Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

FAQ: article name change?

See:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22#The_Huge_Problem_with_this_article:_IQ and Archive_13.

Fundamentally incorrect

The racial categories used on this page are arbitrary and do not represent the views of genetics or biology. Socially defined categories are of little scientific merit; therefore their use in this context is misleading and false.

The measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small; genetically we are very similar. Indeed, 93% of all genetic variability occurs within Africa; the human groups with the greatest difference between them occur in Africa. Research has also found that the difference between chimpanzees and humans exceed 69%, whereas the widest range between any two groups of humans is less than 3%. All of this calls the use of race and heritability on this page into serious question.

Human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed between them; regional human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups in North America and elsewhere. Furthermore, what is considered black in America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population. (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992.).

This page is in serious conflict with the views held by most authorities; that is, biologists and geneticists. Race is a social construct, not a biological one; therefore, the title and content of this page fail to meet the basic/fundamental requirements of objectivity. This renders the article dubious, unsubstantiated and utterly false.

I request that this page be removed!!!

Bogus arguments

IQ tests scores are not an absolute measure of intelligence; they tend to ignore many aspects of human cognition and the cognitive process. Things like creatively, wisdom, ability to learn, ability to adapt and practical skills are not gauged by these tests in a meaningful way. IQ tests also fail to measure the same construct among all people to whom the tests are applied, the more culturally distinct the group (I.E. Truckers, and Musicians) the greater the discrepancy (See Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, 2005). To apply a single test to an entire population of distinct individuals from varying backgrounds is unbelievably biased unless used to gauge a particularly relevant skill. Example: Race horses are not gauged for their poker skills. - Just as Sociologists are not measured by their ability to paint.

The fact is intelligence does vary among humans, but this can be for many reasons: prenatal care, subjective interpretation, interest factors, differing environments, life circumstances etc. My concern is not with differences among individuals, but with claims that imply that group differences involving subjective and highly bias testing situations can amount to genetic differences in the traits being tested.

How does one compare the intelligence of a gifted painter with that of a mediocre Physicist? According to the narrow methods and perspectives used and held by many Psychometricians, the Mediocre Physicist is likely to be perceived the more intelligent. Why, because this is what the testing situation demands that they think or believe.

Psychometric tests do not and can not measure the number of years spent in practice, nor can they measure interest, motivation, interpretation, diet, home & social life, daily activities etc., of the individual being tested; nor do they try! Despite these obvious and fundamental short comings this model is often presented as valid and unbiased by many practitioners.

Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp (1971:233) made the following insightful observation: “ Cultural differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particular cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in one cultural group, and its absence in another. A similar position is held by Berry (1974).

Sarason and Doris (1979) view intelligence as a largely cultural invention. That is, nothing about intelligence is necessarily common across culture.

(Serpell, 1974; Super, 1983; Wober, 1974) Even within a given society, different cognitive characteristics are emphasized from one situation to another and from one subculture to another. These differences extend not just to conceptions of intelligence but to what is considered adaptive or appropriate in a broader sense.

Views on smartness vary in different cultures; the majority of these views do not match Western views (Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Sternberg, 1997)Instruments developed to quantify smartness are culturally based and cannot simply be "transplanted" to a culture with different values (Greenfield, 1997). The situation of testing itself (e.g., communicating with strangers regarding things and issues that lack context and that might appear to be meaningless) often results in the collection of unreliable data (e.g., Glick, 1968)

“Often intelligence tests measure skills that children are expected to acquire a few years before the taking the test (Sternberg, Presidential addresses; Culture and Intelligence 2004).”

“Vernon (1971) points out the axes of a factor analysis do not necessarily reveal a latent structure of the mind but rather represent a convenient way of characterizing the organization of metal abilites. Vernon believed that there is no one ‘right’ orientation of axes. Indeed, mathematically an infinite number of orientations of axes can be fit to any solution in an explanatory factor analysis (Sternberg, 2004).”

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define “intelligence” according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005). - IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg, 1998,1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).

