Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

brain size wrt latitude

Here's just a few studies that show that brain size maps to latitude: [1],[2]. The pseudo-mapping to races is incidental (as races have also a partial mapping to latitude). Unfortunately, you can't use the partial mapping of race to latitude to conclude that brain size varies according to race and make your argument from there. It's like having a study saying that fast cars are more dangerous because of the speed, and then saying that since a large proportion of fast cars are red, red cars are more dangerous to drive. It just doesn't stand up, logically speaking. You just have to take the (few) IQ results of Arctic peoples and see how their skull size maps against their IQ to know that the racial correlation of brain size is just incidental and partial.--Ramdrake 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, it's not my argument. The definitive citation is the APA report in the form of Neisser 1997. You or JK brought up the claim that it is due to latitude and thus we can ignore "race" differences. (My counter claim was that the cause of the difference was certainly a matter of dispute but that the fact of race differences was not in dispute.) The formulation that "race" differences can be ignored b/c they are actually "latitude" differences is not found in Neisser 1997 and would require a secondary source to make this claim explicitly. Otherwise, what we have to go on is an adversarial source (Neisser) confirming what all the other sources would indicate is true -- that there are significant (but "small") differences in brain size between Blacks, Whites, and East Asians. On a secondary note, the idea that brain size differences are due to adapation to climate is exactly the theory that Lynn and Rushton embrace, where they differ is to also link that with the evolution of IQ differences (a theory which I am wholly agnostic about). You will note that this causal level of explanation is not the one that we are describing in the text, and so to claim it as a source of controversy is missing the point. --Rikurzhen 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you are not making sense. Race is correlated to brain size. That's a fact. The reason for this correlation may very well be latitude, and the correlation between latitude and brain size may easily be larger than the correlation between race and brain size. (Rushton, whom you otherwise don't seem to defend, has whole theory about that.) But that does not change the existence of a correlation—it fact, it explains the point. All the evidence you are bringing to the table is in favour of there being a known, factual correlation between race and brain size. I have the feeling this is right at the heart of the fundamental misunderstanding you have about the gist of this whole research. Of course race is just a label that happens to be concordant with a lot of other, factors that actually determine intelligence. Race does not determine intelligence, but it is highly correlated to several factors that actually do—genes could be such a thing. All of this does not change the fact that in the US, social scientists and politicians stratify things by race (rather than by IQ or by gene XYZ), so the correlation by race is obviously interesting. Arbor 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor's comment should be re-read. It is concise and on point. --Rikurzhen 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen and Arbor, maybe I wasn't clear the first time around. That brain size (or actually skull size) is latitude-dependant is enough of a claim AFAIK to sustain that the brain size-race correlation is actually an artefact of what really goes on. The problem is we first say that brain size is "correlated with" race, and then we conflate correlation with causation. There exists a gross correlation between race and and brain size, but brain size is NOT a function of race. If you read the article, you will see that the relationship of breain size to race is treated as some kind of direct function. My point is that it is not a function of race, but of latitude. There is ample evidence that it is a function of latitude and climate (see the articles by Beals for more detail). That racial distribution partly correlates with latitude and climate is happenstance. It's like in my example to say that red cars are dangerous to drive because it happens that a large proportion of sports cars happen to be red. You will find a correlation, but it is meaningless. You can certainly say that several researchers think there is a race-brain size correlation, but I don't think you can say it is mainstream and/or unchallenged.--Ramdrake 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want a reference directly disputing the race-brain size hypothesis of people like Rushton, here is the reference to the full-text article. [3] So, now that we've established that this is contested, I think we can throw away the notion that this correlation is "mainstream", which doesn't mean we can't present it as a particular POV opinion (just like its contestation should be introduced as another POV opinion). Under the circusmtances, neither should be presented as "fact".