor white."
 * Editor B: "I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're saying that black is white, then let me take this opportunity to correct you."
 * Editor A: ???
 * Mediator, some assistance here would be kindly appreciated. -- Aryaman (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help if you could explain what is specifically I wrote that is confusing you. You may notice, that when I replied to your "false dichotomy" remark, it wasn't clear to me what point you were trying to convey.  That's why I put an if in front of my response.  I'm not saying that you said that.  I'm saying that I didn't understand what you said.  A.Prock 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the disagreement here is, either. here's what Im hearing when I read the above (please correct me if I'm wrong): The problem, I think, is that you're each worrying about a different form of misinterpretation. Aprock doesn't want to give the impression that there are actual, known, defined, genetic groups that specify races (I don't think anyone wants to give that impression, right?); Aryman doesn't want to give the impression that races are purely sociological categories without any genetic component (I don't think anyone wants to give that impression, either). It seems to me that the middle ground on this is already in place, but neither of you quite realizes that you're both arguing the same point. or am I missing it? -- Ludwigs 2 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aprock says: Studies that begin with sociological race can (ultimately) only make claims about sociological race, but doesn't deny that there's a correlation with genes.
 * Aryaman: Studies may begin with sociological race, but are reaching for a genetic/heritability claim that goes beyond sociological definitions of race, and thinks the social/genetic distinction is false.

arbitrary break

 * AProck said: "I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that our normal concept of race is not based on a genetic definition."
 * NOT everyone here believes that, no. To repeat something I'm sure you've read: 3,636 people gave DNA and identified themselves as being White, East Asian, African-American, or Hispanic. The self- identifications clustered almost perfectly according to 326 DNA markers.
 * What's your problem with this? By "genetic testing can't delineate race", do you mean that we do not have a list of ALL genes which differ between races? So what? The study shows that the "social construct" of race is not just an opinion, but corresponds to a physical reality in DNA. Something everyone here DOES believe is that self-reported race correlates with intelligence as measured by standard tests. Therefore, self-reported race, intelligence, and a physical reality in DNA all correlate. And strongly, too.  Whatever you want to define the word "race" as is now actually irrelevant.
 * By declaring "race doesn't exist in DNA" you've defined away any difference that does exist while ignoring the fact that self-reported race and intelligence are both related to the same genetic difference in DNA. You're trying to sweep it under the rug with semantic tricks. It's like talking to a republican about Obama.  No matter what he does, they've pre-decided that they don't like it, so manifestly logical arguments have no effect on them.


 * ALSO: Wapondaponda said (though he copied it directly from page 20 of Nisbett): "Lynn and others have published data that suggests that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70, which is borderline mental retardation. This data suggests that half of all Africans are mentally retarded, a suggestion that some people find preposterous."
 * "...And therefore it's not true." The fact that some people find it preposterous only means that the common use of the word "retarded" is inaccurate and cruel, and that people don't have to be drooling mongoloids in order to have an IQ of 70.
 * Suppressing information in Wikipedia because "some people" don't like the implications of peer-reviewed, replicated research: THAT'S preposterous. It's completely isomorphic to "Sure, it may LOOK like the moons go around Jupiter, but it can't say they do in the encyclopedia because some people find it preposterous that the Earth isn't the center of everything'".
 * My point is that the idea of race being a mere opinion instead of a biological attribute is pretty much the dictionary definition of "fringe science". It would invalidate literally EVERY established belief in science involving biological race, like the universally-held anthropological opinion that negroid humans migrated out of Africa 100,000 years ago and evolved into two other races. It's like we're having the Scopes trial again here at Wikipedia.


