Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

→

Archive 80

SES and IQ of blacks and whites

There's something intrinsecally wrong in the conclusion that IQ determines SES. If the blacks of the 10th SES level have an IQ that is similar to whites' of the 3rd level, why these blacks reached the 10th level? Do blacks have some other advantage that make them reach higher SES with less intelligence?

Do you mean like affirmative action? --Aryaman (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly is that argument made? I have a hard time seeing how such a statement could be made scientifically without falling into some version of the ecological fallacy, and if the article says that somewhere it needs some serious editing.

and Varoon: keep those kinds of idle speculations off the talk page, please. That kind of talk does nothing to help the article and will only serve to cause fights. ok? --Ludwigs2 18:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Idle speculation"? Was the IP's question rhetorical? Excuse me for trying to solicit more information. --Aryaman (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

maybe I've misread this conversation; if so, I apologize. it seems to me that the IP is asking a fairly pointed question, and I was curious whether he thinks this article actually makes such a conclusion (which it shouldn't, unless that conclusion exists in reliable sources). I think read your response as sardonic rather than interrogative - my bad. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1-09-01 reverts

let's stop reverting the page, and get back to talking about the issue. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea. Since you were the last to revert it, why don't you undo that? Aprock (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

well, we can certainly talk about that. why do you think I should revert it? As I've said in several places now, this is a single, notable topic. the efforts of splitting it went essentially nowhere (except to rewrite the same article under a different name), and the act of splitting it was questionable to begin with. if we can come to a consensus here that the article should have been split, then I will happily revert myself. convince me. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who suggested that reverting was unproductive, and yet were doing it. Occam has a history of jumping to consensus and making large edits which aren't supported. Given that you didn't participate in the mediation, it's hard to see how you can be justified in moving away from the direction that mediation was taking it. Aprock (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered over at the mediation page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? Aprock (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Should_this_be_referred_higher.3F --Ludwigs2 01:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

interesting link

http://www.iqleague.com/group/smartest-country-in-the-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.195 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs expansion

needs expansion in the "Worldwide" section, incl. other worldwide studies and their empirical results. Givesaved (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

yes - we're all in mediation right now trying to get this article back on its feet, but we'll throw this into the mix as soon as we have a new plan. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A good source from a notable authority

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/articles/lets-move-on-from-race Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

another one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393065057/ref=cm_rdp_product. A.Prock 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article only tell one side?

A recent edit I made to the article where I cited a reference from a peer reviewed academic journal was undone[1] by User:Aprock. Any particular reason why this article is only presenting one POV and censoring alternative views? Answertofirst (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Aprock asked you to look at the mediation, right? So I infer that the mediation is a reason for not editing the article, or not making this kind of edit, doesn't that logically follow from his explanation for the "undoing?"Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Answertofirst: as the mediator for this article, I'd really prefer it if you waited until the mediation is done before doing any contentious edits. it's likely that the conclusion of the mediation will see a drastic rewrite of the article, regardless, so there's really no point in trying to make major changes right now. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might be a good idea to protect the article while you sort things out. Simply reverting people who make good faith well referenced edits comes across as POV pushing to those who are new to the article. Answertofirst (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately, wikipedia admins will not protect an article preventatively. we'll do our best to incorporate changes, where possible, but if you want to contribute something significant, I'd suggest that you bookmark the mediation page, so that when we get down to the nitty-gritty stage of rebuilding the article you can add in some comments. just don't enter into the mediation process itself unless you want to sign yourself on as a disputant and agree to the conduct rules (and don't do that unless you feel like your perspective isn't already being represented). --Ludwigs2 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Socioeconomic status - when is it measured?

The article shows a result among population segments matched for socioeconomic status. But when is this status measured? Does this represent parental income when the child is nearly 18, or shortly after birth? I think this is important to specify because factors such as exposure to infant formula or lead paint occur very early in life and have a fairly strong negative effect on IQ (though it may still be controversial due to difficulties in measurement). Wnt (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on article organization

The hypotheses section is filled with sections that aren't hypotheses, but rather studies such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Such studies should be presented before hypotheses of what causes the differences are discussed. After all, the theories are based on the data from the studies.--23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.131.4 (talk)

Are you sure the experiments weren't conducted to test peoples' prejudices? In science, the experiments often come after the theories. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

again, I need to point out that the current version of the article is being being discussed in mediation, and the article will be undergoing some fairly extensive revisions this week. we should table questions such as this until that's done, because they may no longer be relevant after the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The article begins with politically correct propaganda instead of hard data, which is now in the Worldwide chapter.Quinacrine (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Aborigines

There should be a chapter about Australian Aborigines. They are fed well and go to Western schools, and yet their average IQ is only 62. (I guess that a rigorous test excluding Aborigines who have any European genes would produce even lower average IQ.)Quinacrine (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that discuss this matter, please present them here. after the mediation has revised the page, we will discuss adding them to the article.

