Jump to content

Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

A question on research results

A number of years ago I had a real-world experience that makes me wonder about the validity of simple measures of intelligence as correlated to any disadvantaged population. I had a student on whom I used a test derived from Max Wertheimer's Productive Thinking, Judging by the test, the student was probably more intelligent than I am. However, he had a couple of "shortcomings" that were probably all genetic. To look at him you would think that he was fat, but in fact he was enormously strong and the contours of his muscles were softened by a little fat. He was also enormously full of fun, not a trait that is valued among all primary and secondary school teachers. I think the reason he ended up in disciplinary school may have had something to do with an outbreak of exuberance and expression of those two traits. (I picture a 6th-grade teacher being given the airplane spin...) So, enormously strong, enormously fun-loving and good willed, IQ around the 140 level. How would he test out if given standard tests? At 15 he had a fourth grade reading level and was doing everything possible to evade attempts to teach him because of his embarrassment and unwillingness to make mistakes in front of his peers, and he did not even know his multiplication tables. I could not communicate to this young man how intelligent he was, and his goal in life was a construction job with his uncle.

If his was the only case like this, it wouldn't make any difference in a large study of intelligence measures correlated to [race]. But how is it known what percentage of individuals among a disadvantaged group are similarly handicapped? The IQ tests that are used in large studies would not have measured this student's IQ accurately because he had never really learned to read or to do math. To make matters even more complicated, humans are enormously resistant to anything they interpret as being manipulative, so even well-intentioned attempts to evaluate the real intelligence of individuals may be frustrated when applied to a population that views the testers as their enemies. (I had another student who had a perfect "dead stupid" act that I would never have penetrated had he not intentionally revealed his real abilities.) P0M 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The kids I taught on the Bronx did this all the time. Only if they trusted me would they reveal how smart they were. Teenagers are the same everywhere from the Bronx to the Upper East Side. But, oh my, they do grow of differently! But, alas, personal experience isn't a "source" so what we need to do is focus on adding the sourced information that we all know exists out there to these articles to show the other side of this story.
It's gonna' be a lot of work, but it will be worth it.
It might do some good to look into the complex stigama around "acting white" for some inner city kids. Doing well in school, trying to do well on tests, that's all part of it.futurebird 13:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"A number of years ago I had a real-world experience that makes me wonder about the validity of simple measures of intelligence as correlated to any disadvantaged population .... But how is it known what percentage of individuals among a disadvantaged group are similarly handicapped?" Personal experiences are useuless on this page and only obstruct the urgent task. And this is a question that is important if one is conducting original research but we cannot do that and wasting time on such questions only takes time away from the urgent task. "It's gonna' be a lot of work, but it will be worth it." Agreed. There has been so much discussion on this page, there is no point in wasting any more time on personal experiences and personal beliefs. Everyone has clarity on these, and they do not do what this page is meant to do which is produce improvements to the articles. Focus on finding verifiable NPOV sources and putting them in where they belong. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are reputable sources that deal with the methodological probled I have presented. Any suggestions? P0M 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe there are no reputable sources dealing with this question. Too much work. Not my job. If so, shouldn't the reader be informed? P0M 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this ready for unprotection?

The discussion seems to be slowing down, which suggests to me that the debate might be cooling off. Is everyone ready for this page to be unprotected? ⟳ausa کui × 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just because JK is not around. futurebird 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been a bit busy, but trying to pay attention. I'm afraid that I don't have a great deal of faith that we're ready for unprotection yet, but we can certainly open it up and try. My guess is that futurebird, myself and others will try to make some significant organizational changes, and WRN won't be happy with it. I'd still like to build some real consensus with WRN, but it may not be possible. --JereKrischel 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will unprotect the page - well, I will semi-protect it. I want to share my reasons and make a comment I hope everyone will consider before going to it, editing the article. I have, informally, been trying to mediate this dispute for two weeks which can be a lifetime for many articles. I think I have failed in that I have not produced any consensus including - just to pick two prominent examples - JK and RIK. However, I do think the mediation has been partially succesful in that it has produced more directed, engaged discussion focussing on specific contentious issues. I want to give active contributors to this page some advice about editing the article that I think will prevent the need for future mediation:
  1. Our WP:NPOV policy demands that the most hotly debated issues be fully represented in an article.
  2. An article on race and intelligence must provide appropriate background concerning both Race and Intelligence. This background should be consistent with the linked articles on race and intelligence but need not reproduce everything in those articles, only that which is relevant to this topic (the relationship between the two, or any explanations which try to link the two, or arguments against explanations that link the two). Do not be afraid to summarize points made in those articles, and allow readers to use links to learn more.
  3. literature about race (e.g. its social construction) cited in this article should be restricted to discussions of race that explicitly address debates about intelligence, or sources that are cited prominently in sources that explicitly address race and intelligence. I understand that many of you feel this is unnecessarily restrictive. But I am just being practical. If you want a stable, unprotected article that will not have to be protected again because of an escalating revert war, follow this suggestion. I assure you there is LOTS of published material that is explicitly about race AND intelligence from all points of views, including yours!
  4. Such sources will not be limited to one academic discipline. We agree that psychologists have special expertise on intelligence, but that sociologists and anthropologists as well as evolutionary biologists have expertise on race, and if what they write has entered into debates on race and intelligence, it constitutes an appropriate source for this article.
Be civil and assume good faith and more than aything else, be focused. Take material from this page that everybody or almost everybody agrees is verifiable, make sure you incorporate it into the article in a non-argumantative, non-tendentious way ... put it in solely to illustrate just one more of the many views here, and I think you will be okay. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably still contentious issues

Just to list them out, and to be aware of them going forward:

  • Is the question regarding causes as simple as genetic vs. environment? Or are there multiple axes upon which an answer can be found? This question is especially important when deciding how to characterize research and conflicting POVs.
  • How important is it to cite the specific definition of "race" and "intelligence", if any, when citing a study? More importantly, what should we say when a given study does not use an explicit definition?
  • If a source makes a five point argument, is it appropriate for us to walk through all five points with extensive detail? If that five point argument is attacked in another source, is it appropriate for us to walk through all of their points with extensive detail? Short version: when is too much too much?

