Jump to content

Talk:James Flynn (academic)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jim Flynn (academic))

Correction request

[edit]

The section James_Flynn_(academic)#Controversial_remarks currently states that his remarks were made to "illustrate a particular point." However, there is already an external link referenced by this article that includes a specific statement by Flynn that he used the remarks to "argue against" (quote) the line of thought/argument. This seems to be a significant qualitative difference from the way the section is currently phrased. Stephen.andrew.lynch (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Flynn (academic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strange sentence

[edit]

This sentence makes no sense to me: He interprets the direct evidence—when Blacks are raised in settings that are less disadvantageous—as suggesting that environmental factors explain genetic differences. How can environment explain genetics? Is the intended meaning that environment, rather than genetics, explains the differences? It's hard to check because 1999 article published in American Psychologist isn't a proper citation.--46.114.145.103 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, anything without a reliable source ought to be removed. Nerd271 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it with a proper citation, which was very easy to find. The paragraph should be discussed on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that's the article in question. It was previously cited in the article, yet whoever first added that paragraph could not be bothered to repeat the citation. Thank you for clarifying. Nerd271 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn's Death

[edit]

It's important to notate that Flynn has recently deceased. Even though I am a hereditarian, he was a great researcher and will be missed. Rest in Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.108.172 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be no source for this edit anywhere online. If you cannot provide a source for his death, there is no basis for the edit and it should be reverted/not be made. Both I, and USER:Grayfell have explained this in edit notes, but have seemingly been ignored by several users. Again, this edit should not be made without a source. Skllagyook (talk)
I have heard the same today from several friends who were students of Flynn's. I expect to see a published obituary soon. —VeryRarelyStable 03:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VeryRarelyStable: The claim needs a source, and until an obituary or other source is puished, it should not appear/be made in this article (I notice someone has, again, just edited the article to include his death - again without a source). As several users have explained now, a source is required for the change. Skllagyook (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I see a source has now been added. Skllagyook (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalance

[edit]

This article seems a little imbalanced. I'm aware that editing here might be contentious, so a few words. Flynn was certainly a well-intentioned scholar who fleshed out the effect which generally now bears his name. There seems a risk, however, that the article reflects the 'good hereditarian' versus 'bad hereditarian' perspective of what is sometimes referred to today as the Hereditarian Left. Flynn was in fact generous in acknowledging his debt to scholars he rated highly but who are elsewhere condemned in personal terms using Flynn's own theory - Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn (part co-author of the theory itself), Charles Murray. He strongly supported research into race and intelligence. He was very vocal, recently and lucidly, about his view that racial inequality extends to a large degree from poor parenting amongst black people. Also recently, he argued that associative mating amongst black people led to lower IQ outcomes - this in effect put the genetic effect back into even his own theory. Finally, Flynn believed that a black-white gap would remain once the environment had been taken into account; his thesis was that the average genetic gap was small enough not to exclude black people from playing a full part in it, not that it did not exist at any level. These ideas are problematic today, of course. I have no wish to start a fight, but I do think this page needs adjusting to reflect not that Flynn was bad or wrong, necessarily, but that he had a great deal in common with authors often considered beyond the pale. Taken as a whole, this page, along with those on Lynn, Murray and others, risks creating a simplistic impression of good and bad guys I am quite sure Flynn would have deprecated. This also implies that the other pages (Lynn, Murray et al) need revising in the same way.