"IQ scores do change over time. The average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals changed as much as 18 points (Jones & Bayley, 1941)."

IQ is not a fixed quantity; it can be raised (It is not as difficult to rise, as it is to maintain). This has been demonstrated numerously through studies involving environmental stimulation.

Examples of such studies:

In 1987 Wynand de Wet (now Dr. de Wet), did his practical research for an M.Ed. (Psychology) degree on the Audiblox program at a school for the deaf in South Africa. The subject of the research project concerned the optimization of intelligence actualization by using Audiblox. Twenty-four children with learning problems participated in the study, and were divided into 3 groups.

The children in Group A received Audiblox tuition. The children were tutored simultaneously in a group by means of the Persepto for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987. The first edition of the group application of the Audiblox program was followed. No diagnostic testing was done beforehand. The children in Group B received remedial education. They were tested beforehand and based on the diagnosis each child received individualized tuition on a one-on-one basis for 27.5 hours between April 27 and August 27, 1987. The children in Group C were submitted to non-cognitive activities for 27.5 hours during this period.

All 24 children were tested before and after on the Starren Snijders-Oomen Non-verbal Scale (SSON), a non-verbal IQ test that can be used for deaf children. Dr. de Wet reported that he could do nearly all the Audiblox exercises without adaptations, except the auditory exercises. Because he had to use sign-language, the children could not close their eyes. The average scores of the three groups on the SSON test were as follows:

Average IQ's before intervention, after intervention, and general Increase

IQ scores Group A (Audiblox group): 101.125 - - 112.750 - - 11.625 Group B (Remedial group): 107.125 - - 116.250 - - 9.125 Group C (Non-cognitive): 104.250 - - 108.875 - - 4.625

Reports received from the teachers indicated that the improvements achieved through remedial education and through Audiblox transferred to the general school performance of the children. The transfer scored through the Audiblox, however, was superior to that of the remedial education, says Dr. de Wet. Finally, because Audiblox can be applied in a group setting, it is much more cost effective that remedial education, he says.

Reference: De Wet, W., The Optimization of Intelligence Actualization by Using Audiblox (M.Ed. (Psychology) Thesis: University of Pretoria, 1989).

The Glenwood State School

A particularly interesting project on early intellectual stimulation involved twenty-five children in an orphanage. These children were seriously environmentally deprived because the orphanage was crowded and understaffed. Thirteen babies with an average age of nineteen months were transferred to the Glenwood State School for retarded adult women and each baby was put in the personal care of a woman. Skeels, who conducted the experiment, deliberately chose the most deficient of the orphans to be placed in the Glenwood School. Their average IQ was 64, while the average IQ of the twelve who stayed behind in the orphanage was 87.

In the Glenwood State School the children were placed in open, active wards with the older and relatively bright women. Their substitute mothers overwhelmed them with love and cuddling. Toys were available, they were taken on outings and they were talked to a lot. The women were taught how to stimulate the babies intellectually and how to elicit language from them.

After eighteen months, the dramatic findings were that the children who had been placed with substitute mothers, and had therefore received additional stimulation, on average showed an increase of 29 IQ points! A follow-up study was conducted two and a half years later. Eleven of the thirteen children originally transferred to the Glenwood home had been adopted and their average IQ was now 101. The two children who had not been adopted were reinstitutionalized and lost their initial gain. The control group, the twelve children who had not been transferred to Glenwood, had remained in institution wards and now had an average IQ of 66 (an average decrease of 21 points). Although the value of IQ tests is grossly exaggerated today, this astounding difference between these two groups is hard to ignore.

More telling than the increase or decrease in IQ, however, is the difference in the quality of life these two groups enjoyed. When these children reached young adulthood, another follow-up study brought the following to light: ┨e experimental group had become productive, functioning adults, while the control group, for the most part, had been institutionalized as mentally retarded.⼢r>

Other examples of IQ increase through early enrichment projects can be found in Israel, where children with a European Jewish heritage have an average IQ of 105 while those with a Middle Eastern Jewish heritage have an average IQ of only 85. Yet when raised on a kibbutz, children from both groups have an average IQ of 115.