I'm sure other people may have other things to add to this list, but IMHO, these issues still loom large, and have not been settled. I intend to attempt to address these issues with my own edits, and others may as well, but I would venture to say that these are the areas which are going to come to a head once again. Good luck everyone! --JereKrischel 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. race and intelligence, which is in terms of things specifically written about the topic is mostly about the results of contemporary research, unless someone finds sources which document other important threads of publication
  2. g vs e; that's what the sources i know of specifically say; what sources specifically way it has multiple dimensions? (as compared to simply multiple facets?)
  3. you can't possibly compare and contrast without a source doing the comparing and contrasting. you can't emphasize something some published source doesn't emphasize. (what's the point of saying one study used WAIS and another used RPM? who says they should be distinguished?) we'd have no more reason to do that than to document the race of every person being discussed or the impact factor of every journal in which things are published. we're not writing a research paper on methods of IQ testing and race ascertainment.
  4. macro/micro wikipedia by WP:Summary style answers this. --W.R.N. 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, WRN's opinions are nowhere near consensus with all the other editors. It is very difficult to imagine what kind of common ground we'll be able to come to on these contentious issues, but I'm willing to entertain suggestions. --JereKrischel 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Should this article be concerned with what people who are not defined as scientists in this particular field of research may think and write? Whose definitions of "scientist" rules?
  2. Should this article accept the argument that if one is capable of functioning at a high level of competence in mathematics and language then that person must be highly intelligent, and also accept therefore the argument that if someone is highly intelligent that that persom must be highly competent in mathematics and language?
  3. If one study involves a "three races of humans" categorization, and another study involves a "five races of humans" categorization, can even the groups that happen to share an English name be meaningfully compared?
  4. When is less writing more work for the reader, and when does it mean more possibility of misinterpretation, more need for backtracking, etc.? P0M 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ distribution image

I think the colors on the right and left side of the distribution image should be switched because they have counter-intuitive meanings.

direct-indirect

sources need for this distinction; it simply can't be taken for granted. I don't think scholars of mental chronometry or neuroanatomy would necessarily agree that their windows into intelligence are more indirect than psychometric instruments. --W.R.N. 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling a section "Average gaps among races" begs several questions. Average gaps of what? Well, the sub-sections included everything from directly measured test scores, some IQ based, others not, some estimated IQs, and even reaction time and brain size. Why not some metric of how racist different races are? Or penis length (for the Rushton fans)? Or SES? If we're talking about "Average intelligence gaps among races", I'd argue that we should limit ourselves to citing direct measures of intelligence, not hopeful correlations of anatomy and reaction time, which are sufficiently removed from "intelligence" to muddy the issue.
The section was poorly titled, and should probably be more narrowly tailored into sections like, "Average IQ gaps among races", "Average test score gaps among races", and we put the anatomy and reaction time information into a hypothesis section ("Brain size explanation" or "Reaction time explanation"). I did my best to split out direct measures of IQ to clearly indirect measures, but I'm open to ideas on how better to fix that troubled section. --JereKrischel 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

direct measures of intelligence - what is the criteria here? the correlation between the measure and g? - if so, then brain size is better than the worst IQ and achievement tests and reaction time is as good as the modal IQ test. your distinction between direct and indirect is original research. --W.R.N. 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you change it back without discussion? --W.R.N. 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you change it back without a compromise offer? The problem, as stated, is that "Average gaps among races" is not specific enough. Including assertions of brain size difference are a step removed from assertions of intelligence gaps, and should not be included in the same section as direct measures on IQ tests. If there are IQ test measures being included in direct measures that are inappropriate measures of intelligence, perhaps we should be even more specific - "Average gaps among races on IQ tests well correlated to g", "Average gaps among races on IQ tests poorly correlated to g". I look forward to hearing any alternatives you could suggest, since it is obvious the original text was improper. --JereKrischel 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

SES cause

JK has changed to caption of the SES-IQ regression figure in two inappropriate ways: (1) attributed a majority view to a single author rather than to the majority and (2) presented a minority or fringe view (which it is is not clear) in the same caption. here's what the APA report said about SES: --W.R.N. 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Socio-economic Factors. Several specific environmental/cultural explanations of those differences have been proposed. All of them refer to the general life situation in which contemporary African Americans find themselves, but that situation can be described in several different ways. The simplest such hypothesis can be framed in economic terms. On the average, Blacks have lower incomes than Whites; a much higher proportion of them are poor. It is plausible to suppose that many inevitable aspects of poverty, such as poor nutrition, frequently inadequate prenatal care, and lack of intellectual resources, have negative effects on children's developing intelligence. Indeed, the correlation between "socio-economic status" (SES) and scores on intelligence tests is well known (White, 1982).

Several considerations suggest that this cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES (Loehlin et al, 1975). Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that excluding extreme conditions, nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores. Finally the (relatively weak) relationship between test scores and income is much more complex than a simple SES hypothesis would suggest. The living conditions of children result in part from the accomplishments of their parents: if the skills measured by psychometric tests actually matter for those accomplishments. intelligence is affecting SES rather than the other way around. We do not know the magnitude of these various effects in various populations, but it is clear that no model in which 'SES" directly determines "IQ" will do.

A more fundamental difficulty with explanations based on economics alone appears from a different perspective. To imagine that any simple income- and education-based index can adequately describe the situation of African Americans is to ignore important categories of experience. The sense of belonging to a group with a distinctive culture, one that has long been the target of oppression, and the awareness or anticipation of racial discrimination are profound personal experiences, not just aspects of socio-economic status. Some of these more deeply rooted differences are addressed by other hypotheses, based on caste and culture.