--Ramdrake 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, again, (2) the causal hypotheses for why race differences in brain size exist is a entirely separate matter from (1) the existence of race differences in brain size. What you may not be aware of is that brain size is not unique in that it varies by race / geography. The phenomena of a trait or allele varying in a geographic gradient is called a "cline". Skin color variation in humans is clinal, and correlates highly with latitude. Nonetheless, there are also obvious skin color differences between "races". The fact that skin color differences can be explained as a function of latitude does not mean that they cannot also be described as differing by race. (In fact - of course - skin color is predominantly described as varying by race whereas it would be equally valid to describe it varying by latitude of ancestry.) The existence of "clines" is well understood to be at the heart of the complication with and reason to be skeptical of racial classification. Nonetheless, racial classifications are the heart of this subject, and so it is not valid to criticize any particular instance of racial classifications merely on the basis that the variation could also be described as clinal. Such a criticism is a matter of background, which could be expanded upon in the appropraite section. But we need to make necessary assumptions. In summary: brain size varying by latitude is just a special case of the general pattern of clinal variation in human biogeography. It is a competing/complementary way of describing variation to "race". But that debate exists at a different level than what's being described in this article. Deeper connection: The immigrant residents of the U.S. come from geographically distinct regions of the globe, generally at extremes (NW Europe, E Asian, W Africa). A trait that appears as a cline in the old world will appear as racial in the U.S. Likewise, the existence of global clines does not also mean that there aren't "clusters".[4] --Rikurzhen 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So, are you in fact saying that affirming that brain size varies according to race is the same as saying that brain size varies according to latitude and climate?--Ramdrake 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Those claims are of course not identical, but glossing over all subtly of definitions and data, the shortest answer is "yes". However, "climate" is an explanation, not a data point. A race is a cluster identified by many traits whereas a cline is a geographic pattern in just one trait, etc... --Rikurzhen 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, how can you explain that while Rushton finds a correlation coefficient of 0.2-0.3 between races and brain size, Beals et al find a correlation coefficient of 0.5-0.6 between latitude and brain size? The one explanation that comes to mind is that the "real" correlation is with latitude, and the lower, weaker correlation with race is incidental.--Ramdrake 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor anticipated this possibility and pointed out the distinction between the level of description and the level of explanation. Description (i.e., that races differ in brain size and brain size also correlates with latitude) is facile. Explanation (e.g., brain size is an evolutionary adaptation to climate) is difficult. At the level of description, one is not more "real" than the other. The correlation between African ancestry and skin color is around .5, but I'm sure the correlation with latitude is higher. Nonetheless, no one takes this to mean that races don't differ in skin color. --Rikurzhen 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Races don't differ in skin color - there are people of different "races" with the same skin color in many instances. I think Ramdrake rightfully points out that there is no consensus on race differences in brain size, even though it is a statistical argument. Individual cars differ in paint color, but can we say that there is a Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy of color? Even if we were to find some weak bias one way or another (let's say Toyota produces 10% more white cars than Ford which produces 5% more white cars than Chrysler), would it then be appropriate to say there is an undisputed "white color" gap between Toyota-Ford-Chrysler? --JereKrischel 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When one says "race differces in x" what is implied is "differences in the average value of x among people of different races". This should be obvious to all of us, no? Your analogy to cars makes no sense. Color can be quantified as wavelength, but the distribution of colors between Toyotas and Fords is likely to be completely overlapping when you consider all model years. Such an analogy doesn't help. I hope Ramdrake was close to understanding the difference between an observation (e.g. race differences in average brain size) and an explanation (e.g. adapation to regional climate). Observations (i.e. data) are the raw material of science, upon which competing hypotheses can be created and tested. Whether you consider brain size differences in terms of race or latitude will depend on which kind of question you want to ask. If the question is about "race and intelligence", then it makes perfect sense that you would consider brain size in terms of race also. That brain sizes are tightly correlated with latitude is of no consequence to the truth of the matter that they also differ by race. (It does of course matter to building an explanation for brain size differences, though probably not as Ramdrake first thought given the tight relationship between clines and races.) --Rikurzhen 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the brain size-race correlation is an observational artefact, i.e. while there may be a correlation, it is without significance, as the genuine parameter upon which the variation is based is latitude (and a few other climate-related variables), but that's just my opinion. I'll settle for mentioning that the group variation in brain size is ascribed by some to be related to race, and by others to be related to latitude. I just think it would be misleading to present the brain size-race correlation as incontrovertible fact or mainstream opinion, as it is obviously contested.