In another home-based early enrichment program, conducted in Nassua County, New York, an instructor made only two half-hour visits a week for only seven months over a period of two years. He spent time showing parents participating in the program how best to teach their children at home. The children in the program had initial IQⳠin the low 90s, but by the time they went to school they averaged IQⳠof 107 or 108. In addition, they have consistently demonstrated superior ability on school achievement tests.

Further References: • Clark, B., Growing Up Gifted (3rd ed.), (Columbus: Merrill, 1988). • Dworetzky, J. P., Introduction to Child Development (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1981). • Skeels, H. M., et al., “A study of environmental stimulation: An orphanage preschool project,” University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1938, vol. 15(4).

Leon J. Kamin (Bell Curve Wars, 1995 p.92): “Extensive practice at reading and calculating does affect, very directly, one's IQ score.”r>

IQ scores do change over time. The average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals changed as much as 18 points (Jones & Bayley, 1941).

Robert Sternberg on the matter of IQ gains (Interview with Skeptic magazine): "I think it's hard to maintain the IQ gains. But if you think environment is important in the development of intelligence, and you put people in a really good program and you raise their IQ, and then take them out of the program and put them back in the poor environment in which they started, chances are you are going to lose a lot of the beneficial effect. If you give someone antibiotics for a disease, cure them, then put them back in the original septic environment, the disease will return. We've seen this when we work with children with parasitic infections. We can give them Albendazol and it will cure their parasitic infection. But if you put them back in the environment in which they acquired the infection, they will just acquire it again."

I personally do not agree with his comparing of IQ with disease or infection, but his point is valid; I am sure the same can be said for a good music program or art school. I think the main problem here is maintenance. Example: If a body builder does not exercise for some time his muscle mass will decrease. Or, if an artist does not paint for some years his/her skill will diminish. In other words, “use it or loose it.”

There are many other studies that prove IQ to be a non static phenomenon of little genetic value; one of the most notable and well known being the Flynn Effect: This study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomenon has been called "the Flynn Effect."

”Research shows that IQ gains have been mixed for different countries. In general, countries have seen generational increases between 5 and 25 points. The largest gains appear to occur on tests that measure fluid intelligence (Gf) rather than crystallized intelligence (Gc).”⼢r>

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

This being said, how well do IQ tests predict real world success? - According to Stephen J. Gould the only thing an IQ test can accurately predict is how well a person scores on the test. Many others have made similar statements

Robert Sternberg on the matter of intelligence etc: My first set of interests is in higher mental functions, including intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. - I have proposed a triarchic theory of successful intelligence, and much of the work we do at the PACE Center is in validations of this theory. The theory suggests that successfully intelligent people are those who have the ability to achieve success according to their own definition of success, within their sociocultural context. They do so by identifying and capitalizing on their strengths, and identifying and correcting or compensating for their weaknesses in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments. Such attunement to the environment uses a balance of analytical, creative, and practical skills. The theory views intelligence as a form of developing competencies, and competencies as forms of developing expertise. In other words, intelligence is modifiable rather than fixed.

We use a variety of converging operations to test the triarchic theory--componential (information-processing) analyses, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, cultural and cross-cultural studies, instructional studies, and field studies in the workplace. The results of all of these kinds of studies have been encouraging.

Key References: Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000).Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skyligh

http://www.yale.edu/rjsternberg/

Robert J. Sternberg (b. 8 December 1949) is a psychologist and psychometrician and the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Tufts University. He was formerly IBM Professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University and the President of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Sternberg has also been the editor or co-editor of over 50 psychological Journals.