The original SES caption was touting a minority view, that "the black-white score gap persists at all socio-economic levels." This is not true. Perhaps a better way of stating it would be "uncorrected for anything except income level, a black-white score gap exists at all socio-economic levels".
Furthermore, the "These kinds of findings suggest that simple differences in socio-economic status cannot explain all of the IQ gap" was misleading - a better term than "simple" would have been "trivial", since arguably, the SES variables taken into account by the Columbia/Northwest study weren't particularly "complex", they were simply more significant.
I guess the problem with the image itself is that it does not say what it thinks it says - "Parental SES by Decile" is an ambiguous term.
Also note that the Columbia/Northwest study refuting the older 1975 study was conducted after the APA released its statement. --JereKrischel 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
(1) You've ignored the problem about attribution of a majority view.
(2) The various views can be described in the article, but there's no reason to outline such a study in the caption of that figure. You suggest that the 1975 paper cited is the only basis for the APA's conclusions. Clearly the finding is well replicated enough for them to speak confidently about its truth value. Clearly it was replicated in the NLSY analysis in the APA. Moreover, the tactic of using a large list if "independent" variables in a regression on IQ differences has a long history of debate. It's highly controversial for reasons that are easy to understand if you know about regression. You can read about it in Murray (1998) amongst other sources. You have to consider how many times (and in what sense) a study has been cited as a measure of how important the scientific community thinks it is. Otherwise, the paper's views can be assumed to be fringe. --W.R.N. 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Great point Jere, here is one study where they call the adjusted gap "negligible" Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics In fact, I think you sent it to me! In any case, it's not like everyone agrees on this, nor is there general agreement on how one might do a "controlled" study on such a topic. You can't control for racism without ending it, I mean, for one thing. Jere you should look at this article: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study it needs work but there is good information buried in there. futurebird 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
WRN, you used a 1995 statement citing a 1975 study to make your claim against a 1996 study which addresses those issues directly. Suggesting that we use some sort of "been-cited" metric to determine whether or not a study is important seems to be missing the point - certainly the Columbia/Northwest study has been cited and received favorable reaction from the scientific community.
Of course, we could propose some sort of "been-cited" metric if you'd like - it certainly would filter out a great many fringe hereditarian views (especially if we discounted pioneer-fund intra-citation, and counted negative citations against articles). I'm not sure if that's a worthwhile path to go down though.
Suffice it to say, we have provided a well-sourced scholarly citation, more recent than your own, and we have no reason to believe that it is anything but respected and accepted in the scientific community. If you require more rigorous defense of such citations, I'd kindly ask you to provide the same such rigor for pro-hereditarian citations - starting with every one that is contradicted by the APA statement regarding evidence for genetic causality for group differences, and how all direct evidence does not support the genetic hypothesis. --JereKrischel 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is the inclusion of this single study in an image caption that is the problem, a figure found in the introduction to the explanations section. Positive arguments for one side or another do not belong in that section. Moreover, you're trying to contradict the conclusion of a multiauthor 2ndary source with a primary source. Why cite this study and not some other? I see no evidence that this study represents a significant view, and I know of many famous sources (anti-hereditarian) which ignore it. Why stop at one paper? Why note cite this one also: when Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150 (Jensen 1973, pp. 107-119) or this study: Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents (Jensen, 1998b, p. 358). The answer is that we have good reason to cite the APA report, no reason to doubt it (contrast that with direct negative commentary about its treatment of the hereditarian hypothesis) and no reason to annotate their findings with studies which seek to argue for a particular explanation in the introduction of that section. --W.R.N. 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fb's changes to the lead - media portrayal

FB has made media portrayal an entire paragraph in the lead. however, it has only a two sentences in the main article. this is inappropriate. moreover, FB's changes to the lead are highly disputable. these changes should be reverted and explained on the talk page. you can't write an article lead-first. --W.R.N. 03:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

These changes reflect the new content in the media portrayal sub-article, and the new section for "media portrayal" in this main article. That's why I worked on those sections before changing the intro. If it would help, we could move that content in to this article-- though I think we need to move some other content out to sub-articles first since the main article is way too big as it is. futurebird 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) why is media portrayal an entire paragraph in the lead? it's not proportional to its representation in article (series) and transitively to its representation in the literature. (2) consider these sentences: Press coverage has given considerable positive attention to theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence even though there is no consensus among researchers regarding their validity.[16] Upon publication, The Bell Curve, a controversial book that asserted that the gap in black and white IQ scores was, in part, genetic, received a great deal of positive publicity, including cover stories in Newsweek The New Republic, and The New York Times Book Review. Still, few strong propionates of the genetic theories of differences in intelligence do not think that press coverage has been positive enough. For example, media opinion of the role of genetic and environmental factors in explaining individual and group differences in IQ was studied in 1988 by conservative researchers Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman. They found it to differ from the opinion of mainstream experts.[17]

NPOV and V problems with a dash of NOR:

  1. the genetic hypothesis has received positive attention? who says this, not nisbett as far as i can tell
  2. positive attention for TBC? who says this? why aren't the accounts of the publicity as mostly negative mentioned?
  3. "still, few strong proponents" ... who are they, who counted, and why is there position treated as if it were unreasonable (assuming they exist)
  4. "for example..." Snyderman and Rothman take a position themselves? i don't think so.

--W.R.N. 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our real problem is the meaning of "Media Portrayal". You seem to think it means "Media Portrayal of Race and Intelligence Research". Futurebird seems to be writing in terms of "Media Portrayal of Race and Intelligence".
Arguably, the history of stereotype and oppression due to media portrayals of different racial intelligences, is highly significant to the topic of "Race and Intelligence", although it may not be as crucial to the topic of "Race and Intelligence Research". I can't imagine how to find compromise between the two positions. --JereKrischel 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The compromise that I think would work would be to summarize both ideas in the main article then provide links to sub-articles. In the present situation this would me migrating a fair amount of the information in the main article on "research" to a sub-article. That's my proposal. futurebird 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You've not addressed the factual accuracy, verifiability and neutrality issues I've raised. --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound exasperated, but it's as if the last weeks of discussion never happened. We talked about starting with details, adding needed material to the article, making further use of summary style, etc. I argued that you couldn't start lead first -- it would be all but impossible to do this correctly. Now we're debating the inclusion of a 1 paragraph entry to the lead for a diminutive aspect of this topic -- where the lead includes more details than the body. I hope this demonstrates that I was correct -- you can't write an article lead first. I find it all but impossible to believe that the final product of any policy-abiding editing will be that the media portrayal of race and intelligence will be of comparable length to a discussion of the nature or cause of the gap. My suggestions again -- leave the lead alone for the near term, add material the article where appropriate, add tags where appropriate, don't delete anything that's sourced, possibly merge back all of the subarticle material so it can be tackled all at once, and stop trying to craft the article in a top-down manner (this has various implications, which I've outlined before). --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We also talked about starting with reorganizing the outline, redacting or moving inappropriate material, and a half-dozen other points. I think it's pretty obvious that we never came to agreement on any of the most contentious points I've mentioned elsewhere, and displeasure with the edits of others is to be expected.
My suggestions again - we expand the scope of the article beyond Race and intelligence (Research), remove excessive detail when a simple point can be made simply, avoid false dichotomies, and provide proper context for citations that use various or unspecified definitions of "race" and/or "intelligence". Maybe such suggestions are useful, maybe not...but what might help in the short term are specific compromise suggestions - think about what the other person is really trying to get across, and help them accomplish that goal in an alternate manner. I know that just disagreeing in the abstract hasn't gotten us very far... --JereKrischel 07:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't write an article in the abstract either. You can't organize it a priori. Referenced material is the currency of article construction, and most of the article is about research. I believe my relatively specific suggestions listed above are the best and most reliable pathway forward. --W.R.N. 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

