Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 8

Amerindians
The source used to place "amerindians" in the hierarchy does not mention "amerindians" or "native americans" or even "injuns" even once. It is a study of hispanics in the US - any connection of Hispanics to a purported amerindian race is an ntroduction by David KAne - not by the authors of the study. In fact some of the same authors in another, related study write: "The purpose of this article is to meta-analyze majority–minority differences in measures of job performance. We focus on Black–White and Hispanic–White standardized differences because they are two of the largest minority groups in the United States. We do not focus on either Asians or Native Americans because there was not sufficient information available to analyze." This clearly states that the authors are not making any claims about amerindian IQ, but solely about "hispanics in the US". It is very problematic that David Kane seemingly finds it unproblematic to reinterpret the studies findings substituting "hispanic in the US" with "Amerindian": a misrepresentation and synthesis at the very least. ·Maunus· ƛ · 06:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which again brings up the perennial problem here, aside from the "heritability" vs. "environment" issue -- in its full context, the term "race" refers to a social construct that ultimately involves both heredity (DNA/genes traced back with some uncertainty to some theoretical geographic origin) and environment (i.e. the perception of others and its effects on the individual). The article, and the lede, still tend to treat "race" as something that is readily defined and purely biological. Steveozone (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this problem has become greater in David Kane's version, which completely takes for granted that a common sense definition of race is unproblematic in a scientific context.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to clarify, the lede proposed by Arya does better to point the way for this article. At this point in time, regardless of the extent of current research, and in the clear absence of any scientific consensus, it seems that all involved here would agree that this article will have to be primarily about the controversy in the research, and the reasons why it is controversial, heritability vs. environment, "Amerindian" vs. "Hispanic", "Black" vs. "White", "g" vs. "intelligence", etc., etc.  The elusive conception of "race" is a key point of contention in this ongoing controversy that should be explained as such. Steveozone (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on this issue from Steveozone and Maunus. If there is consensus to remove this phrase, that would be fine by me. See below for some corrections on the above and an explanation for why I included it.


 * Maunus: Please read the whole article. Roth et al is not the only reference to Amerindian IQ. Virtually, every article cited by Lynn and co-authors mentions this topic and,I think, uses similar language. Note also these two citations: and . So, I needed a single word that covered all these groups. Which word would you suggest?


 * Steveozone: I agree that both leads take "for granted that a common sense definition of race is unproblematic in a scientific context." But, first, note that this applies just as much to the other lead as to mine. Asian American is just as problematic a concept as East Asian. And, for the record, the version of the lead that I wrote a few weeks ago, including an (small) discussion of precisely that issue. In fact, MathSci criticized it most strongly!I would have no problem if this were to be added back in.