Sternberg is also the author or coauthor of several college-level textbooks in psychology:

• In Search of the Human Mind, now in its second edition (1998) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is a full-length introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint both of the evolution of organisms and the evolution of ideas. The textbook emphasizes the importance of the dialectic in how ideas evolve. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Pathways to Psychology, now in its second edition (2000) and published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers, is an abbreviated introduction to psychology suitable for courses in introductory psychology or general psychology. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and approaches psychology from the standpoint of the multiple pathways that converge on an understanding of psychology—multiple theoretical paradigms, multiple methodologies, multiple styles of learning. This text comes with a full set of ancillaries available from the publisher. •

• Cognitive Psychology is now in its second edition (1999) with a new, second edition to be published for 1999 by Harcourt Brace College Publishers. It is an introduction to cognitive psychology suitable for courses such as cognitive psychology and cognition. It is based on Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, and emphasizes the importance of intelligence as an integrating concept in the study of intelligence. This text comes with a brief instructor’s manual and with a test bank. •

• Introduction to Psychology is now in its first edition (1997) and is published by Harcourt Brace College Publishers in their College Outline Series. This text is intended as a review of psychology, and is suitable as an ancillary for students taking the introductory course, or as a review for students studying for various examinations, such as the Advanced Placement psychology text or the GRE Advanced Test in psychology.

Major Honors Include:

• Early Career and McCandless Awards of American Psychological Association • Outstanding Book, Research Review, and Sylvia Scribner Awards of American Educational Research Association • Palmer O. Johnson Award, American Educational Research Association • Cattell Award of Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology • Distinguished Scholar Award of National Association for Gifted Children • Past-Editor, Psychological Bulletin • Editor, Contemporary Psychology • Past-Associate Editor, Child Development, Intelligence • Past-President, Divisions 1 (General Psychology) and 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association • Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Psychology Award, Connecticut Psychological Association • James McKeen Cattell Award, American Psychological Society • President-Elect, Division 24 (Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology), American Psychological Association • President, Division 10 (Psychology and the Arts), American Psychological Association • Guggenheim Fellowship • National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship • National Merit Scholarship

- Also see work by Harvard University's Howard Gardener.

Sternberg on Psychometric G (a quote from his interview with skeptic magazine): “What I found at that time was that if you use the kinds of tasks that are used in intelligence tests, then you will get the g factor. That statement reflected analyses we did that instead of using individual difference analysis used process analysis. Even using process analysis, we got a general factor. So if you were to ask me, "Do I think that there is general factor in the kinds of tests that psychometricians use?" I would say "Yes." That is a different question from, "If you define intelligence, not just as IQ, but as involving more than what the IQ tests in fact test, is there then a general factor?" then I would say the answer is "No." So the way psychometricians operationalize it, you get a g factor.”

Note: There are three major schools of psychometric interpretation and only one supports the view of g and IQ.

Race and Genetics:

- Osbonre and Suddick (1971, as reported in Loehlin, 1975) attempted to use 16 blood-groups genes known to have come from European ancestors. Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation over the 16 genes and IQ scores was not highly positive as would have been predicted if European genes in Blacks increased IQ scores. In Fact, the correlations were -.38 and +.01. Because the results were not significant, the authors concluded that European genes lower IQ scores.

- Zuckerman (1990) demonstrated the dubiousness of results obtained through race premises. He found much more variation within groups designated, and, like many other species, humans showed considerable geographical variation in morphology (p.1134). Yee, et al. (1993) further concludes this.

- A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children showed that there was no genetic basis for IQ differences between black & whites. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (Flynn, 1980; also see Richard E. Nisbett, Race, Genetics and IQ. Also, The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

- Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children. Co-investigators include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

- According to most geneticists human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed; human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. As well, there is as much or more diversity and genetic difference within any "racial" group as there is between people of different racial groups. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups in North America and elsewhere. Further, what is considered black in America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population." (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992. Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann and Wyatt, 1993; Also see Dryna, D.Manichaikul, De Lange, Snieder, and Spector, 2001; Holden, 2001)

- IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, 1995). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire population together as a single body. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

-In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to achieve less academically and perform poorly on conventional psychometric tests.

-Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates.

Much evidence against Rushton and Lynn to come! Until then, see empirical evidence against Rushton, here:

Reply to Rushton: Review by Douglas Wahlsten, University of Alberta:

http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

I suggest that this article be removed!!