lock the article?

I think it needs to stay locked until the dispute is better resolved. I've refrained from reverting them, but the majority of the edits made since it was unlocked need to be reverted. --W.R.N. 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have compromise suggestions for any of the edits you think should be reverted? --JereKrischel 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in protecting the article. The problem here is not trolls, but a groups of people who refuse to work together. For two weeks I tried to mediate conflicts on this page. Some peopel bent over backwards to address the concerns of others. Some people refused even to acknowledge the concerns of others. In Wikipedia, articles are products of ongoing collaborations. In Wikipedia, if you know how to work with others, your work will survive. If you do not know how to work with others, it will not. We had two weeks when the page was protected for people to lay out their views and discuss proposals and compromises. These issues are as clear as this talk page can ever make them - more talk would accomplish nothing. People would only start repeating themselves. All new facts and ideas that should go in the article are already somewhere on this page. It is now time to work together to improve the article. Unprotected, no one has a choice: you have to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SLR, you can't "compromise" NPOV/NOR/V itself. --W.R.N. 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
WRN, you can certainly compromise on personal interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V. Let's at least try to imagine that we all have valid interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V, and we need to find some middle ground. If we sit around believing that the other person cannot be compromised with because they don't know the true meaning of NPOV/NOR/V, we'll never find consensus. --JereKrischel 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

african immigrants

this text breaks soooo many rules: --W.R.N. 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, African immigrants to the US have the highest educational attainment rates of any immigrant group in the United States with higher levels of completion than the stereotyped Asian American model minority,[1][unreliable source?] raising further questions about the benefits of affirmative action programs based on race as well as stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of races.{{POV-statement}}
I've improved the sources. Now it cites a NYT's article and the US census in addition to the website.futurebird 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Jensen and others[attribution needed]

someone tagged "Arthur Jensen and others" with the [attribution needed] tag. NPOV calls for naming a prominent proponent, not an exhaustive list. what did the tagger have in mind? --W.R.N. 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know, who are the "others" futurebird 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you make that a personal research project so we can remove the tags? --W.R.N. 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you name at least one other? Or can we more narrowly tailor the line to a citation only to Jensen? --JereKrischel 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton, Gottfredson, Lynn, Rowe, etc... They're listed in the expert opinion section. --W.R.N. 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to name names on this one. In this case the word "others" is vauge-- There's no rush to fix this, but-- it'd be better, I think, to just say who the people are. futurebird 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

history - immigrants

The history section needs some balance that focuses at the rise of IQ testing around WWI and the restrictions in immigration. At some point there is a suggestion of prejudice against high-achieving minorities, but when IQ tests were first devised Jews wwere not considered high-achievers, they were considered intellectually inferior as were many European immigrants. Today much of the debate about race and intelligence has to do with "whites" and "blacks" but a hundred years ago many of the grandparents or great-grandparents of todays "whites" were not considered white and were among the races considered unintelligent ... this section needs better balance and coverage. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if you can point out a few sources we can work on doing this next. futurebird 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there needs to be a section called "jim crow and segregation" dealing with ideas that were used during that era, and another new section on "immigration" --the time periods will overlap, but this may be the most coherent way to organize it. I think the book "Gotham" the comprehensive history of New York City might have some quotes about how immigrant populations were seen as races and how they were considered intellectually inferior. It's worth mentioning all of the now mostly forgotten stereotypes about the irish from that time period.
WD doesn't like it when I change the lead without having substance in the main article to back this up, so I'll start by working on the media portrayal article. Sound good?futurebird 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"jim crow and segregation" --- Keep in mind, because it saves me time, that the history of "race and intelligence" is not the same as the history of race, the history of racism, or even the history of intelligence. WP policy indicates (to my reading) that material not be repeated in more than one place, especially if its characterization will be controversial, and that instead summaries and links should be used so that multiple instances of the same topic can be minimized/synced. --W.R.N. 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that so long as we focus on characterizations of intelligence based on race, we're on safe ground...we should definitely link to other articles on the topic of jim crow and segregation in general (and perhaps have them link back here to see the more specific notes of justification based on intelligence stereotypes). Arguably, this article should be the primary source for examples of assertions of racial intelligence levels justifying poorer treatment for that race. --JereKrischel 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
when IQ tests were first devised Jews were not considered high-achievers - FYI - this is a legend. the army's alpha IQ test was a little screwy, but it wasn't so screwy to show that Ashkenazi Jews had low IQ. by the time the beta test was introduced, the scores were a little more reliable. the differences between the alpha and beta, IIRC, account for most of the reports about early Euro immigrant differences. --W.R.N. 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Information regarding how "screwy" the alpha IQ test was, in addition to how it was cited, would be very relevant. --JereKrischel 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head. I mention it here so people know to look for these things if they are doing research. Don't trust my memory if I can't remember the cite. --W.R.N. 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN's reverts

1) POV characterization of the current debate inappropriate, and uncited. Please don't add back in again.