On this basis, and also the priciple of WP:BRD, I'm going to make a couple of actually less than bold adjustments. More than happy to discuss with anyone who reverts once. SteveCree2 (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a first few changes. Removed praise in intro para to avoid need to insert balancing criticism there of his views of black parenting inferiority. Entered references to justify that Flynn viewed the claimed black-white IQ gap as largely environmental, not wholly (see remarks above). Included reference to Flynn's view of scholarship of Jensen et al. Since I've reverted a deletion of largely, I'll expand on that point. As per above, Flynn argued that associative breeding amongst black people led to lower IQ scores (citation is included in article) - this is a different claimed genetic effect but it is nonetheless obviously a genetic claim. In addition, as also cited (but not quoted in full in the article for brevity) Flynn used the rhetorical device of framing his opinion as a question but nevertheless his opinion is clear: "statistically, if there are differences (between racial groupings) it is quite minor". The point of the whole passage is to say that the minor difference does not stop black people participating fully in US society. (Best listening from 32.30 at citation). SteveCree2 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveCree2: Can you provide page numbers/quotes and/or timestamps from your source(s) (the podcast interview) where Flynn explicitly/ specifically states that the black-white gap is partly genetic? I cannot seem to find that (and the podcast is fairly long). I did however see the source of the "worse parenting" addition you made, thus I am not disputing/reverting that. Skllagyook (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have just listened to the podcast you added as a ref and referenced above (here: https://scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/nature-nurture-and-human-autonomy-with-james-flynn/) (where Flynn is interviewed). He does not state that some of the b-w IQ gap is genetic but he does characterize it as being largely environmental (with the rest unknown).
From around 25:46 in the podcast Flynn says that regarding "the present IQ gap ["between black and white"] there is enormous evidence that much of that gap is environmental", and (at about 25:55) says "we'll only know that all of it is [environmental] eventually" (meaning we don't yet know).
At about 32:12 Flynn says (regarding IQ genes between races), "if there are diffences, they're quite minor", a key word there being "if". He does not state that he believes there are such genetic differences, but rather that if there are (which he does not characterize as especially likely), they are/would be a minor/small part of the gap.
His position seems to have been that most of the gap is environmental (of which he was fairly confident) but did not know for sure whether or not all of the gap was. He does not state that part if the gap is genetic, but rather that we do not yet know whether the remaining minority portion of the gap is environmental or not. I could not find anything in the podcast or the other sources where he argued that that associative breeding amongst black people led to lower IQ scores. But from what I have seen/heard in the sources, it does seem supported to write, as you wrote, that he considered the gap to be largely environmental (he apparently considered the remainder to be possibly environmental but was unsure). So I will not dispute your wording there. Skllagyook (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Skllagyook. I'd cited 32:30 at the video. The associative breeding comment is a separate citation. That citation is from an acceptable WP source, but in turn cites Flynn's own book. @VeryRarelyStable - I have re-inserted the quote you felt was misleading. It really isn't. The whole of both citations (if you listen to the interview and read the other) are full of how Flynn accounts for the IQ gap through inferior black parenting and, indeed, associative breeding. Both sources are legitimate WP sources. There is no ambiguity at all. Flynn was quite literally never ambiguous about this matter. In addition, I've replaced the second 'along with' in the Flynn quote which someone has removed, incorrectly, perhaps for scansion'.

@SteveCree2: Where exactly does Flynn account for the b-w IQ gap through associative breeding? (Elsewhere, e.g. in the interview, he states that the gap could be fully environmental.) In what source does Flynn attribute (part of) the b-w gap to associative breeding, and could you please give a quote, page number, or timestamp? You still have not mentioned where he states that. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@skllagyook 'Associative breeding' isn't in the article. It's implied (correctly, in my opinion) in the cited article. But I've put inserted "cognitively restricted subculture" because that's beyond question. SteveCree2 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveCree2: I know that you did not put selective breeding in the article, but fyi, if you were to do so (and it was not explicitly stated in a reliable source by Flynn), it would be a clear case of WP:OR/original research (and probably also WP:SYNTH) - i.e. editing based on your own interpretation of a source or sources rather than what the source(s) explicitly states, which is againsy Wikipedia policy. I do not agree that it is "implied" that Flynn considers part of the gap due to assortive breeding (I cannot know that for sure, but he never states it, and his other statements show that he considered the gap to possibly be wholly environmental, and was confident it was mostly so). Thus seemingly your previous statements that Flynn believed the gap was partly due to assortive breeding and that this opinion was clear and sourced were misleading and inacurate. (And if your purpose in making the "inferior parenting" addition was to imply something about assortive breeding in the article (when seemingly no such thing is stated by Flynn), I might have to agree with User:Generalrelative that the addition is WP:UNDUE (or at the very least should be reworked and contextualized). Skllagyook (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@skllagyook So it isn't in the fucking article, is it? What do you mean 'if I were to'? I fucking didn't, for the reasons articulated. Fucks sake. SteveCree2 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The purpose of this edit appears to be promotional rather than an effort to achieve WP:DUE balance. Wikipedia articles do not exist to promote editors' personal opinions or agendas. Generalrelative (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@generalrelative Your comments and edits are outrageous. No other editor has agreed with you. James Flynn argued extensively that black people make poorer parents than white, and that their culture was cognitively restricted. There is no doubt that this is controversial. You are whitewashing this article. Please stop it. I am reverting to include these details. You have suggested at my talk page that there is consensus to support your position; in fact there is no reference here to that effect from any other editor. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my edit summary that I think the edit is WP:UNDUE, and that in the absence of consensus the onus is on you to build one before re-adding the disputed content. That's not an opinion, that's policy. You are welcome to feel about that any way you like. But you may not engage in an edit war, which is what you're now doing. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@generalrelative Your reversions, which you quite falsely claim extend from the comments of other editors, are pure ad quite disgraceful racial bias. You are quite simply trying, singlehandedly, from a racial contentious series of remarks by James Flynn from appearing in the James Flynn article. I am reverting. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot parse this word salad. Are you accusing me of racial bias? Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@generalrelative Yes, I am unambiguously accusing you of racial bias. You have falsely claimed that other editors support your position. It is unquestionably controversial for James Flynn to have argued extensively, as he did, that black people make poorer parents than white and that they inhabit an inferior subculture. You are seeking to whitewash the James Flynn article. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveCree2: I've removed the line In 2016, Flynn argued that black people in the US; "come from a cognitively restricted subculture" and told an interviewer; "The parenting is worse in black homes, even when you equate them for socio-economic status". (sourced to The Guardian). If this Guardian article is the only article where this Flynn quote appears, then I agree with the other editors that it's WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the Wikipedia article (it's also WP:PRIMARY for Flynn's opinion, since the source article is the interview in which the quote was said, and the only analysis comes from the interviewer). I'd feel differently if the quote was discussed by a number of other secondary sources, but if it's just this one Guardian interview, that's not enough for inclusion in my opinion. I actually think a second source is a minimum to meet WP:BLP for this controversial statement. Also, this was a bold addition you made that has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors; please don't re-instate it without consensus. I believe I'm the third editor so far to object to its inclusion, and no one else has agreed with its inclusion yet. Levivich 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I agree the article is imbalanced. One of the problems is that it's pieced together from what are really primary sources. For example, the Jensen quote is a primary source for the Jensen quote; the Murray book jacket is a primary source for the Murray quote. Interviews with Flynn are primary sources for what Flynn said in the interview. The sources for this article should be biographies of Flynn, and only that which is talked about in the secondary RS should be included in the Wikipedia article. So if a secondary source (a biography of Flynn) mentions the Jensen or the Murray quotes, or a Flynn quote, then we should mention those quotes. But if not, we should not include those quotes cited to a primary source (to the quotes themselves): that's WP:UNDUE. If it's not important enough to be included in a biography of Flynn by an RS, then it's not important enough to be included in Wikipedia's biography, either. Levivich 19:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the piece upon the disco here. If you don't accept the WP-acceptable source then I'll go the extra mile look out the obvious James Flynn book. I'm a grown-up, so I believe Peter Wilby. The Guardian and the WP standard, though. FFS. Why wouldn't you? SteveCree2 (talk)