--Ramdrake 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The car color analogy works even if you want to take all the car colors of every car they produce, and create an average color - you can then assert a Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy based on their average color wavelength. If we did such a study, and found a spread of 400Hz, would the Toyota-Ford-Chrysler hierarchy be an undisputed fact? Now, take it a step further and say we did a study based on car sales by latitude, and found an average color when looked at by latitude had an even more pronounced spread, let's say 40,000Hz, would the car color latitude hierarchy be an undisputed fact? Arguably, both are "factual", but I think that maybe we're losing critical context if we don't indicate the more correlated measure, and the relative correlations (is it by an order of magnitude, or just within a reasonable margin of error?). So I propose that if we are to present the information regarding brain size differences as "fact", we need to closely, and prominently mention the "fact" of the higher correlation with latitude - to do otherwise seems to lose important context. Would that be acceptable to you, Rikurzhen? Can we, in the same sentence as a B-W-EA brain size hierarchy is mentioned, note that although factual, it does not represent the most highly correlated view of the data? --JereKrischel 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[outdent] Ignoring the car analogy... The latitude view is not obviously privledged because of its greater strength of correlation. Rather, the cline versus race way of describing the pattern is a specific example of the more general debate about whehter human biodiversity has racial (i.e. clustered) or clinal properties. That debate is beyond the scope of this article; a necessary assumption is that human variation can be described in terms of race. (Note that race is not being discovered in the pattern of brain size differences, but rather race is taken a priori and then compared on brain size.) To simply add to the brain size/reaction time/achievement section that global brain size variation is correlated with latitude would be obviously fine. To also expand that observation into an argument that the clinal way of describing the variation is meaningful and the race-wise way is not meaningful would be to engage in the "is race real?" debate, and would not appropriate. Claims that the "correlation is greater" would need to be suspect to greater scrutiny, as the word "correlation" does not mean just one thing, especially in the context of using continuous verus nominal variables. (That is, race is not a number, unlike latitude. However, Jensen 1998 reports that the correlation between average brain size and average IQ for B, W, and EA populations is r>.99.) --Rikurzhen 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind either if we said that brain size varies according to group, and that some interpret it as varying according to race (although I would be careful not to mix Jensen's purported correlation of brain size to IQ, as we are here discussing the correlation of brain size to race, and all sources I could find who have described a correlation usually find a much more modest one at 0.2-0.3 for example, according to Rushton) while others interpret it as varying by latitude and climate (with the corresponding correlation, 0.5-0.6 according to Beals). That way, we wouldn't give the impression that the race-brain size variation is an "unchallenged fact" (it is being challenged by a competing explanation: latitude and climate).--Ramdrake 11:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of illustrating the difference between the correlations - we can simply state the data, and explain that different people choose to interpret it in different ways. --JereKrischel 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's use another example (I believe it paraphrases Gould, but I'm not sure): over the last few years, the price of gas at the pump has been steadily increasing, and the amount of hair on top of my head has been steadily decreasing. Would you state there is an "inverse correlation" between the price of gas and the amount of hair on my head? Or would you rather say any correlation is "coincidental"? I wouldn't be surprised if you did say it was coincidental. Likewise, scientists have argued that the brain size-race "correlation" is coincidental to the real correlation. (In the previous case, my falling hair has to do with my advancing age, and gas price has to do with inflation; the only real relationship between the two is time).--Ramdrake 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full reply. This is not good (especially the second paragraph). You should re-read Arbor's comment that I flagged above. As Arbor points out, "race" is usually not an explanation for anything, but simply a way to group the population. (Genes and environment in some mix proximally explain why individuals and groups are different. History, including evolutionary history, explains this distally.)