2) Caption for SES differences graph claiming statements from the APA report misleading - please keep the quotes directly from the report instead of using POV characterization of what they really said. The best way to avoid misunderstanding is to use their words directly. Also, burying the 1996 study accounting for 80% of the gap with SES factors inside the ref inappropriate - information is significant enough to show directly in the article.

3) See ref regarding the "genetic hypothesis" of Jensen. "partly-genetic" in this context is a weasel-word.

--JereKrischel 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will also keep an eye on this. I felt the changes you made were on target-- I agree, no reversion. futurebird 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


  1. Don't removed cited material over POV dispute, not without discussion.
  2. You introduced your own analysis of their opinions into the text, but it was misleading -- don't assume you know more than the authors. Summaries are preferable to quotes, and the summary we had was accurate. The study you cited was put there to contradict the APA report, but the caption of a figure in the introduction of the explanations section is not the place for contradicting a multiauthor collective statement with a citation of the primary literature. I added summary text which captured the range of opinions, including this paper, which was appropriate for the introductory section.
  3. Per NPOV you must characterize people as they characterize themselves. It is not acceptable to use label a scholar using a term that they do not use for themselves.

And so I'm going to revert these NPOV problems. Discuss them here and achieve consensus before you change anything back. --W.R.N. 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest compromises, and address the issues I've raised, before reverting further. Starting an edit war without addressing the issues I've raised isn't helpful. --JereKrischel 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Specifically - section on how to characterize the contemporary debate was not only POV pushing, but uncited;
An alternative summary would be appreciated, one that doesn't mischaracterize what the APA report really said;
As a compromise, why not make a note that Jensen prefers the term "partly-genetic", although others consider his theories the "genetic hypothesis"?
--JereKrischel 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, please note that your most recent reverts are actually duplicating a paragraph that replaced the original POV pushing paragraph. Please work on the compromise paragraph, instead of simply reverting. --JereKrischel 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the substitute paragraph is POV pushing. I left the one you wrote and put the old one back so they can be seen side by side for resolution. This shouldn't be a big issue. I'm putting it back so it can be considered--not lost. --W.R.N. 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest a compromise. The original is not acceptable to me, so I proposed an improvement. If the new one isn't acceptable to you, please propose an improvement that does not involve simply reverting. --JereKrischel 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "revert". I *added* both alternatives. NPOV doesn't recommend *removing* "biased" text if what's written actually is *someone's POV*. The two paragraphs don't seem like substitutes to me but rather two different POVs. This suggests that each POV should be represented. An initial step is to have both (non-neutrally written) paragraphs side by side. Please add it back so that when I or someone else has time they can work on fixing up both paragraphs. --W.R.N. 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fyi - minor edits

Help:Minor edit - A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor.

I never know what people will think around here so, I never check it.futurebird 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

merge of flynn effect

the flynn effect is not a sub-topic of R&I. otoh, it's discussed as it related to R&I in depth in the explanations section. i don't think we have any intention of merging the f.e. article into this one or redistributing its contents into subarticles of this one, so we shouldn't move the content here. --W.R.N. 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The merge

Is just making editing the sub articles more work, since now changes must be made in two places. Could we "de-merge" quickly? What are the plans for doing this? futurebird 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The same plan that I've proposed for some time -- you can't edit the entire topic and propose moving things to new subaritlces if you don't have everything in front of you (no a priori organizing). I'll replace the sub-pages with redirects for now, but not Flynn effect, which is its own topic distinct from R&I and should not be merged here per the above thread. --W.R.N. 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the content from that article and from stereotype threat need to be considered as a part of the whole. I agree on not redirecting these, though. The trouble is my internet connection is too slow to effectively participate in this. The page now take about 2 min to load on my computer and there are these giant blank sections. futurebird 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It could have been easier on the talk space, where we could have split it into chunks to make each page easier to edit. That suggestion was never adopted, so we're stuck mucking around in the article space. I don't know of any technical work-arounds otherwise. --W.R.N. 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging all articles is a big decision. Where is the consensus for this? Ultramarine 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's temporary. There are calls for reorganization. The only way to reorganize is to know what there is to organize. --W.R.N. 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no discussions of this. You did this on your own without discussing this? Ultramarine 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone except W.R.N. want this gigantic page? Ultramarine 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want a gigantic page, I want an end to this edit warring. However, this is the only way forward. Other JK will recommend moving everything he doesn't like about this topic to a sub article, FB will agree, and I'll disagree. Copied from above: --W.R.N. 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions again -- leave the lead alone for the near term, add material the article where appropriate, add tags where appropriate, don't delete anything that's sourced, possibly merge back all of the subarticle material so it can be tackled all at once, and stop trying to craft the article in a top-down manner (this has various implications, which I've outlined before). --W.R.N. 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no real consensus for this... but, I'm trying to go along with it... I mean as long as it's not like this for too much longer I can "deal" I don't see HOW it helps in any way though... I just went ahead and merged in the section WD didn't merge to try to be fair about things. I don't know what to do now. Every edit I make is taking FOREVER and it's getting on my nerves. futurebird 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That you do not like what is moved to subarticles is not a justification for deleting all subarticles and creating a gigantic, unworkable single page. It is a Wikipedia:POINT violation. Unless there is some support for your action or a better explanation I will restore the prior version.Ultramarine 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making a point, I'm making what I think is progress towards a resolution to our edit disputes. Nothing has been moved to sub-articles, rather that's what has been proposed at times. To that end, I've moved everything here so that it can be made policy compliant and rearranged into sub-articles. I'm sympathetic to FB's problem with editing, but I don't know of any technical work around besides editing off-line. --W.R.N. 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Creating an unworkable page when you do not get your way is a Wikipedia:POINT violation. Futurebird, should we restore to an earlier version before this unilateral action? Ultramarine 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we just undo this stupid merge? It's going to crash my computer. Editing off line isn't such a good idea, since by the time I get changes back online they will overwrite the edits of others. I'm willing to believe WD did this in good faith, and I tried to go along in good faith, but the article is absurd in its present condition. WD, let's move the stuff back, Ultra and I can help if you want.
We can't just retore since it will erase some changes made since the merge. We need to copy and paste the material back. The things I merged in can simply be cut since I didn't delete the sub articles. I'll undo my changes now, but it may take a little while due to my connection.futurebird 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to edit offline, just put a tag on the top of the article that says so. If you want to merge back, then I won't try to stop you. But I have no faith that a solution will arrive through the kind of edits we've done so far. I'm out of out-of-the-box solutions. --W.R.N. 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I know how to build a page that actually exists in multiple sub pages. It wouldn't be appropriate in the article space, but would be fine on the talk space. All the editing could be done there, and I think it would solve your problem. --W.R.N. 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean by including sections as templates? That could make it too hard for new users to edit. futurebird 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially. I was recommending that all the editing would have to be done in the talk space, not the main space. --W.R.N. 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for reverting the merge, and applying futurebird's additions directly. At best, information from sub-articles should be incorporated point by point, so that they arrive in this article in an agreed upon form and consensus manner. I'll revert, and start looking for futurebird's diffs. --JereKrischel 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