 * Keep in mind that there is a range of views about the use of race in this article. I faced a difficult choice in deciding which "races" to mention. Both leads agree, I think, that at least three (Asian, Black, White) should be mentioned. But what about Amerindians or Australian natives or . . . ? There are many editors who think that Richard Lynn's work deserves more prominent play and that his more fine-grained race classification should be used. Others strongly disagree. I had hoped that adding Amerindians in the lead might split the difference. David.Kane (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok what evidence suggests that it is not problematic to see hispanic americans, baffinland eskimos and canadian first nation youthes as representatives of a single amerindian race? Why is it not a problem to extend conclusions based mostly on data from british and american persons of african heritage to the entire population of Africa? The problem is that when you extrapolate different kinds of studies of different kinds of groups to conclusions about other supercategories that may or may not have an actual biological definition you completely lose sight of what the data actually says (this is synthesis). The only guarantee we have for saying that different studies are compatible enough to draw general conclusions by syntthesising them is if we only rely on statements by reliable sources. In this case which source explicitly claims that "amerindians" are inbetween blacks and whites in the putative hierarchy? The biggest problem however is that using racial categories as if they were unproblematic is a gross misrepresentation of the majority view. In order make a hierarchy of racial categories and their intelligence youd first have to argue that "black" "white", "asian" or "amerindian" are valid racial categories (or at the very least explain how or why they are - and in which sense). Furthermore most of the studies include persons based on selfidentification - then what guarantee is there that the persons are in fact biologically members of a specific biological racial group (if such does even exist)? I think that your diffed version at least does a good job of showing that the two assumptions are controversial, I also like the fact that it brings all the arguments against the heritability hypothesis to the forefront. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maunus: Perhaps we agree more than we disagree?
 * We agree that racial groupings are problematic and that this fact should be included in the lead. We agree that my previous lead (however brief) did this in useful way with appropriate sourcing. Once the current debate has settled down, we agree that someone should add that in.
 * We agree that Amerindian is problematic. I agree whole-heartedly with (almost) everything you write above. But don't you agree that all the same objections apply to a category like Asian American? If so, then your objection is not just to me lead versus the other lead but to both our leads because, I suppose, you want a lead that does not include specific racial groups. And, indeed, that would be reasonable, which is why a version that I offered along time ago (I think) did not.
 * We agree (correct me if I am wrong) that the article should be covered by consensus and that if the consensus is that specific ratial groups should be mentioned in the lead (and every editor, I think, agrees with that), then those racial groupings, linked to the appropriate Wikipedia pages, should be mentioned. David.Kane (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we agree a lot then - that is good. But then I am a little unclear about why you changed the lead as you did. I don't think all the same objections apply to Asian American but obviously most of them do. As for which racial groups to include I think the ideal way to do it would be to find an authoritative introductory text and use that as a reference - if it says "whites" and "afro americans" or "caucasians" and "africans" then we could use that phrasing and use that secondary source as a reference. If we cannot find a summary of the debate that explicitly mentions particular ethno-racial groups then we shouldn't. If there is a discrepancy between introductory texts we could not that. I think this issue is too large and too controversial for us as editors to struggle with the original studies and I think we should try to rely on secondary sources such as introductory summaries by authoritative figures or bodies such as the APA or textbooks in psychology or genetics (e.g this one: Friedrich Vogel, Arno G. Motulsky 1997 Human genetics: problems and approaches p. 706). I furthermore think that if any racial groups are to be mentioned explicitly it should also explicitly be stated in what way that racial group is defined and by whom - with a reference.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are close to agreement.
 * The lead was changed (to remove the parts about controversy) both by other editors and by me at the request of other editors. In time, I hope to add it back. Or you could!
 * If there were an accepted textbook that covered all these issues and was widely accepted, then, of course, we should use that. But, as best I can tell, there is not. Does the one you cite above cover Race and Intelligence? If so, what terminology does it use? Again, I am flexible on terminology. I just think that Asian American is clearly wrong.
 * Given the lack of a textbook, I have done the best I can. Mackintosh (which all agree is a good source), using the terminology white and black, as do many other researchers. So, I did too. In the US, the standard term would be Asian, but this would, obviously, be confusing to non-US English speakers, or at least those in the UK. So, I went with East Asian which is also widely used. I came up with Amerindian by looking around Wikipedia! (Perhaps Lynn also uses this terminology?) David.Kane (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is important is not the terminology, but the definitions and how these definitions relate to the data. The Motulsky book does what is in my view essentially correct and separates the studies made in the US without making generalizations about populations not studied. Check it out here ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think we disagree on this. But, again, th lead must either pick specific terms or provide a list of such terms. How would you write it? David.Kane (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus raises major issues, which illustrate nicely MathSci's earlier concerns. David, this is not simply a matter of removing the word "Amerindian." It is a matter of your complying with NPOV and NOR, and in these cases it looks like you are violating them. The solution is to (1) represent each view accurately. If Jensen or Lynn or Rushton uses the term Amerindian, say so. but (2) make it clear that this is a view. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind if I reply to each of these (reasonable) comments in turn. Let's avoid the complexities of Amerindian and look at Whites. What word/phrase/listing would you use for Whites in the lead of this article? Please be specific. I went with Whites and VA used White American. Is one of us failing to comply with NPOV and NOR? I agree that, in the body of the article, we should make clear that specific study X is looking at population Y. But, in the lead, we are summarizing the article, so we need to use a generic term of some sort that covers the topic. We can't just "represent each view accurately" because, in the lead, we can't mention all views. And note that the studies use a bewildering away of terms, often meaning the same thing. One could defend the use of Caucasian race. In fact, Ludwig uses Caucasians (with no link) in his lead. David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus's main point is that the article should not treat "races" as real, let alone "white" or "caucasian" or "black" or "Negro" as real. These are concepts that pertain to particular views. The principal task of the article is to represent all major views, but it must make clear that each view is ... a view. That means that you can summarize particular views, but in your summaries you cannot take any one view for granted. This is not a matter of saying "there are different views about the difference between IQ scores of whites and blacks." It is also a matter of saying "some researchers believe that races are biologically real and that African Americans and Africans can be treated as belonging to the same population. Other researchers argue that race is a social construct and that one cannot generalize from a small sample of African Americans, to make claims about people living in Africa."


 * We have an article entitled Race and Intelligence and you propose that race not be treated as "real?" Are races imaginary? What is the opposite of real in this context? I am confused. I had something very similar to your suggestion in my version of the lead two weeks ago. I believe that it ought to be added back. David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way, yes. It is a significant and widely held viewpoint that "race" is a social construct (not exactly the same as imaginary but also not the same as "real").·Maunus· ƛ · 10:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also why it is important to make it clear, in presenting the data on IQ scores, that race is SIRE. ... that when one looks at "race" in regards to the date, race is SIRE.


 * Agreed. I added that to the article. I would be happy to see it mentioned in the lead. David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also why it is important to say something about statistics - the relationship between sample size and standard deviation on the one hand, and one's ability to generalize (is the sample representative?) and make comparisons (are the differences significant?)


 * In the lead or in the article? Either way, I love statistics, so feel free to add something about this. David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, it means including an account of arguments between the psychometricians who contribute to Intelligence (for example) and anthropologists and sociologists who have also published about the race & intelligence research. These debates among researchers may be heated - one published researcher may even say that another published researcher's point is "bullshit." So what? It is not our job to say who is right, it is our job to help readers understand these conflicts and differences of view without suggesting one view is right. "Right" and "wrong" are not our business. Our business is explaining different kinds of views (e.g. social psychologists versus cognitive psychologists; psychologists versus biologists versus sociologists, etc) and we have to distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority, and fringe views. That is how we handle this stuff. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed! But, to be clear, no "fringe views" are in the current draft. This was settled in mediation, wasn't it? David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * David asks, "We have an article entitled Race and Intelligence and you propose that race not be treated as 'real?'" No, I did not write that.  What I did write is that they not be taken for granted.  If you are not sure what I mean, please focus on what I did write, and not what I did not write.  The point is not to take them for granted.