Where is the idea that there's a "correlation" between race and brain size coming from? Specifically the word "correlation". --Rikurzhen 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The correlation is claimed by Rushton and others. That is why they order brain size as EA-B-W.The fundamental problem is that many hereditarian researchers make the construct "IQ is related to brain size" (now disputed-see below) and then "brain size is related to race" (disputed) to conclude "IQ is related to race" (disputed also). Also, since it is the second time you issue a warning on the meaning of "correlation", I would appreciate if you could expound on the ramifications of its meaning, in your understanding (when you have a moment, of course). I'd like to make sure we are working with the same definitions.--Ramdrake 19:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The one way I see we can get out of this descrptional impasse would be to state that brain size varies between groups of humans, and that some researchers have ascribed the variation to race (with r=0.2-0.3) while others have ascribed it to latitude and climate (with r=0.5-0.6). I think that's the most neutral this can get. I'm quite sure that just stating that "brain size varies with race" is both incomplete and misleading.--Ramdrake 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I also found this in [5]

(...)another recent study examines the relationship between brain volume and IQ (Schoenemann et al. 2000) but partitions the variation in a significant way. With three relevant variables (IQ, brain size, and conditions of life), these researchers control for the conditions of life by contrasting the relationship between IQ and brain size within families (where the conditions of life vary little) and between families (where the conditions of life vary more substantially). They find a correlation between IQ and brain size only across families, where both the conditions of life and the volume of the brain vary. Within families, where brain volume differs but the conditions of life differ much less, there is no correlation between brain volume and IQ. To the extent, then, that there may be an empirical relationship between brain size and IQ, it is far more likely to represent a spurious statistical consequence of common life circumstances than it is to represent a deterministic nexus linking size of brain and size of thought.

Here is a direct link to the Schoenemann article cited (full article freely available):[6]. So, it does look like even the brain size to IQ relationship is challenged. But we'll keep that for the next discussion. :)--Ramdrake 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I again don't have the time required to fully reply. the primary problem here is a confusion about (and confounding of) different levels of description. (1) no one "ascribes" (as in "explains") variation in brain size to race. rather races happen to vary in brain size because of certain causes (as described in my last short reply) which it seems most researchers agree includes regional evolutionary adapation to climate (this is a major part of Lynn's & Rushton's theories i believe). (2) the pearson correlation (r) is calculated between two continuous variables. race is not a continuous variable, and it requires different and more sophisticated kinds of statistcs to compare a continuous variable with a cateogorical variable (like race). i briefly searched thru Rushton's PDFs to see if he uses "correlation" to describe the B-W-EA difference in brain size. based on my seach, he does not. he does sometimes correlate some continuous variable that is different between races (say IQ) with brain size to find that they are correlated. (3) looking at individual primary research papers to form an opinion about the brain size IQ correlation is not appropriate for this article. (likewise with race differences in brain size.) the various review articles and textbooks (Gray and Thompson 2004; Sternberg's "Handbook on Intelligence"; McDaniels 2005) all agree that the within-race-sex-age correlation between total brain size and IQ is .4. however, i believe Schoenemann's different findings are described in the sub-article. coincidently, while searching thru Sternberg's "Handbook on Intelligence" I found that it too agrees that there are race differences in brain size. --Rikurzhen 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I have a problem understanding your objection. If we say that some people find that brain size varies according to race, while others find the variation is according to latitude, where is the harm? Best case scenario, it will help people better understand the underpinnings of the debate, and worst case scenario it may seem like superfluous information for some. And, FWIW, I have been using Lieberman, a secondary source for most of the arguments presented in this section.--Ramdrake 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely appending a sentence saying that brain size is correlated with latitude among indigenous populations is fine. The additional material that you seem to have been suggesting would not be. --Rikurzhen 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section we were concerned with was the "genetic explanations" section with the "4 lines of converging data"...can you do us a favor, Rikurzhen, and "write for the enemy" the compromise you think might work? Let's try a few iterations between us, and see if we can put the first line into a more NPOV position. I believe it currently reads:

Worldwide Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size believed to exist based on various compliations of previous studies. In the United States, Black-White IQ differences of varying magnitudes have been observed when controlling for age (above 3 years), occupation, socioeconomic level, and region of the country.