while you're thinking about that

i note that there are now 3 big and 2 smaller top-level sections. for those interested in the organization of the article, are there any thoughts about this? i'm thinking along the lines of WP:Summary style, opinions about what's missing, etc. --W.R.N. 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

irish

fyi - average IQ scores of the Irish in Ireland have been studied by Lynn but I'm having trouble finding the papers. Here are the scores I know about:

87 - Gill & Byrt, 1973 97 - Buj, 1981 93 - Carr, 1993 91 - Carr, 1993 --W.R.N. 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think this is relevant why don't you make an edit and source it too? Please edit the sub article so we don't end up with a content fork... I'm working there on a section on stereotypes about Jewish intelligence. (Still reading the sources, it's just a stub now.) But if you think it is important to point this out then ... please, go ahead, and by all means, and make the changes. I can't wait to see the sources for this. Race and intelligence (media portrayal)futurebird 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If I can find the 2ndary source that summarizes it, I will. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of primary sources, which is an NOR violation in the making. --W.R.N. 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JK are you serious?

look at this edit --W.R.N. 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. We need to separate out claims that imply or assert a natural black genetic inferiority in intelligence. It is not sufficient to say that there are competing claims of genetic causality, or environmental causality - there is a difference between someone who will assert that they have found a genetic difference between two groups, and those who assert that the genetic difference must ipso facto mean that observed differences are a direct reflection of the proper ordering. Genetic causality and environmental causality are not opposites in the case of explaining group differences. --JereKrischel 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with this change... it's more clear this way. futurebird 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
FB, look again at the net result of the change. JK, the only response I can muster is an incredulous stare. That's the worse NPOV violation I can possibly imagine. --W.R.N. 01:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, WRN, I think our problem is that in the table you think should exist, you leave out these critical categories of argument. If presenting your detailed arguments in such a bald fashion, associated with the POV they are actually representing, seems like an NPOV violation, then perhaps you can understand why divorcing them from their actual POV, and conflating them with a large category of "partly-genetic", is distasteful to others.
When it comes to Race and Intelligence, there are a multitude of arguments being put forward. Some assert a primary genetic causality with an implicit racial hierarchy (Rushton/Jensen/Lynn/Pioneer Fund folk). This is dramatically disputed by many folk who otherwise believe it reasonable to assert that there may be some genetic basis to group differences (with magnitude and direction unknown). There are also those who dispute any genetic component based on the same sort of implicit racial hierarchy assumption, believing that if the gap is accounted for by environmental factors, then there must be a 0% genetic component. Then you have the large squishy middle, where in general a joint genetic/environmental cause for any differences is assumed (sometimes under the assumption that even genetic causes are essentially environmental, since there are gene expressions mediated by environment), but no hierarchy is assumed, nor percentage contributions, magnitudes, or directions are asserted. This isn't even mentioning the people who argue that race is not a valid proxy for genetics.
So each of these different sides argues in different directions, some of them agreeing on certain points, others contesting, and the layout is simply not as simple as "is it environmental, or genetic?". There is significant history regarding the "scientific" study of race and intelligence where both the study and the results were simply used as a gloss and confirmation of existing prejudices, and great suspicion that much of the "kinder, gentler" hereditarians are simply making the same points with more subtlety.
You can present the issue as "genetic/environmental", and someone else may just as rationally present the issue as "white racialist rationalization of racism/black activist claims of victimhood". I think if we're going to present the issue in any way at all, we need to accept the complexity of positions, and find a way to structure our presentation accordingly. --JereKrischel 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't characterize people's views as others report them but as they report them themselves. NPOV -- It's just that simple. --W.R.N. 07:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my problem is that you aren't reporting the characterization as a self-characterization, but as a self-evident fact. Can I take it that you wouldn't object to the characterization of anti-hereditarians as "anti-racialist" or "anti-racists", if it was the term they used to describe themselves? --JereKrischel 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What shall we merge to sub-articles?

We all know the page is too long. What should be moved to sub-articles? I think there is too much information on IQ, which is only one way of looking at intelligence. Let's propose merging portions of the article out here. I don't want to just dive in and start, because I think we need to be on the same page about this... or at lest in the same book... :) Ideas?futurebird 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "Public debate and policy implications:Potential for bias" -->>Race and intelligence (Potential for bias) merge out most of this section, it's mostly counter argument, often without the original argument that the counter argument response to presented in any depth or with any sources. There is no need to "refute claims political correctness" in an article that never tries to make those claims in the first place. To a reader who's unfamiliar with the topic it's confusing... so merge it out.