 * David asks, "Are races imaginary?" No, I did not say that either.  I did write that they are "concepts" and "views."  If this does not make sense to you, then you have to reread our NPOV policy again. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What constitutes a fringe view depends on the academic discipline, and psychology is only one of the academic disciplines concerned with race and intelligence research. Among anthropologists, and among evolutionary biologists who specialize in humans, the idea that races are biologically real is a minority view. Maybe it is not for psychologists, but if this article includes only the views of psychologists it is violating NPOV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate overview
I took my first whack at editing the article. You are aware of my level of familiarity with Wiki and formatting issues, so please feel free to fix any screw ups I made. I do think the material here is key (i.e., this is the way the vast majority of research in this area tests whether an explanation for the race gap is any good). Feel free to polish the writing. If it's so crappy someone decides to revert it back, I am ok with that, but if so, please provide feedback as to why it sucks.

Bpesta22 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of the section you wrote to "methodology" as it was not actually describing any debate but rather the methods used for designing research experiments in race and intelligence studies. I took the liberty to write another section describing some of the background factors in the debate especially the ethical and political background for the controversy and the postmodernist sociological exceptions to treating socially constructed categories such as intelligence and race as unproblematic objects of scientific research.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate assumptions section
I'm disappointed. This again seems wholly lopsided and includes at least one inaccurate statement. I know of no scholar who claims that g as measured by an IQ test is the only type of intelligence. It's also QED true that g can be abstracted from the inter-correlations of sub tests or test items from an IQ test. It's also QED true that g has massive predictive validity. It is the most powerful variable in social science. One would be surprised to know this is the consensus when the section here reads like an apology that wiki would even need an article debunking such junk science.

Gould and Gardner are fringe views in that neither has any data showing that a non-g measure of IQ predicts things, or are relevant to the race and IQ debate (which is squarely a debate about race differences on g).

I hate to be the guy who threatens to take his ball and go home, but this is starting to become a waste of my time (most of the history section, and now this, are horribly lopsided).

Stick to only what we know we're measuring and these straw men become obvious. We have data on IQ test scores (and sometimes g extracted from IQ test batteries or items; though the correlation between the two is pretty close to unity) and SIRE. The race gap, statistically, is large (d=1.0 using Cohen's measure of effect size, where .60 is considered large). The gap maps on nicely to a host of important social outcomes, from health rates, crime, education, income levels and job performance. Yet, none of this is being discussed. Instead, the article is starting to read like one big apology. This is what needs explaining, either by appeal to environmental or genetic factors. I can't point to anywhere in the article where this stuff is even summarized in a way that let's the reader know this is what the debate is for mainstream scientists doing work in the area (is it helpful that some guy's dissertation in 1916 was likely motivated by racism? Are mainstream scientists today citing this seminal work?).

I'm not even claiming there's solid evidence for the GH. Trash it completely and demand that race be defined genetically with 100% precision before we can argue it's an explanation. I'd much prefer that cop out to ignoring the data.

So, this puts me in an awkward position. I don't demand that any of my comments be incorporated into your article. Yet I did have some hope that Wiki's reputation would lend itself to a balanced article about the science. I'm not even placing blame here, as reliable internet sources all seem to turn into ostriches when discussing this topic. I do appreciate the effort people have made here, but it's starting to look like a (tamer) version of scienceblogs.

That said, I do like the idea of an FAQ which might help the reader understand why the current article is what it is (and not all of the current article suffers from the factors I mention above). Bpesta22 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't complain on the talk page. Just fix the article yourself. You have the power. Start with the assumption section, since it is in the article and the history section is not yet. David.Kane (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote the lopsided debate assumptions section and I acknowledge it may be lopsided - I urge you to go ahead and correct any factual errors and to add additional assumptions and viewpoints. My point in writing it was not to suggest that this section should be included as is, but that at least some material about the background and reasons of controversy should be included, and I found that all of the basic views of the non-hereditarian side were missing (ethics, problems with defining race and intelligence etc.)·Maunus· ƛ · 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly reasonable. For the record, I included such material in a previous version and got accused of using WP:WEASEL words. So it goes! I will try to dig up that material and add it in. As always, nothing wrong with a flawed first draft as long as other editors are welcome to improve it. Needless to say, everyone of the specific toipic sections would benefit from further editing and additions. David.Kane (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys; sorry if I was overly dramatic. Bpesta22 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are having a discussion of whether mediation should be closed, so your view that there are still gaps in the article is important. No need to apologize!! I do think that, quite unlike even collaborative writing for a peer-reviewed journal article, you will find editing a Wikipedia often to be frustrating and irritating.  This is because you are co-writing an article with everyone involved in this mediation(and theoretically with any future editor).  That means that some things will end up in the article that you just think are absurd.  So you say Gould is fringe.  I say he is not.  The only way I can see a compromise between us is: we include Gould, and we include any critique of Gould you want to add, properly sourced, and a statement that psychologists or psychometricians consider his views fringe, properly sourced.  Can you live with that?  For what it is worth, I hate that.  But that is how collaborative writing at Wikipedia works. I add a view you don't take seriously, you can add views I do not take seriously.  We include critiques of different views.  As long as it can be well-written from a purely stylistic perspective, we actually are making progress.