 * Including this fringe idea in Wikipedia at all is improper, but I'm willing to compromise and let it be one short section, modulo it include a statement that most experts DO believe that there are three (main) races of humans, that the contrary assertion appears only or almost only in R/I debates, and that other fields of science have no problem with the concept of biological race. However I'm willing to forgo including those statements in the name of consensus, so we can get this article completed and I can go back to learning stuff instead of defending the publication of that which is already known. Techno Faye Kane  10:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. This point of slrubenstein's which we've heard ad nauseum really needs to be put to rest. Yes, races are biological categories (exactly where they fall on the continuum between subspecies and family is no matter, I would say they are subspecies). No, we don't have a genetic definition. But the point of the research is to attempt to narrow down possible genetic components by comparing subpopulations, classified according to observable traits. As an analogy, Gregor Mendel classified plants based on observable traits. Then he studied the traits of offspring, and deduced genetic causes of traits. Was he aware of the genetics of the organisms before his study? No, because the point of the study was to deduce these genes. To attempt to shut down this research by essentially saying "you don't know what you're trying to find out" really is preposterous. And confusing social and genetic categories when we're looking at biological categories is really underhand. mikemikev (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's important not to confuse genetic traits with race. No one is denying that there are genes. A.Prock 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Genetic traits? Traits are by definition phenotypic. mikemikev (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree also, with one reservation. If I recall correctly, the correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters is 99.86%, so there are still going to be 0.16% of cases where the two don't correlate.  And at least in the past, there have been social definitions of race where the correlation was obviously a lot less, such as the “one-drop rule” that used to exist in the United States where any amount of African ancestry was enough for a person to be considered “black”.  The 19th-century idea of races as platonic categories with distinct boundaries, where a person can only belong to one or another, is not supported by biology.  In Jensen’s research about race and intelligence, the way he views races in a genetic sense is as “breeding populations with fuzzy boundaries” and he emphasizes that they can only be defined in statistical terms, so I think our article should make this clear.


 * I’m really concerned that a few tendentious editors here are in danger of preventing the resolution of this mediation, by refusing to compromise or accept what the consensus is about this. If Aprock agrees with what Varoon Arya is saying in his response here, then there are a total of seven users involved in this mediation who agree about how the article should portray the genetic aspect of race as it relates to race and intelligent research—you, me, TechnoFaye, Aprock, Varoon Arya, DJ, and David.Kane.  Consensus is more than just a vote, but in this case the argument that Slrubenstein is making has also been addressed multiple times before, both on this talk page and in the discussion for the Race and genetics article.  To any impartial observer, I think it’s pretty clear what the consensus is about this aspect of the article, and in order for the mediation to be successful we need to make sure that this fact is clearly established. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation and consensus is not about votes. It will really help if you stick to the issues, and try to be more patient. A.Prock 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m in no hurry about this. It just matters to me that the mediation not drag on for an additional two months, or even longer than that, because of a group of two or three editors continuously stonewalling the discussion and refusing to accept any compromise. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that things will occur more efficiently if you don't assume that stonewalling is occurring. A.Prock 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe myself to be stonewalling, and I do not consider it at all inappropriate to suggest that the article on race and intelligence use the official statements on race and intelligence by the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association as science. I do object to TechnoFaye characterizing "social construction" as "opinion;" that simply indicates that she does not understand what social scientists mean by social construction. It definitely does not mean "opinion."

I am curious about the claim that when people identify themselves as belonging to a race, this may indicate genetic cause to differences in IQ. I feel much more confident about geneticists making thse claims. That a person feels an identification with a particular race - and TechnoFaye, if you are looking for "opinion," surely this is where opinion most clearly enters into the discussion - should not be taken to say anything about genetics, one way or the other. That person is not a geneticist (or, we hae not been told that he or she is).