Much of the above discussion relates to the limitations of psychometric intelligence (see intelligence) (where you will find that many of the points you have raised are accepted, if not acted upon) and environmental effects on intelligence. If there isn't a page on the latter there ought to be, and some of the material on environmental effects could then be moved there. The most basic conceptual problems you refer to stem from flaws in the current psychometric model (See entry on n-ach).

I certainly do not agree that the main entry on race and intelligence should be removed. But it could certainly be improved, for example by reference to the striking similarity in norms across countries (see eg the book of WISC studies a couple of years ago and Raven's article on the RPM: stability and change over time and culture), but the formatting of this section ... see my other entry in this discssion .. is too complicated for a Wikipedia novice like me to dare trying to edit.

Quester67 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally incorrect

The racial categories used in this presentation are arbitrary and do not represent the views of genetics or biology. Socially defined categories are of little scientific merit; therefore their use in this context is misleading and false.

The measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small; genetically we are very similar. Indeed, 93% of all genetic variability occurs within Africa; the human groups with the greatest difference between them occur in Africa. Research has also found that the difference between chimpanzees and humans exceed 69%, whereas the widest range between any two groups of humans is less than 3%. All of this calls the use of race and heritability on this page into serious question.

Human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed between them; regional human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups in North America and elsewhere. Furthermore, what is considered black in America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population. (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992.).

This page is in serious conflict with the views held by most authorities; that is, biologists and geneticists. Race is a social construct, not a biological one; therefore, the title and content of this page fails to meet basic/fundamental requirements of objectivity. This renders the article dubious, unsubstantiated and utterly false.

I request that this page be removed!!!

Just because the boundary between clusters is arbitrary doesn't mean that genetic clusters don't exist. The genetic variation between humans is small yes, but the distribution of phenotypes is *NOT* random.

Flynn

I don't know how to do this and this entry is almost certainly not in the correct place. Jim Flynn did NOT "discover" the increase in scores over time. Earlier authors included Thorndike with the Binet (who offers various explanations) and Raven. So the entry in the Flynn box needs to be modified to say that he "publicised and extended the accumulating evidence that there had been a dramatic rise in the scores on some components of general intelligence". Unfortunately, I can't see how to get into that box to modify it.

Also, after the statement that he doubts whether the increase reflects an increase in "real" intelligence, there should be a sentence raising the question of what on earth he means by "real" intelligence and, secondly, asking whether the parallel increases in height, athletic ability, and, most importantly, life expectacy over the same period might also be termed "unreal". Back projection of these trends to the time of the Greeks would yield equally absurd results!

Again, I cannot insert this because when I open the "edit" file I discover a whole pile of stuff in here which does not show up in the visible text although it is indeed relevant.

Quester67 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

belief, data, conclusion

re: H&M calculations... there's no good reason to single out this single published conclusion from all others as being less firm

a belief is the weakest possible description. beliefs can be false or true, justified or not. moreover, "belief" connotes a lack of justification -- Belief is usually defined as a conviction to the truth of a proposition without its verification, therefore it is a subjective mental interpretation of the perception results, own contemplation/reasoning or communication.

a hypothesis is the same thing as a theory which is the same thing as a conclusion. all conclusions are hypothese/theories. none are 100% established, nor 0% established (unless they can be known a priori).

data is the rawest form of a measurement. everything else involves some kind of model building and thus is moving across the gray line from data to conclusion.