 * Above, you wrote, "We have data on IQ test scores (and sometimes g extracted from IQ test batteries or items; though the correlation between the two is pretty close to unity) and SIRE. The race gap, statistically, is large (d=1.0 using Cohen's measure of effect size, where .60 is considered large). The gap maps on nicely to a host of important social outcomes, from health rates, crime, education, income levels and job performance." I am not sure I agree with everything you wrote, and if I can find sources contesting what you wrote, I will add them.  But I will not object to your adding these views to the artcicle.  The only rule, and it is Wikipedia's rule, not mine, is that you present the above as a view or set of views, that you identify whose view or viws it is, and that you provide citations to reliable sources.  Ithink that this is reasonable.  I hope you will be gratified knowing that views you consider essential are in the article.  You just have to make it clear that these are views, and whose views they are.  Do you consider this unfair? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add my 2¢, Bpesta (and at the risk of turning you into a full-fledged wikiholic), I think if you started editing the article yourself, you'd do wonders for making it a decent, balanced article. I know you just came here to help us out, but there's no reason for you to disappear at the end of the mediation.  As slr says, wikipedia is an odd and often frustrating place to work, but...   -- Ludwigs 2  21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. Just to make sure you have 2-1/4  cents, Bpesta, do stay around and keep contributing, in the talk page or the article page.  I don't agree with everything you've said, but no matter one's viewpoint, those of us here who value quality recognize that it's important to maintain input from opposing views (especially those who can thoughtfully and after reflection state cogent points based on reliable sources, rather than stuffing in "juicy quotes" from "something that looks rather intellectual"). Steveozone (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the 'Significance' section
Reference: The section being referred to would draw material from here, an earlier version of the article. I've opened this thread to discuss the inclusion and nature of a Significance section in the article. I know there's a dispute over this, but I am not sure of the full details of what's being debated. can someone clarify? -- Ludwigs 2 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no outline for the section, the model on which it is based give undue weight to the controversial researchers, and it's not clear that there is any measurable significance related to the racial IQ gap'. The original version is essentially a 1700 word essay which confuses correlation and causation. A.Prock (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's take this discussion one sub-section at a time. I'd like to start with Controlling for IQ, as this sub-section contains information I think is very difficult to see as being irrelevant to the article. What specific objections are there to including the material contained in this sub-section? -- Aryaman (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the Significance section, it'll be better to start with a rationalle and an outline.  A.Prock (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a link at the top of this section, just above Ludwigs' comment. I'd find it difficult to produce a defensible outline without having evaluated the quality/relevance of the information which it is to contain. I'm assuming that's what we're here to do, i.e. evaluate the material in this section and see what needs to be done with it before it goes in the article, if at all. Am I missing something here? -- Aryaman (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's difficult coming up with a defensible outline, that seems like an indication that there are other real problems. The material isn't even an issue yet.  Without understanding what the section is supposed to be about, anything could go in there.  You may remember that that was one of my earlier comments.  The section description was far too vague to serve as any kind of guide as to what would be covered.  A.Prock (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand VA, correctly, what he’s saying is that there are three steps we need to accomplish with this section, each of which needs to be completed before we can do the step after it. The steps are:


 * 1: Look at the material this section would contain, and evaluate its quality and relevance. (To know what topics this section would be about, we can look at the link Ludwig posted.)
 * 2: Write the outline of this section, based on the material that we’ve agreed is relevant enough to go in it.
 * 3: Write the section. (Or perhaps have David.Kane write it for us, if he’s going to continue being our main writer.)


 * The only reason we can’t do step #2 right now is because we haven’t done step #1 yet. This doesn’t indicate anything specific about problems with this material, because we would have the exact same problem with any section of the article if we were trying to write an outline for it before we’d established for certain what topics it would cover.  Determining what topics it would cover is what we’re trying to do now.  Most of us would be fine with covering all of the same topics that are covered in the section Ludwig linked to, albeit in condensed form, but since you’ve said you have a problem with this idea we need to find some sort of compromise with you about it.


 * Varoon Arya suggested that we discuss the potential content of this section one topic at a time, starting with the sub-section titled controlling for IQ. (This sub-section can be found in the section from the January 20 version of the article that Ludwig linked to.)  Do you have any specific objections to including the information that’s in this section? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When you have figured out what the section should be about, and have an outline, let me know. A.Prock (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We’ve known what this section would be about since we first began discussing its possible inclusion last month. It would be about the same topics as the earlier version of this section that Ludwig linked to, minus any that you can provide a convincing rationale for leaving out.