Your take on what you think might be acceptable to Ramdrake and I would be greatly appreciated. --JereKrischel 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JK, (1) "believed to exist" is a WP:WEASEL term (who believes it to exist? it's the mainstream view of scientists who write review articles on this topic) and "based on various compilations of pervious studies" merely describes review papers and the process of meta-analysis (which are the proper basis for establishing that it's the mainstream view). We cannot present mainstream views this this way. Note that the interpretation of these facts WRT the cause of the BW gap is controversial, but not the facts themseleves. (2) The previously established structure of the now "Explanations" sections is to present an the best arguments for the particular positions mostly unbroken by counter-arguments. I believe this is the policy recommendation on presenting a scientific dispute fairly. --Rikurzhen 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I you're insisting that the opinion that there are significant racial differences in brain size is the mainstream opinion, I think the controversial nature of this statement has been demonstrated enough to show that it is not the mainstream opinion, but an opinion shared by many researchers (while others dissent). Also, the Neisser comment on the APA report (Neisser 1997) states this: Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe. Nowhere is the mention of "significant differences" made, just that of a "small overall trend" (which without qualification may or may not be significant). Also, Neisser prefaced his entire comment with this caveat: Readers should be aware that this response reflects only my views, not necessarily those of other members of the task force. So, one can't take anything in this comment as representative of the APA task force's opinion as a whole, but just as Neisser's views. So, I think the right thing to do NPOV-wise is to describe both positions (brain size varies with race vs brain size varies according to latitude and climate) as being just that: positions in a debate.--Ramdrake 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bias - about PF fund

[from archive] This gets us back to the discussion about PF and "bias" from above. As per the long thread above, you have mischaracterized claims about the effects PF on research. The test is in how PF research is treated by the reseacher's peers -- not what outsiders and nonscientist think. The opinion is well summarized by Sternberg in the Skeptic magazine interview that was linked previous: PF doesn't matter when evaluating the science. --Rikurzhen 08:44��B�����eGET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Slrubenstein HTTP/1.0 Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-sockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applic�ation/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/mswor arises solely from its relation to some theory and its testability, or susceptibility to empirical refutation. Which is the same opinion expressed by Sternberg. I believe this gets to the crux of what Nectar was getting at about comments made by this within/outside the field. If Jensen and Sternberg, who disagree on many points, agree on this matter, then it is important that we take their opinion about what's important into account. --Rikurzhen 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think when it comes down to it, Jensen and Sternberg's agreement does not obviate the criticism that has been made of the Pioneer Fund grantees and funded research by Gould and other scientists, scholars, and journalists. To somehow elevate an arbitrary group (say "Intelligence researchers") as the standard by which we discredit criticism is really unnecessary. We can certainly make mention of some of the positive notes made by people though, to present a balance with the criticism - I just think that in either case (praise/criticism), we shouldn't be trying to undercut their worth by ad-hominem attack, or appeal to authority. Can we take Jensen & Sternberg's example and work it in without trying to undercut Jensen by calling him "cited by notorious racialists", or overplay him by calling him "praised by unbiased scientists"? --JereKrischel 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that what Nectar was looking for was to distinguish between those people/journals who study intelligence and those looking from the outside, and to make this clear in the text. And of course the MMoM/Gould is a relaible source for his own opinions (despite not being a reliable source for the scientific consensus.) --Rikurzhen 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Pete Hurd wrote a good section on generalist journals versus specialist journals - I don't see any worthwhile distinction there as to credibility regarding the issue. We could just as soon caveat every research with that their background is, psychology, genetics, anthropology, etc. Rather than distinguish types of criticism in some arbitrary way, why not just stte the criticism, and state the praise in a neutral, sympathetic manner? --JereKrischel 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The distiction of importance is at the level of individual commentors. Jensen, Sternberg, are specialist in the field of intelligence. Critics of the sort cited are not. --Rikurzhen 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like something different that what I originally understood you to be saying. If I'm not mistaken, the original contention was that we should include phrasing to the effect that criticism had not come from "specialist intelligence journals" - if we want to identify the background of critics and commentors, i.e., this one is a psychologist, this one is an anthropologist, this one is a geneticist, I suppose I could agree with that - is that acceptable to you? --JereKrischel 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

in deference to SLR, i'm waiting for the brain size thread to be completed. --Rikurzhen 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This talk page is now 89 kb long. I beg Rikurzhen, JereKrischel, and Ramdrake to pick just one of the points of contention currently being discussed, hammer out a compromise change to the article that satisfies all parties (and its compliant with core policies) and then archive whatever talk was related to that point of contention/compromise. Just trying to be constructive (and I find it hard to believe that any of you has yet to have communicated to the others what s/he thinks and why). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no better place to start than the top - Rikurzhen, Ramdrake, et.al., would you like to pick one issue and call for a moratorium on other issues until we get it settled? --JereKrischel 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, the brain size issue is the most active. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the moratorium.--Ramdrake 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical Suggestion