counterfactual conclusions are not intrinstically less knowable than factual conclusions. indeed, counterfactuals lie at the heart of causal reasoning. in this case, i know of no arguments against the resampling simulation done by H&M to establish the effects of changing the average IQ (ceteris paribus). --Rikurzhen 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rik, but maybe a useful formulation would be something like "According to their model, gnats cause foo" instead of the current "They find that gnats cause foo" or "They believe that gnats cause foo". Arbor 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything like that is fine. Arbor, is there a name for their resampling technique? I recognize it as being akin to bootstraping, but not really. --Rikurzhen 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to pass on that. I work in a theoretical field and my patchy understanding of statistics comes via probability theory only. The nitty-gritty details of actually doing statistics in real life are beyond my terminological expertise. :-) Arbor 09:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Did some minor editing - let's make clear that their conclusions are according to their model, and aren't incontrovertible fact. Clearly, they cannot prove direct causality, and are only making assumptions based on observed correlation. There is a large difference between a statistical model, and fact, and this need to be clear to the reader. We know, for example, for a fact, that when you combine baking soda and vinegar you get carbon dioxide. This experiment can be repeated, and verified independently by anyone at STP. Statistical models are not subject to independent, repeatable experimentation to validate causality, especially when dealing with such complex subjects. Much of the confusion in the world about science is due to the blurring of this line in popular media, and it behooves us to do a better job on Wikipedia. --JereKrischel 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, these aren't "minor edits". You are turning a standard presentation of a scientific result into an unreadable mess. There is simply no way you will get away with such biased wording. Almost all science is done this way, it the original formulation is the way it is normally reported. On Wikipedia. And in scientific survey articles. The article itself takes no sides in what is true or not. We say "A and B [16] find that gnats cause foo." That's the way we are supposed to write that. If anybody disagreed, we would also be supposed to write "A and B [16] find that gnats cause foo, but C, D and E [18] find that snarks cause foo instead." (Assuming that [18] is a notable publication with a comparable degree of trustworthiness to [16].) Or "A and B [16] find that gnats cause foo, but G and H [342] have questioned their methodology." What we cannot do is to report this subject using selectively biased language, as you are supposing. You would have to rewrite a lot of encyclopaedias if you wanted to do that. Arbor 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to use compromise wording, while making explicit that they are talking about their simplified model showing effects, but not watering it down as mere "prediction", which seems to be causing some consternation. Unfortunately, I think that if we don't make things sufficiently explicit, the reader is left with the wrong impression. I know it makes for a wordier article, but I'm sure that together we can find a decent compromise between brevity, and accuracy. --JereKrischel 01:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this up. Reasoning is in the edit summary. Do you have access to TBC to see what they've written? --Rikurzhen 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, your changes are not NPOV as you're disparaging their results by your description; all else equal (ceteris paribus) is at the root of scientific inquiry, as it is impossible to model everything; there should be no discussion of correlation as that term has a specific meaning in statistics which doesn't apply here; random sampling isn't a "random technique"; etc --Rikurzhen 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the resampling calculation to look at what a populuation would be like on variables Y after a change in variable x is limited only in that it looks only at the first-order effects. A higher-order effect would be of the kind where (for example) changing average IQ causes a change in the relationship between IQ and marriage. Put another way, the calculation assumes that the world would continue to be structured the same way it is now only there would be more or less people at each level of IQ -- all else equal but changing IQ. --Rikurzhen 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think there has to be something inbetween "all else equal" and "ignoring other factors" - it seems like not enough of a caveat of the theoretical and simplistic nature of their model and calculation. Certainly the authors admit as much regarding their model - such hesitations on the part of the authors themselves should be prominent. It is misleading and WP:NPOV#undue weight to present it as if it were an actual fact, in the way that if you take 25 cents away from a dollar you get 75 cents. By not making clear that it is a simulated model, I think we do a