FB, the only way to do this is to first merge current subarticle material into the main article, then organize all the content, then make subarticles that summarize the content. Why? Because, for example, the notion that "there is too much information on IQ" seems completely implausible to me. Of course... Also note, the fine line between WP:Summary style and a POV fork. --W.R.N. 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions -
It might help to name these sub-articles more appropriately. The current structure is mostly taken from the Rushton/Jensen 2005 paper, and as such is already a bit slanted.
I'd also suggest that there is more than one acceptable way to attack this problem, and our disagreement as to which way to proceed is legitimate on both sides, since some people work better in different styles. --JereKrischel 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1

The structure of the main article and the explanations sub-article is based on the APA report. I know this from first hand experience. The direct-indirect distinction is a non-starter. --W.R.N. 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The structure of the main article and the explanations sub-article is not based on the APA report. As a quick review of the APA report:
I Concepts of Intelligence
    The Psychometric Approach

        Intelligence Tests 
        Interrelations among Tests

    Multiple Forms of intelligence

        Gardner's Theory 
        Sternberg's Theory 
        Related Findings 

    Cultural Variation 
    Developmental Progressions

        Piaget's Theory 
        Vygotsky's Theory 
        Biological Approaches 

II. Intelligence Tests and their Correlates
    Basic Characteristics of Test Scores

        Stability 
        Factors and g 

    Tests as Predictors

        School Performance 
        Years of Education 
        Social Status and Income 
        Job Performance 
        Social Outcomes 

    Test Scores and Measures of Processing Speed

        Cognitive Correlates 
        Choice Reaction Time 
        Inspection Time 
        Neurological Measures 
        Problems of Interpretation 

III. The Genes and Intelligence
    Sources of Individual Differences

        Partitioning the Variation 
        How Genetic Estimates are Made

    Results for IQ Scores

        Parameter Estimates 
        Implications 

IV. Environmental Effects on Intelligence
    Social Variables

        Occupation 
        Schooling 
        Interventions 
        Family Environment 

    Biological Variables

        Nutrition 
        Lead 
        Alcohol 
        Perinatal Factors 

    Continuously Rising Test Scores 
    Individual Life Experiences 

V. Group Differences
    Sex Differences

        Spatial and Quantitative Abilities 
        Verbal Abilities 
        Causal Factors 
        Hormonal Influences 

    Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups

        Asian Americans 
        Hispanic Americans 
        Native Americans 
        African Americans 
        Test Bias 
        Characteristics of Tests 

    Interpreting Group Differences

        Socio-economic Factors 
        Caste-like Minorities 
        African-American Culture 
        The Genetic Hypothesis 

VI. Summary and Conclusions
On the other hand, Rushton/Jensen 2005 has "Section 6: Race, Brain Size, and Cognitive Ability", "Section 13: Evaluating the Culture-Only and the Hereditarian Research Programs", and "Section 15: Implications for Public Policy". If you'd like to adopt the APA outline, I'd be more than happy to start there. --JereKrischel 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, only this part relates to the article: 

   Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups

       Asian Americans 
       Hispanic Americans 
       Native Americans 
       African Americans 
       Test Bias 
       Characteristics of Tests 

   Interpreting Group Differences

       Socio-economic Factors 
       Caste-like Minorities 
       African-American Culture 
       The Genetic Hypothesis

only we moved test bias to the interpreting group differences section. --W.R.N. 06:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Average gaps among races" is not congruent with "Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups" (note, the APA report didn't put brain size under that section). Neither is "Interpreting Group Differences" done as per the APA report - you've subsumed three sections the APA called out into "environmental", and failed to create a section for any of them except "culture". Neither is there a "Test Bias" section. If you assert that you intended to follow the APA outline, we can go in and change section titles accordingly. --JereKrischel 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

2

FB, if what you're actually saying that WP:Summary style should be implemented in a much stricter fashion (a long time ago the article approximated this), then I actually agree. Here's what that might entail based on the current article/subarticles content: 

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. history (subarticle - R&I (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. group differences in intelligence (subarticle - R&I (average gaps))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. significance (subarticle - R&I (significance))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
6. controversy (subarticle - R&I (controversy)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
7. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

ideally, this would cut the main article down to the 30-60kb range of text (excluding refs, figs, tables), preferably closer to 30k which is close to the attention span of most people. --W.R.N. 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Or, WD, we could

  1. Take the summaries now in this article and put them on the pages of the sub articles.
  2. Remove redundancies
  3. Clean it up a bit
  4. write a summary/intro
  5. merge back.

I think this will be more workable in terms of page size.

JK: Race and intelligence (Intelligence test gaps between races) sounds like a good name for the data tables. (Better than, "Race and intelligence (IQ data)") - I'm going to put all of the current content there, then prune down the content here. So don't get alarmed and think I'm "deleting things."

Race and intelligence (Proxies for intelligence) - we can do this, but it needs a clear intro, that section isn't terribly long... so it's not on the top of my list for merging out. You need you explain what you mean by "Proxies for intelligence" clearly if you want to prune any of this out, I think. futurebird 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No... wait... this Race and intelligence (Intelligence test gaps between races) sounds too much like something we already have as a sub article. I think we need to use Race and intelligence (IQ data)futurebird 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet Race and intelligence (test data) futurebird 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like the idea of Race and intelligence (Intelligence tests and their correlates), based on the APA outline:
II. Intelligence Tests and their Correlates
    Basic Characteristics of Test Scores

        Stability 
        Factors and g 

    Tests as Predictors

        School Performance 
        Years of Education 
        Social Status and Income 
        Job Performance 
        Social Outcomes 

    Test Scores and Measures of Processing Speed

        Cognitive Correlates 
        Choice Reaction Time 
        Inspection Time 
        Neurological Measures 
        Problems of Interpretation
This might be a better way of laying it out, although in the APA report, this is not in the group differences section. --JereKrischel 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's material for the IQ article, not the R&I article. Race differences in those variable are of interest to this article. --W.R.N. 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The APA report section regarding group differences has this outline: 

    Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups

        Asian Americans 
        Hispanic Americans 
        Native Americans 
        African Americans 
        Test Bias 
        Characteristics of Tests

Which may imply something along the lines of Race and intelligence (Average test scores), but that still leaves us needing a place for other correlates. I'm not sure which would be best, but just about anything would be better than "Average gaps among races". --JereKrischel 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about the title of the section/article, just it's contents and treatment. --W.R.N. 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

workflow

FB wrote:

  1. Take the summaries now in this article and put them on the pages of the sub articles.
  2. Remove redundancies
  3. Clean it up a bit
  4. write a summary/intro
  5. merge back.

if you are keeping the same subarticles, that works just fine. --W.R.N. 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate outline