I am very concerned that there are editors making judgments on the research by anthropologists and sociologists, that either involve dismissing these academic disciplines (which are the seats for research on race) entirely, or are founded on serious misunderstandings of social science research. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, these objections are becoming tediously repetitious. We all know that you don't like the fact that psychologists believe they can design studies on "sociological" race which can tell us something about genes and their contribution to cognitive development. I'm beginning to doubt that you understand how these studies are designed and conducted. But that's secondary, and even forgiveable. The primary problem here is that you refuse to accept that studies such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study are recognized as legitimate science. And that is what makes your participation here appear to be disruptive stonewalling rather than constructive collaboration. -- Aryaman (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your point about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. I have never said anything about it have? Can you explain what your point is, introducing it here? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the topic of discussion when you jumped in with your comment - the one that was later moved to head of this section. Given the context, it's hard to interpret your comment as not applying to the MTAS. But, even if you were responding out of ignorance to the context of the portion you so ably highlighted, it doesn't change the fact that, given the content of your comments, you're still rejecting the basis upon which studies such as the MTAS were conducted a priori. You're arguing against the entire discipline of behavioural genetics on the grounds of your philosophy of science, which is holding everything up, seeing as a good deal of this article will treat the results of such research. -- Aryaman (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject a mediation comment. I think the slr's worry (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is on the order of 'correlation ≠ causation'. It is one thing to say that there are socially defined 'races' which correlate with certain genetic characteristics; it's another thing to say that race is caused by genetic characteristics. The difference is marginal when you think about overt physical features (e.g. skin color and facial bone structures, which are associated with race both socially and genetically - it's almost tautological), but problems arise when you start thinking about 'covert' characteristics like intelligence: The first statement leaves an open question as to whether intelligence might be one of the characteristics that correlates with SDR, while the second statement tends to presume that races will naturally differ on a broad range of characteristics, making a stronger case that intelligence differs by race. I don't know how to resolve this, or even if it needs to be resolved; I'm just trying to express the concern more clearly. -- Ludwigs 2 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From my perspective it's more along the lines of what's being suggested right now. It seems like some editors think that sociological race and genetic race are effectively equivalent.  This is currently not the mainstream scientific position, and interpreting past research on sociological race as representative of genetic race constitutes original research. A.Prock 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do care about the correlation does not equal causation issue, but that is something for scientists to deal with. I am instead concerned with Arya and others constant posturing about what is real science.  To reply to Arya, I added my comment in response to the post that immediately preceded it.  I would rather you interpret my comments based on what is actually in them, compared to what you are imagining in your mind.  As for the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, the original scientists concluded that the difference in IQ was social not genetic.  They and others have pointed out many times that the only variable that was change was family environment - which I agree is important, but is NOT the same thing as changing the social environment; the social environment of the children did not change and this point leads to an issue with the a priori basis for such experiments.  The kinds of environmental forces that sociologists and anthropologists believe are affecting IQ scores cannot be manipulated experimentally.  This does not mean that they cannot be studied scientifically, it just means that it would be bad science to try to study them through an experiment.  A good scientific study would have to be more creative.  Sometime after the Minnesota experiment other scholars used the data to ague that inheritance explained the difference in IQ and the original designers of the experiment replied that this was a misinterpretation of the data based on an oversimplified reading of the experiment.  My point: one has to interpret the results of such experiments very cautiously.  Not to do so is one of the markers of fringe science.  Using a cookie-cutter approach to method, interpreting results casually, these are hall-marks of fringe science, which is why the AAA and APA recognize them to be fringe science.  I have never argued against the scientific study of race and intelligence - geneticists using twin studies are doing good science.  But there are a group of psychologists who do not have training in genetics and are not using the scintific methods of geneticists and then claim that their findings are scientifically valid conclusions about genetics?  To me this is an insult to science, but again, lets leave my personal POV at the door: the APA and AAA consider this fringe science.


 * Ludwigs2, people accuse me of stonewalling. But I am increasingly frustrated by other editors (a couple of which are suddenly active here but never edited the R&I article) who agree that race is a social construct but then insist that it can be the basis for a genetic argument.  That is just dogmatism.  Aprock has responded to them very capably, and I agree with all her points.  I'll conclude by reiterating that I just wan to use the AAA and APA official statements a guidelines for what is fringe science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let me see if I can summarize the various positions here. we have: are there any other positions?
 * race is (almost) entirely a sociological construct.
 * races are biological categories (somewhere on the continuum between subspecies and family)