grave disservice to the reader. I guess I see it in the same way as climatologists who use models to predict the weather - it is a prediction, not a fact, that it will be 94 degrees next Tuesday in Los Angeles. Is there some compromise langugage we can find that will make it clear that these aren't facts being presented, but statistical models? The current language seems both POV pushing and misleading. --JereKrischel 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any publications which criticize this analysis (in specific or general). Otherwise, we're talking about crafting article content on the basis of personal opinion. You should read the relevant section of TBC -- maybe you'll see something I'm missing. I've tried to use their words and phrases, which AFAIK is the appropriate things to do wrt NPOV -- per Arbor above, H&M say foo is heart of NPOV. --Rikurzhen 06:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being clear. We're not talking about any criticism of their analysis, in specific or general - merely properly reporting what they actually did. What they did was simulate a 3-point drop (and I suppose a 3-point raise) in IQ, and measured the effect their simulation had on certain metrics. They did not actually prove in any way that such a modification to IQ would have the effects their simulation calculations predicted - neither did they do any sort of experiment to validate their simulation (in fact, as you point out, they explicitly stated they ignored other effects). It is POV pushing to present their work as if it represents incontrovertible fact and calculation. Perhaps you would care to quote them directly instead of paraphrasing them in a POV pushing way that misleads the reader about what they actually did? Maybe that would be an appropriate compromise... --JereKrischel 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a lengthy passage--too long. I cannot even imagine the "experiment" to test their predictions. (How do you change average IQ of a population experimentally?) They report their results as a valid first-order approximation in the context of a demonstration of the large tail-effects from a small change in mean IQ. ... I think your line of reasoning may be missing something crucial about what's reasonable to expect from a social science investigation, which is why I asked about whether you knew of some particular or general criticism. What we cannot do is water down their published conclusions. --Rikurzhen 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, I think JereKrischel's point is that they aren't actually performing many if any experiments, the crux or key point is they are basically manipulating data on a piece of paper (theoretical models etc...)? If there exists citeable criticisms of their allegedly unscientific methodology of course to be neutral we must present this issue differently than they do, right? Isn't neutrality more important than the desire to unquestioningly repeat what they represent as a "conclusion"? Cruxtaposition 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Cruxtaposition, thank you for your support, but I'm not stating that their methodology was unscientific at all - all I'm concerned about is that their scientific *simulation* be presented as the simulation it was. One could very well repeat their procedure on additional data sets, and validate or challenge their initial conclusions in the context of a simplified, simulated model, and in that sense it is scientific. However, it does not come close to definitively demonstrating that a 3 point move in IQ would have any specific effects, which is what I think the current langugage leads the reader to believe. I'm not in favor of watering down any published conclusions, but I am in favor of presenting those conclusions accurately. Their conclusions, simply put, were that if you simulated a 3-point drop or rise, ignoring secondary effects, you got certain changes in other metrics. Can we just make sure we state that clearly? --JereKrischel 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok JK, you have a valid point about making sure to report scientific/data simulations as experiments(?) rather than as conclusive determinations but my concern is even larger, after recently reading the scientific racism article I think this article completely obfuscates the citable allegation that "race and intelligence" research is racist propaganda fabricated to have the appearance of science. What do you think? Cruxtaposition 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only respond to that in one way, Cruxtaposition - assume good faith. Rikurzhen and Nectar, although we may disagree violently, are trying to do their best to make a good article. I think that they honestly believe in their cause, and want it presented in an open and honest manner. I think that they tend to push POV when they summarize, paraphrase, and report on various studies, but I think that it isn't intentional but just a matter of ingrained perspective. I believe that they are open to changes in the presentation, but they have severe concerns about painting the research they cite as completely invalid. I'd like to make it clear that it is questionable, but not so much as to lead the reader to believe that it is completely unfounded. I suppose I'd like to have the article leave a reasonable doubt.