0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. background/history (subarticle - R&I (history))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
1.2. race (main: race)
     - 1-2 paragraphs
2. research (subarticle - R&I (research))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.1. intelligence test data (subarticle - R&I (test data))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
2.2. explanations (subarticle - R&I (explanations))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
3. media portrayal (subarticle - R&I (media portrayal))
     - 2-3 paragraphs
4. controversies (subarticle - R&I (controversies)
     - 2-3 paragraphs
5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)

I say we move most of the research related stuff into its own sub-article, instead of starting with the implicit assumption that "R&I" means "R&I Research". --JereKrischel 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Can we move History up? If we did that it'd be P-E-R-F-E-C-T! Even if we don't do that I think this is a great outline! futurebird 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it work better if we considered history part of "background"? I've made the changes to the outline above...--JereKrischel 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
what you've called "research" is like 200k of material and the bulk of what's written in books with straightforward titles like "race and intelligence". per the apa report you need to discuss phenotypic differences separately from the explanations, which are the two subarticle/section we have right now. making media-portryal a section of its own is debatable depending on how much there really is. fussing with history into/out of the "background" section is trivial i would think. --W.R.N. 06:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we do need an explanations section... come to think of it... as sub section of the section on research...My brian is shot... time for bed... don't do anything too wierd while i'm gone :Pfuturebird 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, added back in an "Explanations" section as a sub of Research, media portrayal could fill up 200k easy, given the wealth of examples of media stereotypes over the past 100 years.
I don't know what section of the APA report you're referring to - I was originally intending that the explanations should go into the research sub-article for the most part, but I can see where futurebird is coming from. --JereKrischel 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the bulk of what's written in books is what would go under "research" - there are a host of books regarding race and intelligence that talk about the historical stereotypes and the myths of race, etc, etc...how have you come up with your measure of what the "bulk of what's written in books" is? --JereKrischel 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I look at a book's table of contents. I'm reverting the moving of the gaps section to the bottom of the article. This has no support in any 2ndary source. The APA report is the appropriate model for organizing that material. --W.R.N. 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is top down organization and it doesn't work. You can't do it. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you organize the article you've got. --W.R.N. 07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at a single book's table of contents hardly seems sufficient to make a claim about the "bulk of what's written"...but thank you for the clarification. If you'd like to help move the test data section into a sub section of a research section, please feel free to help organize according to our suggested blueprint.
And although you may disagree with top-down organization, I hope you can respect that it can and does work for others. If you have any particular needs for clarifying how it can work successfully, I'm more than happy to answer any specific questions you have. --JereKrischel 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's failed just now. So has collaboration as you've moved massive amounts of material out of the main article without reaching consensus. Undo your edits and discuss these kinds of removals. --W.R.N. 08:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We've been doing nothing but discussing these kinds of sub-article moves. And it is succeeding, just not to your liking. Please help us with concrete compromise suggestions instead of simple reversions. --JereKrischel 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As per WRN's strenuous objection, I've moved the sections around to conform closer to our intended outline, and moved the test data underneath a research section. --JereKrischel 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair warning, 3RR coming up on recent reverts by WRN. --JereKrischel 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]


nm, I undid it for you. You've never presented an argument to support your claim that the description of all research related to this topic should be a single sub-section of the article. I've presented numerous sources which treat the research related to R&I extensively (book length treatments), and the most notable include a distinction between the gaps and their causes. A conclusion to that debate is a prerequisite to any such changes. --W.R.N. 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are also numerous sources that treat the historical nature of R&I assumptions and stereotypes. How would you suggest we arbitrate and conclude any debate on this issue? --JereKrischel 08:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be an answer. --W.R.N. 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a question, not an answer - how do you suggest we arbitrate and conclude debate on the issue? You have presented one POV, I've presented another POV. How do we conclude the debate which you see as a prerequisite to changes? --JereKrischel 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

with evidence. and reason. without double reverting edits that one or the other disagrees with. you decided to move most of the research literature out of the article in less than a few hours of me proposing a different alternative. what kind of consensus is that? --W.R.N. 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What different alternative did you propose? I thought you had agreed we needed to move text to sub-articles. And how does reverting the reorganization (instead of reorganizing it further as per a compromise suggestion) help? --JereKrischel 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We have presented our evidence. We have discussed our reasons. How do we reach a conclusion? Do you think it is possible that we will never reach a conclusion, and therefore preclude any change at all? --JereKrischel 08:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
no, you presented your opinion. you didn't present any evidence. what is the value of an opinion not backed by reason and evidence? --W.R.N. 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What will you accept as evidence? I've provided numerous sources for you, just as you've provided numerous sources for me.
More importantly, do you have any answer for what we do after I present evidence, such as from google scholar? You seem to be avoiding that question. --JereKrischel 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

what in a search for "race+intelligence+media+portrayal" tells you that all of the psychology / sociology / neuroscience research results and their proposed explanations should be removed from the article? --W.R.N. 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being removed. We're simply moving things to sub-articles. --JereKrischel 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, down to 68K now, hopefully we can trim it down even further...the intro seems like it could use some significant trimming at this point. --JereKrischel 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

requested page protection

requested it. --W.R.N. 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This page was protected from January 22 to February 11 - a ridiculously long period for an article to be protected. During that time I attempted to mediate and three weeks is plenty enough time for editors acting in good faith to resolve their conflicts. Wikipedia is a collaborative policy and I do not see any editors who are acting in bad faith, violating rules of etiquette, or violating our core policies. I think there is only one issue now: are editors willing to work together? I sanyone acting as if they own the article? That no one owns an article is a very important Wikipedia policy. Let me remind people of what that policy states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It seems to me that page protection would serve only to protect one editor's text from any changes. I urge all editors to rely on established core policies and refer to them in arguing over edits. If an edit is fully compliant with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, let it stand. But what would be the point of protecting the page? To allow people to repeat themselves over and over on the talk page, which is precisely what people have been doing over the past couple of years? That serves no purpose. I attempted to mediate informally, but that did not work. If anyone feels frustrated right now, or fearful about the article, I urge them to make a formal request for mediation. But another day, week, or month of page protection serves no purpose except to sever this page from Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ AsianNation.org [1]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_51&oldid=935633790"