Thinking about it in the shower this morning, I thought maybe we could do something more radical than try to fine tune this article - what if we were to create two articles, one called Genetics and Intelligence, and one called Race and Genetics - we could probably write a very good article on Genetics and Intelligence without too much consternation, simply illustrating the various studies and overall agreement on the partial influence of genetics on intelligence, and then have the real disagreements, between whether or not race is a genetically viable proxy for genetics in another. Just an idea, of course, I'm not suggesting I have a complete answer, but I thought it might be interesting to try. --JereKrischel 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would go a long way towards removing the contentiousness of this article.--Ramdrake 22:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

These articles already exist in the form of Inheritance of intelligence (which is a sub of IQ) and race. Also, Wikipedia:Content forking generally rules out such proposals. --Rikurzhen 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No only that. Genetics and intelligence is a field we know very little about. (In the sense that there is only a tiny handful of papers highlighting some candidate "brain-buildling" genes. Not in the sense that we know that there is a genetic contribution.) This is all very new research, and nobody really knows much, not even Bruce Lahn. I sure wish we did know more about it. On the other hand, Race and intelligence is a field that has been studies for a century (or at least for a number of decades) with thousands of publications. You and I and Rik may all agree that Genetics and intelligence is teh shit and the True and Good way of presenting this whole body of knowledge. (I certainly think that in two or three decades that will be the case.) But Wikipedia has no ambition to provide superior presentations. Quite the contrary. It is explicitly forbidden. Race and intelligence is a very real field with very real data and a huge body of work; articles. books. survey papers. Even if we all agreed that Genetics and intelligence (or Test bias and IQ tests or Discrimination and school performance or whatever) is the best way of understanding this complex, we couldn't just write it. But what we can do is to make this the best damn article on Race and intelligence on the planet. Arbor 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, Arbor - I think if all the people cited in the R&I article could admit that Genetics and intelligence is a field we know very little about, maybe we wouldn't have such consternation :). But enough said, let's try and knock down one disputed section at a time (currently on the B-W-EA brain size differences argument, if I'm not mistaken), and work on compromises and NPOV. I move to table my suggestion, and put this in the archive. --JereKrischel 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is common to distinguish between "genetics" and "inheritance" (or "heritability"). Here, Arbor is taking "genetics" to mean "molecular genetics"; where "inheritance" might be understood to mean "quantitative/behavioral genetics". --Rikurzhen 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion present in society that the word "races" is subtly and/or unconsciously synonymous with the word "genetics" is too strong to ignore and too dangerous to perpetuate. It's very noteworthy that advocates of "race and intelligence research" do not even attempt to define the word or concept of "races" using words from the field of genetics, this should be a scientific prerequisite in my interpretation. This article's X and Y method of presentation is fundamentally disputed just because of the fact that many genetists have publicly contradicted "race and intelligence researchers" proposed (or lack of a scientific) definition for the concept of "races". How can presenting an issue using an X and Y dichotomy be neutral and scientific if the presenter refuses to scientifically define "X"? It almost seems as if "race and intelligence researchers" do not even really attempt to "define" the word or concept of "races" scientifically because they prefer the common prejudicial/stereotypical ones. Geneticsts have long argued that the prejudicial and stereotype-esque "definitions" of "races" are wrong and have no scientific basis, why do "race and intelligence researchers" perpetuate this confusion? Words are suppose to point toward abstract conceptualization and mean nothing intrinsically.

Any title like "race and genetics" will probably be errantly read as a tautologistic dichotomy centered around the same concept. Adding another layer of dichotomy around this abstract issue only perpetuates and obfuscates the extreme problems with the incomplete and misleading way this issue has already been presented. There are numerous ways of contrasting things for the purpose of thinking about the larger issue, a key question is why do advocates of "race and intelligence research" always focus, to the exclusion of all else, on just one contrast among many possible? Just because someone else relentlessly contrasts a larger abstract issue exclusively one way does NOT mean you have to think about it their way. To escape a dichotomy you should think about an issue abstractly and search for alternate and multiple ways of mentally contrasting something. Zen Apprentice 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)