I do think I need to clarify one thing (speaking as a scientist). the high correlation between self-defined races and genetic clusters (I assume you actually mean to say that the correlation is close to 1 or genetic clusters account for 99.86% of the variability - the original phrase is meaningless) is not as powerful a statement as one might think. The way we identify race in daily life is by observing physical characteristics: i.e. I see someone and I determine that they are of african descent because of skin color, bone structure, differences in body type, and etc (funny story - I went years thinking that Halle Berry was white until someone corrected me on it). these kinds of physical characteristics are of course genetically determined, and so the 'daily life' definition of race will naturally correlate highly with certain genetic markers. However, this is a bit like walking out on St. Patrick's day and trying to determine people's Irishness by the color of their clothes. you'll be very accurate if you do that - almost every Irishkin I know sports the green on St Paddy's - but it would be stretching it a bit to say there's a genetic predisposition towards green shirts. this doesn't refute the possibility of a genetic basis, I'm just pointing out I don't think you can make the case that this correlation means anything more than that the social definition of race is based on the observation of features that are in turn based in genetics. -- Ludwigs 2


 * Well, when "race" is used by an ornithologist or entymologist or ichtheologist, the word is synonymous with "subspecies." So there is a context in which biologists use the word race to refer to something biological. The thing is, this simply does not apply to hman beings.  No credible biologist - none- claim that the existing subspecies of Homo, sapiens sapiens has any further taxonomic subdivisions.  For all intents and purposes, H. Sapiens is it.  So there are no other subspecies of H. sapiens.  So in the biological sense, race does not apply to human beings.


 * There is only one sense in which race does apply to human beings and that is as a social construction. For this reason, how people have defined race, or classified people according to races, has changed over time and still varies from country to country. Some societies do not divide people into races at all.  Of course, in societies where race is an important social construction it has been a very powerful one.


 * I think your point about identifying who is Irish on St. Patrick's day to be useful. here is another analogy: for over a thousand years Jews in Europe were prohibited from owning land; as a result many turned to commerce.  By the 17th century Jews had a reputation of being good with money.  Now, if you took DNA samples of all those Jewish merchants and bankers, you would indeed discover a high degree of relatedness.  And if you tested these same people on their financial acuity, most would score high.  I am just giving you back another correlation/causality warning.  Mainstream scientists do not need to be told this; they get it and try to take account of it in their research design (the people who set up the Minnesota multiracial study tried to be very careful about this, and as a result reached conclusions that some editors here seem to wish to ignore).  Fringe scientists do not care.  Alas, many Wikipedians cannot tell the difference.  But it is not for me to explain to any other Wikipedian why Rushton is fringe science.  I'd rather just use the APA and AAA statements as standards for distinguishing between mainstream and fringe science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR - can we avoid use of the word 'fringe' here? it tends to get people's dander up, and confuses the real issue (which is more a concern over word use than actual scientific validity) -- Ludwigs 2  03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding positions, I don't care much about whether race is real, pretend, genetic, social or a pigment of our imaginations. What's important is that mainstream scientific understanding is represented.  A.Prock 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, presumably you consider Richard Dawkins a credible biologist:

"We can happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edward’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." mikemikev (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide the reference for that please? A.Prock 16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ancestor's Tale, 2004, Richard Dawkins. mikemikev (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another credible biologist that comes to mind is Ernst W. Mayr. See: The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality.--XO^10 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * XO^10: pelase refrain from jumping into mediation discussions without signing onto the agreements and participating fully. if you just want to throw in single point, talk to someone who is a dedicated participant and convince them to include it for you.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to just throw this bomb out there without providing much in the way of detail, but I'm not sure that it's going to be easy to summarize the relationship of culture, genetics and "race" in a sufficiently precise and pithy way while also being neutral. Making such a difficult challenge a precursor to other work may be too much. A more achievable goal is to make a narrowly tailored attempt to present the diversity of views on what that topic (culture, genetics and race) says about this topic (race and intelligence). --DJ (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)