My personal opinion is that much of the basic research both Nectar and Rikurzhen cite, and even much of the basic research cited by some of the Pioneer Fund grantees (who in many cases are just doing meta-analysis of other studies, not original work), is sound. There are biogeographic genetic differences between people, and it is clear that these can have practical effects. That being said, all too often this basic research gets twisted into a form which asserts classical "race" stereotypes and paints with an overly broad brush given the actual data behind the meta-analysis. On the one hand, you have people who get angry about any idea that biogeographic regions could have different characteristics, and on the other hand, you have people who want to simplify the complex nature of biogeographic differences and talk about "Black", "White", "East Asian" as if they are monolithic, immutable groups.

In the end, I think it would be very helpful if Nectar and Rikurzhen tried writing from the other POV (the one which wants things presented with reasonable doubt, instead of incontrovertible fact), but I can understand that it can be difficult. I try my best to not have my edits imply complete invalidation of the research, but I know sometimes I cross the line as well. I'm sure as we go forward, we can work things out appropriately.

Oh, a final P.S. - I got cited for 3RR during my attempt to find compromise langugage (with several different edits being considered identical because they had two words repeated 3 times, and a close approximation twice), and I felt that was unfair on the part of the accuser - please assume good faith on my part as well. I'm not here to edit war, I'm really trying to find common ground. Thanks everyone! --JereKrischel 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is the worst kind of policy if it causes you and/or others to allow a suggestive and scientificly rascist article to remain unchallenged. Judging from the (inexplicable) tone of your response I think you underestimate all of the problems with this article. The priority should be to eliminate misleading dichotomies and suggestive and racism inducing word choices from Wikipedia and not perpetuate Rikurzhen and Nectar's denial, especially since I have not seen any instance of them ever debating in good faith. There is strong evidence that "race and intelligence" is nothing but intentionally misleading propaganda, this should be reported on and their word choices cleaned up or caveatted. The fact that Rikurzhen and Nectar have, perhaps unwittingly, systematically denied, downplayed and mischaracterized all fundamental criticism of "race and intelligence" is an extremely serious concern and massive violation of Wikipedia policy. Given the extreme violation of the principle of neutral presentation occuring in this article your response is vastly inexplicable. If few new readers are reading this article and are likely to be infected by its intentionally misleading presentation and your only concern is to wake Rikurzhen and Nectar up softly then I suppose I defer to your plan, but it seems a vastly insufficient way of conveying the extreme degree to which this article and area of "research" presents the issue misleadingly, in my interpretation. Cruxtaposition 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AGF is not an easy policy, to be sure, and it has its flaws, but like democracy, it is the worst possible system, except for all others that have been tried. As much as I disagree with Rikurzhen and Nectar, they have been conscientous in engaging in dialog, and I have great hope for future compromises. I think the important part is for us to clearly understand how, in good faith, someone could disagree with us. In Nectar/Rikurzhen's case, I believe I understand their legitimate concerns - and the only way anyone is going to be able to find compromise with them is to acknowledge those concerns as legitimate, and find ways to address them. I firmly believe it is possible to make this article more NPOV, accurate, and less misleading than it is right now, and for it to be done in such a way that does not discredit the concerns of Nectar and Rikurzhen, and other editors who may be, in their private lives, proponents of the hereditarian stance.

It is not easy, to be sure, and I rely heavily on the good faith of the hereditarian editors, but in the end, I have to believe we share common ground in our desire to contribute and improve Wikipedia. Hopefully, as hard as it may be, you'll be able to try and AGF and have positive results. --JereKrischel 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith or give the benefit of the doubt (but don't stop doubting) is perhaps a good initial policy if you lack evidence to the contrary which in this case is absolutely not true. In my interpretation the only explanation for Rikurzhen and Nectar's position is they've been infected by (or brain washed into mindlessly supporting) what "race and intelligence" publications represent as conclusivity and the way those publications have errantly framed the entire issue around "race" (intentionally confusing description with causality). Cajoling proponents of one "stance" can not possibly be justification for the exclusion, downplaying and mischaractization of alternative stances and fundamentally disputed points. It is Wikipedia policy that a "stance" should be presented inside a generic article that presents the subject neutrally, which this article is the anti-thesis of. Cruxtaposition 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you give AGF a try. I know that in the end, so long as we're willing to discuss things, we can move forward. --JereKrischel 02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

AGF has been relentlessly abused by POV pushers and apparent propagandists who rarely if ever debate in good faith, AGF is in tatters along with many of the principles behind most Wikipedia policies. Though, I am always open to discussion, but I must note that I still interpret your position to be inexplicable, it does not compute that you would "disagree strongly" with Nectar and Rikurzhen and yet you allow the misleading presentation of this subject (that they, perhaps unwittingly, support) to remain unchallenged. Cruxtaposition 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Late response... JK's last edits (+simulation) are fine. --Rikurzhen 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)