 * Are you saying that you won’t be willing to tell us which of the topics covered there you’d have a problem with being in the article until after we write the outline for this section? That seems like a kind of backwards way of handling this, but if it’s what you insist, I guess I’ll wait for VA to make a proposal about the outline for it.  (Since he’s who wrote the outline for the rest of article, I’m assuming he ought to write the outline for this part also; I hope he doesn’t have a problem with that.) --Captain Occam (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me make sure I'm getting this right. Aprock has objected to the inclusion of this material in the article on the grounds that it has "no relevance to the issue of race and intelligence" and/or that it gives "undue weight to controversial researchers". I've requested that we address his concerns before attempting to frame an outline for the section, as that seems to me to be the most efficient way of going about resolving the issue. He, in turn, has requested someone produce an outline for the section before we discuss his concerns. Is that a fair summary? -- Aryaman (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aprock has not refused to discuss these issues. My reading of Aprock's comment is that, until he sees some concrete input with specific suggestions, eg sentences on a subpage, it's not possible to discuss content. Otherwise put: it is impossible to discuss vague suggestions until they have been turned into more concrete proposals envisaged for the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I don't understand. There is a concrete section we're discussing - chock full of real sentences and everything - and it's linked at the head of this discussion. I don't consider this vague at all. The easiest move would be to copy and paste it into the article and then improve it from there, but Aprock has objected to this. This is the discussion where we're supposed to find out what Aprock (or whoever else) doesn't like about the section so we can start attempting to address his concerns. I'm having a hard time figuring out where the sticking point in all of this is. -- Aryaman (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman: please try to avoid psychological statements. the fact that A.Prock hasn't yet explained himself is not a 'refusal' to do so. patience, please. allow him to look over the draft and decide how he wants to approach the issue, at least for a bit. I would appreciate it if you'd go back over your last few posts in this section and strike out the more demanding-sounding phrases. perhaps the best thing would be for you to copy the proposed section over here (put it in a quote box) so that we can examine it concretely. -- Ludwigs 2 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed and/or struck what I'm guessing sounded "demanding". If I didn't get it all, help me out. As for copying and pasting the section over here: Do we really want to do that? It's (currently) a largish section, and there are ca. 50 in-line citations. I personally find it easier to work in multiple windows (I'm not a fan of scrolling), but if others would find it helpful, I'd have no problem doing it. -- Aryaman (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the idea is to take that section wholesale and put it into the current article, then you should surely be able to summarize what the section is about and provide an outline. I'm not at all interested in going into a point by point critique of that section until we have a summary of the section and an outline.  The entire rest of the rewrite is being approached that way, I don't see how it's not possible to do with what seems to be a 1700 word section.  Remember, the goal of the mediation was to come up with an agreed outline before the particulars of content were to be decided.A.Prock (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I assumed Aprock's specific objection to the content of this section rightfully called for a different approach, e.g. examining the content in light of his objections before trying to put together an outline we could agree on. I see that consideration was unnecessary on my part. Sorry for the inconvenience. Here's what I think Aprock is asking for.

Summary: This section should summarize research regarding the salient aspects of the real-world (e.g. social, academic, economic) impact of the IQ gap on societies as well as on the individuals within them.

Current outline:


 * Significance of group IQ differences
 * Within societies
 * Scope
 * Practical importance
 * Controlling for IQ
 * Between nations
 * For high-achieving minorities

As far as I know, DJ was largely responsible for this outline. -- Aryaman (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify here, is the section only supposed to summarize research into the impact of the racial IQ gap? I don't have a problem including a section about research into the impact of the IQ gap.  But if that's the criterion, not much of the original content falls under that scope. A.Prock (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to throw in a structural comment, just for consideration. This outline seems to be conflating several different areas of significance.  For instance, in my own head I think in terms of 'political significance' (laws, policies, etc), 'social significance' (practices and functional social organization, within and across communities), and 'theoretical significance' (how this debate influences other scholarly areas), all of which play out across all of the outlines sections.  for instance, 'between nations' could refer to discourses in the discipline of International Relations, or policies adopted by the UN, or immigration laws, or social exclusionism (such as the occasional problems that crop up in France and Germany over Turkish and Arab migrant workers and refugees).  Would it be better to restructure it along those lines (assuming there's proper sourcing), or am I missing a point somewhere? -- Ludwigs 2  21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly why we should have this discussion. The current outline is not without problems, and I see several ways to re-organize this material, which could include removing some of it, supplementing it with additional information, and/or re-structuring the entire section with a new sub-division and headings. I've had a healthy dose of criticism for writing up the outline for the main article, so forgive me if I do not jump at the chance to re-structure this on my own. I'd prefer to approach this with a discussion and evaluation of the material that is there, and see what could be done to improve it, either in content or in form. But I think I've already said enough here for the time being, and should wait for Occam, DJ and others to voice their opinions. -- Aryaman (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * VA, I don’t think I’m as good at organizing things as you and DJ are. I agree that the material ought to be condensed due to size concerns, but coming up with an entire new way of organizing it really isn’t my forte.  However, if any other editors want to make suggestions about alternative structures, I’ll gladly offer my feedback about them, the same as I’ve done for the outline you made for the rest of the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is anyone else going to offer an outline about this? I can try to come up with one myself if you and DJ really don’t want to, but it probably won’t be as good as what either of you could do. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

comparison of ledes
reading these over, I think it's clear that DK's lede privileges the hereditarian approach a bit, while Mathsci's privileges the environmental approach. neither is horribly biased, mind you, that's just the way they lean. I personally prefer Mathsci's version, except for the last paragraph (which comes off as a stomp and grind, though I don't think that was intentional). would it be possible to take the first two paragraphs of Mathsci's lede and blend in extracts from paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of DK's lede? I think we might find a nice neutral statement that way. -- Ludwigs 2 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have brought up the abuse of WP editing procedures on WP:ANI. David.Kane has ignored consensus and written one of the worst ledes I have ever seen in my experience as a wikipedia editor. I take a lot of trouble locating and using sources in writing articles: this process is slow. I even provided some downloaded sources on my wikipedia web page for David.Kane. In the meantime, even if mediation terminates soon, I have ordered the books of Mackintosh and Jefferson Fish. Then, when normal edting resumes, not pushed by WP:SPAs, editing of the article can proceed in a more cautious and standard way. There is no need for editors to invent or suppress important details when writing the lede. That is the very worst kind of editing. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The writing in Arya's seems a bit more polished but I don't really see content differences across the two-- at least not big ones. I'm ok with either, except for perhaps suggesting minor wording changes.