Well, thanks, everyone. Saying that black people are inferior parents and live in an inferior sub-culture from whites is 'controfuckinrgversial' turns out to be objectionable to Wikipedia folk. What, really, is the fucking point? SteveCree2 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those who don't have access to it, here's what NYT wrote about this:

    He was also aware of the uncomfortable implications of his position: that by ascribing differences between Black and white I.Q. tests to environment, he was running the risk of blaming Black parenting and culture.

    “You’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,” he said in an interview with Skeptic magazine. “Either you say it’s genetic or you say there is something about Black child-rearing practices that don’t provide cognitive challenge, in which case you’re blaming the victim.”

    Here is the Skeptic interview, which has his full comments. I don't think the Guardian quote is DUE, but his views on the race IQ gap of course are, but those require some nuance, as opposed to cherrypicking selecting quotes. Given Flynn wrote entire books about this, it's hard to reduce his views to a single quote. And yeah, this is controversial, even according to the RSes like NYT (and Guardian for that matter). Levivich 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a much better idea to look to the secondary sources and work off of how they summarize good positions, rather than picking quotes on our own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something that's been consistently missed both in this discussion and in the quotes under dispute, and apparently by the Guardian interviewer as well: Flynn's controversial conclusions here refer to the Black subculture of the 1970s and 1980s when the studies he refers to were done, not to the Black subculture of 2016 when he gave the interview. Since that time Black people made gains in IQ faster than white people did, making up the gap by about 5.5 points, and Flynn was calling for the studies of Black home environments to be repeated to see if anything had changed there. I stand by my edit summary: the sentence as it stood was misleading without context.
Particularly so since there is a trend these days, among the people who were Flynn's political opponents, to claim that the economic disparities between Black and white people in the US, and still more the disparities in their experiences of the justice system, are solely the fault of problematic elements of Black culture and that most or all apparent systemic racism would be resolved if Black people would only clean house. I am suspending my judgement as to whether this is was an implication intended by the editor who inserted the quote; but having read several of Flynn's books and had a couple of extremely enlightening conversations with him following his public lectures (enlightening to me, anyway; I'm not claiming to have enlightened him), I can state with complete confidence that Flynn did not hold any such view.
—VeryRarelyStable 02:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and reorganized the article, trying to keep as much of the original material as possible (but I certainly removed a bunch of it). Hopefully my edit summaries were sufficiently explainatory. It still needs a lot of copyediting, there's still material that is probably UNDUE, or over- or under-detailed, it needs a lead expansion, a bunch of the footer material needs cleanup... none of which I intend to do :-) But if someone else wants to pick it up from here, please do, with some more work it could be a WP:GAC. Or, revert it all :-) Cheers, Levivich 01:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@levivich @veryrarelystable @scottishfinnishradish @skllagyoo @generalrelative I've entered a line referring to Flynn's views about black culture, cognitive abilities and parenting. They're notable features of Flynn's work and certainly have strong racial implications which should be included unambiguously in what is I imagine we all agree is nevertheless a too-long article. I have cited the Guardian interview in order to avoid a primary source. The author is a writer of note; a former national newspaper editor writing in a newspaper of note which is a suitable citation source for WP. However, in order to help your consideration of the matter, I do include just a few primary source quotes here from just one of Flynn's books to illustrate that black cognitive inferiority and poorer black parenting was fundamental to Flynn's explanation for racial inequality today. Flynn argued, in many books and without ambiguity, that deprivation of itself could not explain racial inequality because the cognitive disparity and poorer parenting he ascribed applied once he had controlled for socio-economic variables. In other words, middle-class and rich people who identify as black show the same discrepancy when compared to their white and asian peers. These views are without question racially controversial today, my own view outright racist, and should be included in this article, in my view. If the consensus is that this is incorrect or should not be included, do revert. All the best. SteveCree2 (talk)