Bpesta22 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * well, there are subtle but important differences. for instance, DK's version seems to presume that both race and intelligence are themselves non-problematic concepts, which might be misleading.  and then there are tonal differences ('Proponents of the environmental interpretation' vs. 'Far more controversial is the claim...' about genetics).  these kinds of emphatic distinctions tend to get put under a magnifying glass by editors, and cause a world of headaches.  otherwise I agree with you.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Ludwig for organizing this discussion. I have made the following assumptions about the article/consensus. These assumptions explain why I like my lead better. But, I could be wrong. I have broken up these issues into separate sections for ease of discussion. Please provide your comment where you see fit. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI - I've restored Aryaman's lead for the duration of this discussion, because that was the last version which I know had consensus. this isn't a judgment; just keeping things fair.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(mediator note: compacting DK's sections into a bulleted list. -- Ludwigs 2  04:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The article is not US-specific. -Race and Intelligence is not, by design (and consensus, I assume) Race and Intelligence in the United States. It covers the globe (to the extent that our sources do). For example, (to cite a source used by me in the article) N. J. Mackintosh (1998) IQ and Human Intelligence discusses the black-white difference in the context of both the US and Britain. So, terms like African American should not be used in the lead. We need terms that are not country specific. I am not claiming that my specific choices are best. For example, I used East Asian rather than Asian to avoid confusion with the British meaning of Asian. But using terms/links like African American in the lead is certainly wrong. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of the first sentence should be Race and Intelligence - Do I even need to quote WP:LEAD? "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Mine is. Note, also, how my first sentence parallels the first sentence of Sex and Intelligence (which I did not write). David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Specific IQ scores or not? - Assuming that we can agree on non-US specific terms, we have the decision about whether or not to include specific IQ scores. As you can see, neither version above does. But I also recognize that several other editors (I think including Faye, Occam, Bpesta and Mike) wanted to include average scores (100 for White, 85 for Black, et cetera). In seeking consensus between this group and those that disagree, I thought that being very explicit in the ranking, including the US of greater-than-signs, is a useful middle ground. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioning specific researchers - It would be reasonable to not mention specific researchers in the lead. It is reasonable to mention researchers from both sides, as I have done. It is not reasonable to only mention specific researchers who are heriditarian. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Amerindians - One of the primary sources I am relying on is Roth, P. L.; Bevier, C. A.; Bobko, P.; Switzer, F. S.; Tyler, P. (2001). "Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis". Personnel Psychology. It has extensive discussion of the difference between Whites and Hispanics. Is that difference an important part of the article? I think so. The article is Race and Intelligence not Black-White IQ Gap. So, the inclusion of this group in the lead makes sense. (I also think that this helps to balance the concerns of editors who wanted explicit scores included.) I think the term Amerindians is best in this context, but, again, I am flexible on what terminology to use, as long as it is not US-specific. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conciseness - I think that my version is much more concise, which is a good thing in and of itself and makes it easier to expand. I could certainly imagine several sentences being added to provide more detail on the heritarian and environmental position. I also think that several of the sentences in the other version are either unnecessary ("the discussion of their connection involves the results of multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology") or deeply problematic ("There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia"). David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, after an evening of wine, women, and song (which I highly recommend, though you may adjust the middle term to suit your preferences) and a morning of quiet contemplation of the beaty of being alive (which I recommend even more highly), I'm going to suggest a compromise lead that incorporates what I can of both the leads above. Do with it as you will - it's not my place as mediator to make edits - but I'm thinking that there's enough overlap between the two versions that this might satisfy.


 * First, though, to address DK's points:
 * The article is not US-specific. - As I understand it, the debate began in the US context (due to the US's peculiar race conditions), and was expanded to be global after the debate was already in progress. the article may need to keep a stronger focus on the US, just because the bulk of the research relates to the US, though (of course) the world perspective whould be included per NPOV.  this is just a question of balance
 * The subject of the first sentence should be Race and Intelligence - that's a guideline, not a rule. but I've addressed it in the compromise draft
 * Specific IQ scores or not? - This is a minor content disagreement. personally, I don't see any need to get into that much detail in the lead (the numbers will, I assume, be properly covered in the body), but I don't really have an opinion on it beyond that.
 * Mentioning specific researchers - It would be reasonable to not mention specific researchers in the lead. It is reasonable to mention researchers from both sides, as I have done. It is not reasonable to only mention specific researchers who are heriditarian. David.Kane (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Amerindians - as above. if it's sourced, and significant enough in the literature that it merits inclusion, it should be included; if it's not a significant aspect of the research, it should be left for the body.
 * Conciseness - I don't see a lot of difference in length between the two versions. concise is good, over-concise is bad, but...