“I stand by my analysis of black culture as indicative that genetic equality is more likely that not” ('Does Your Family make you smarter?', 2018, p.153).

“We can compare...whites and blacks to find that a variety of contrasting cognitive competencies exist because, while both groups are exposed to modernity, the latter come from a cognitively restricted subculture” (ditto, p.125)

“blacks exercise their brains on complex cognitive problems less because their subculture demands that they solve such problems less often” (ditto, p.152)

“The parenting is worse in black homes, even when you equate them for socio-economic status” (Wilby in cited Guardian article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCree2 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still cherry-picked, still unrepresentative of Flynn's actual views, and still misleading without context. —VeryRarelyStable 11:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@veryrarelystable In what way are these comments cherry picked? What on earth is your justification for that? Flynn's books are quite literally all about how he rules out genetics because he accounts for the variation through black culture. I urge to take look at any of them; you might start with 'Does your family make you smarter, 2018, 'Where have all the liberals gone?', 2008 or 'A book to risky to publish', 2019. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read several of Flynn's books, including Where Have All the Liberals Gone? I attended quite a few of his public lectures. I was in fact technically enrolled in his first-year Politics paper one year, but due to mental health issues I was having that year I only ever made it to one lecture. I can't claim to have known him personally exactly, as I only had a few conversations with him following those public lectures; but I have many friends and one or two family members who did.
So I can tell you for a certainty: Jim Flynn did not consider Black culture to be the root cause of the racial IQ disparity. He considered the history of slavery and segregation to be the root cause of the racial IQ disparity. He just admitted that some of the ways that that history continues to exert influence in the present are via the cultural defence mechanisms that slavery and segregation forced Black people to develop.
If you look at my previous comment here, you'll find I raised a further point which your new addition and comments have not addressed at all. You'll pardon me if this gives me the impression you didn't read it. Here it is again:
Something that's been consistently missed both in this discussion and in the quotes under dispute, and apparently by the Guardian interviewer as well: Flynn's controversial conclusions here refer to the Black subculture of the 1970s and 1980s when the studies he refers to were done, not to the Black subculture of 2016 when he gave the interview. Since that time Black people made gains in IQ faster than white people did, making up the gap by about 5.5 points, and Flynn was calling for the studies of Black home environments to be repeated to see if anything had changed there.
—VeryRarelyStable 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@veryrarelystable You've literally made that up! You should say, honestly, that you haven't read any of his books. Read part 2 (3 chapters) of the 2008 text you cite: 'Where have all the liberals gone?' entitled; 'Blacks and the pursuit of happiness'. There, in a whole chapter, he compares German and US born black children to argue that black culture is inferior (in the present tense). The first of those three chapters is explicitly all about, at painful length, the poor parenting he alleges of black women and their allegedly poor access to black male partners. In each of his books, he devotes chapter after chapter to black culture in the present tense. He argues in 'Does your family make you smarter? (2018, in the present tense) that that there remains an IQ gap (which I dispute, by the way) and puts that down to the environment changing faster than black people can adapt. The Guardian article quotes him saying such things in their interview. As you may know, Flynn's final book was withdrawn from publication in the UK because, as he acknowledged, it was feared it would still up racial hatred. I'm sorry you only made it to one of his lectures. I don't doubt that he was a super chap. But his whole argument - repeated in text after text - is that black sub-culture is inferior to white. If that looks racist today, it's because it is. It looks like that doesn't work for Wikipedia, though. So I'll leave the fanpage as it is. May I say, by the way, that I don't doubt your good intention. and I do hope you are well. All the best, SteveCree2 (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Flynn_(academic)&oldid=1257767570"