 * Now for the compromise draft:


 * Notes:
 * all references are the same in both the above versions, and retained here.
 * I've added a reference to The Bell Curve to explain why the genetic hypothesis garnered public criticism
 * I've replaced the word 'significant' (and variants) with the word 'statistical' (and variants) with a link to statistical significance. People often misinterpret the word 'significant' to mean 'important', when that is not the sense of statistical significance at all.
 * I've shuffled things around, integrated things, and rewritten for clarity, mostly. I've expanded on a couple of points: the bit about IQ range at the end of the first paragraph, and the bit about the gap remaining steady while IQ scores have changed at the beginning (now) of the last paragraph.
 * For your inspection. -- Ludwigs 2  17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something that David.Kane and I have both said about this lead, to which nobody has provided a counter-argument, is that it's unbalanced to mention specific researchers who favor one hypothesis but not who favor the other. Since you’ve preserved this aspect of the lead in your compromise version, can you explain why you think this is appropriate? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time that you have taken with this. Given that Occam feels the same as I do about the inclusion of names from just one side, and that no one has provided a rational for doing so, I hope that you would take his concerns seriously. Again, if I could only change one thing it would be to make the racial terms/links non-US specific. That is just wrong. Below are some minor comments. Feel free to use them or ignore them.
 * "popular science and academic research have debated" That reads, to me, as if popular science (on one side) and academic research (on the other side) have debated this issue. Of course, that is not what you mean.
 * "Beginning in the early twentieth century" is not right either. Note that it is contradicted by the first sentence of the History section, a sentence not written by me. This is the problem with flowery writing in the lead. It may read nicely, but it isn't true. Better concise and true instead of flowery and false.
 * "These difference show primarily in aggregate studies." Again, flowery and imprecise writing. What is an "aggregate" study in this context? If some studies are "aggregate," what are the non-aggregate studies? Can you name a single non-aggregate study of race and IQ? Of course not! There is no such thing. All these studies use aggregates. What you mean to say is that the racial averages differ. Just say that.
 * "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the race and intelligence debate involves multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, complicating scholarly discussion." Again, this is useless fluff. Why those four disciplines? Could we drop anthropology? Or why not add genetics? Moreover, it is not clear to me that R&I involves more disciplines than any other debate. Got a source for that? And, even if you did, do you have a source for the claim that this fact complicates "scholarly discussion." Imagine that a law were passed requiring that only Ph.D. psychologists could participate in the debate. Do you really think the debate would be less complicated or contentious? I don't. Nesbitt/Jensen/Sternberg would still disagree just as much, and in just as complicated fashion.
 * "This claim met with widespread criticism in the popular media, particularly after the publication of Herrnstein and Murray's book, "The Bell Curve"" I think that this is a significant misunderstanding of the history. (And now we are naming 5 heriditarians in the lead, not just 3!) First, the Bell Curve did not (meaningful) advance a heriditarian position. They declared themselves agnostic on the topic, at least with regard to B-W differences. People attacked the Bell Curve for other reasons, not because of "this claim", i.e., the heriditarian position.
 * Hope that is helpful. David.Kane (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Occam: Again, I was just integrating the two versions, so I have no personal opinion about whether the names should be included or excluded. We would tend to use names this way when there is a small number of researchers advocating for a reasonable but newish theory.  For instance, it was much more common a few decades back to refer to 'Einstein's theory of relativity', as opposed to simply 'the theory of relativity'; the presence or absence of the proper name distinguishes contenders from winners (in terms of scholarly acceptance).  my own sense is that while most academics would accept the idea that genetics plays a factor in intelligence, the more stringent idea that genetics is a dominant factor and is associated with race is still an up-and-coming theory localized to a few researchers; that would merit the use of proper names. If the theory is more broadly accepted than that (for a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you can list 8-10 notable academics who actively advocate this position) then you're probably right that the names should be removed.  Balance is not equality, remember: If this really is their theory, and they are still in that (necessary) stage of convincing other academics of its merits as a theory, then we should not give the theory more prominence than it deserves by asserting it as a theory


 * @D.K. You make some good points - my responses (point to point):
 * How about "debates in popular science and academic research over the possible connection of..." I do see your point, and I'm not attached to the wording, I just didn't like the 'have been the subject of debate...' structure.
 * The "Beginning in the early twentieth century" bit can be cut entirely if you like. Don't disrespect my flowery language, though, otherwise I'll remove my ascot, top-hat, and monocle, and challenge you to fisticuffs.
 * "These difference show primarily in aggregate studies." One thing that I dislike about your version, above, is that you blur the epistemology/ontology distinction. What we literally, actually see is statistical differences in aggregate studies of IQ scores across SIRE data about racial categories.  Saying simply "racial averages differ" takes all of the valid epistemological concerns (what is race an how does it connect with SIRE data, what is the meaning and nature of statistically significant differences) and tosses them out the window, asserting them as ontological truths.  for analogy, it is a medically proven fact that taking massive doses of vitamin C can shorten the length of the common cold by (on average) about an hour out of the standard week that an average cold runs (e.g. something like 167 hours rather than 168).  shortening that to 'vitamin C reduces the length of the common cold' is over-concise to the point of misrepresentation.
 * There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence... - I just copied this line, and I'm not going to specifically defend it. The point that needs to be made here, somehow, is that this topic gets into trouble because it crosses disciplinary boundaries in some odd ways.  for comparison, something like schizophrenia also crosses disciplinary boundaries 9there are people who have studied if from biological, psychological, sociological, and etc perspectives), but there is generally no contention there because all disciplines recognize schizophrenia as a personal pathological condition.  in this case, however, different disciplines disagree vehemently about whether the 'racial gap' is pathological, and where that pathology resides.  I mean, it's one thing to say that a small percentage of people have a pathological condition that causes them to behave aberrantly, and argue over whether it's genetic of environmental.  it's another thing entirely to suggest that an entire race (comprising a significant portion of the world's population) suffer from a pathological deficit in intelligence, particularly when we have such impoverished definitions of the the concepts of race and intelligence themselves.  The first phrase needs to stay, IMO; the list of disciplines can probably go.
 * "Bell curve stuff" - I only through in the Bell Curve bit because that book was the beginning of the public/normal person condemnation of the race and intelligence issue. the theory had been around academia for ages before the BC, unnoticed; without the BC, the theory would probably still be being debated in scholarly circles without any public notice at all. H&M may have been agnostic on the issue, and certainly had some analytical problems with their research, but their book kicked up a shit storm in the newspapers and popular literature.  by the way, we could just shorten it to the bell curve and eliminate their names if that makes you happy.
 * again, I am searching for a compromise version here (and needing to argue a bit on Mathsci's behalf, for various reasons). This is just the way I see it.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane's version
David Kane's editing is a disappointment. He seem to be POV-pushing and does not appear to be respecting any editing WP editing rules. Many sentences in the lede are unjustified synthesis. His four aggregated racial groups are something he created himself (what about Australia?). His claim that academics other than the small group of psychologists associated with the Pioneer Fund are actively involved in research into race and intelligence is just an invention on his part. He seems to be wasting everbody's time by suppressing and inventing facts to suit his purposes. I have never seen worse editing in my experience on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci: I'd appreciate it if you would remove the personal comments from the above edit. If you don't, I will do so myself.  please comment on the edit, not on the editor.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your request would be fine if David.Kane hadn't blantantly been POV-pushing. As I've written on the article talk page the first sentence of the lede suggests active research in race and intelligence. No secondary source says that and the article by Gray and Thompson cited above says exactly the contrary (few people research in this area). Similarly David.Kane has invented 4 aggregated racial groups in his lede; there is no place for Australian aborgines, despite the assurance with which he makes statements about racial groups.
 * All secondary sources discuss at length the notions of race and intelligence: this discussion and the inherent ambiguities appear nowhere in David.Kane's lede. The furore and controversy surrounding the hereditarian point of view has been suppressed, etc, etc. As far as the lede is concerned, it just looks like an attempt to sanitize it and add credence to the hereditarian stand point. Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "the first sentence of the lede suggests active research in race and intelligence" True! Guilty as charged! I believe that there is active research about race and intelligence going on today. I wrote my lead to reflect that fact. You disagree. Your lead obscures that fact. I hope that editors who agree with me (Bpesta, Occam, VA, Faye, MikeM, DJ and others) will find this a useful distinction to notice when they comment about which lead is better. David.Kane (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, can you explain why you think it’s necessary to mention specific researchers who favor the hereditarian perspective, but not any who favor the 100%-environmental perspective? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Browse recent issues of the journal Intelligence. Indeed people are researching this topic. If no one's researching the topic, how'd we get 100 years of data on it. Even though we don't know the cause of race differences, there's not many effects in social science more well replicated than this.

Bpesta22 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorta embarrassing that I am still an idiot when it comes to editing this stuff here (is there a way to find recent posts quickly in the mass sea of info here?). I thought I wrote this before but now can't find it:

There is indeed consensus on what g is. People who publish in intelligence use "iq" or "intelligence" as a proxy for g. The controversial issue is whether other types of IQ exist and whether these predict anything important once g is accounted for. Even the most vocal critics in field don't deny that g exists and has predictive validity.

Bpesta22 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Here again is the article by Gray and Thompson that I referred to. It discusses in detail the ethics of research into race and intelligence.



On page 479 they state, "In light of such unresolved ethical issues, many neuroscientists have been reluctant to investigate individual or group differences in intelligence. Few scientists investigate race differences in intelligence; those who do are overwhelmingly white. Under the status quo, target groups will continue to feel alienated and attacked, unimpressed by the need for freedom of inquiry when other important freedoms are lacking. The credibility of intelligence research is suffering" (the emphasis is mine). There is little value in David.Kane giving his personal views here when there are such unequivocal statements in print by reputable scientists from well known universities in the US (UCLA and Yale). Again we look for good secondary sources: we don't invent things, we don't omit important points, we don't try to sanitize the controversial reputation of a group of scientists with a questionable source of funding, whose scientific methods have been described as flawed by their peers in academia. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, do you look consistently at the Journal Intelligence? (Or Personality and Individual Differences, which is the same way?)  I often do, and what Dr. Pesta is saying is correct.  In either journal, you’d be hard-pressed to find a period of more than a few months during which some amount of research about race and intelligence isn’t being published there.  This isn’t a matter of opinion or subject to interpretation, the way the cause of the IQ difference is.  If you look at the actual source material that Thompson is attempting to describe, it is as obvious that his claim about this is false as it is when you compare Gould’s caricature of Arthur Jensen’s views in The Mismeasure of Man to Jensen’s original writing that Gould is claiming to summarize.


 * We don’t use Gould’s summaries of Jensen’s views in the article, even though he is a reputable scientist; when we’re describing Jensen’s views we cite them to Jensen himself. And one of the reasons for that is because when the source material says one thing, and someone who’s claiming to summarize this source material says the opposite, there’s never any question which of the two is more accurate.  I don’t think anyone argues with this in the case of Gould and Jensen, but how is Thompson’s claim about the lack of research in this area any different, when both of the two journals that I mentioned show that the opposite is true? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both are correct. Few neuroscientists study race and intelligence per Thompson. Many psychometricans and behavioral geneticists do study race and intelligence per those journals. Perhaps Richard J. Haier has some writings on this. --DJ (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)