Heavy Metal and Industrial Effluent Exposure Variations by Ethnicity & Socio-Economic Status

The below excerpt is taken from the FIGURE within the diagram, it states that :

"Percentage of children aged 1-5 with blood lead levels at least 10 µg/dL. Black and Hispanic children have measurably higher levels than white children. High levels of lead at an early age may affect intelligence."

It would be of interest to consider the heavy metal exposure of minorities viz a viz that exposure of mainstream society. One expects that this varies in a manner which is dependent upon class as well as race due to the geographical distribution of various minority and non-minority groups within a given society. Of further interest or note is whether inner-city areas are more or less likely to be exposed to various form of industrial effluent, etc... - this would logically imply that, in countries such as the UK, minorities are disproportionately more likely to be exposed to heavy metal & industrial contaminants than are non-minorities (meaning that those with the genetic potential to achieve a certain level of intellectual development would be less likely to actually achieve it due to the environmentally confounding effect of such contamination). The primary reason for this relates to the historical distribution of industrialisation-associated factories within UK society AND how most minorities groups can be found in geographic locations which are, well, not green. Further issues related to pipe work infrastructure, exposure to air contamination from vehicles (with whatever associated heavy metal exposure that that entails) together with associated construction waste exposure and the like (for those areas which witness any unnecessarily 'flash', though deceptive new-builds for which intelligent disposal methods are not implemented).

An interesting observation pertains to dental health care. Though the issue of whether mercury amalgam can be associated with negative neurological outcomes is still an open one, it would appear intuitively (and statistically) clear that - as minorities are more likely to be fed on dysfunctional diets (as is the general population, though to a lesser degree), then they are more likely to have more amalgam fillings within their mouths. Given the expense associated with non-amalgam fillings, minorities are less likely to have, say, ceramic fillings within their mouths as opposed to non-ceramic fillings (due to what one would expect to be inferior dental & health care in general). Just worth noting given that someone went to the trouble of creating the chart/figure shown within the article (and given that this article still seems to be, well, active).

I am uncertain of whether different geographical locations within the UK utilise different infrastructures for water purification, though if they were, this would apparently be related to the statement that there's "something in the water". Different qualities of infrastructure (or the lack thereof when considering whether any methods are implemented for heavy metal exposure reduction) would seem to also alter heavy metal exposure via this route.

ConcernedScientist (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this could go either way when you factor in immigration of both children and their parents, looking at a set of children by racial breakdown the superficial analysis of "well the white kids are in better living situations so they are exposed to less toxins" is indeed possible. However how many of those minority kids or their parents were recent immigrants to the country or region? Before their rapidly increased demographic trend, weren't there white kids living in those shacks, drinking out of old pipes and breathing factory pollutants?Batvette (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft of new article per mediation

A new draft of this article is being edited in based on discussion in mediation. This should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here. --Ludwigs2 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be done in 2 more hours. Apologies for the slight delay. David.Kane (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice.

I've been following this a bit from the sidelines. I must say it looks pretty good at the moment. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed how much shorter the whole thing is. It will be much easier to maintain and improve at this length. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Report on Rewrite

I have finished my two days (plus two hours) of work on the rewrite. Comments: 1) Thanks to all editors for allowing my the freedom to make so many dramatic changes. 2) I did the best I could but, obviously, the article still needs a lot of work. My main failure was in not rewriting the environmental and heriditarian interpretation sections. Right now, they are just a collection of unconnected comments from the previous version. There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold! 3) The main improvements, I think, are: First, I used the outline that arose from the mediation. I played no part in writing that outline, nor do I particularly like it, but Wikipedia is all about consensus. Second, I dramatically decreased the length of the article. WP:Size recommends 30-50K for an article size, so my cutting was extensive. Third, I tried to significantly clean up the references and other junk. Needless to say, there is still much more that could be done. David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Discussion

I think the image to the right would be acceptable for illustrating both the differences as well as the considerable overlap between group scores in the US. I'm assuming Mathsci (and perhaps others) have an objection? Btw, I'm entirely flexible on this. --Aryaman (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fine in the main body of the text where more context is provided. The lede has been written with reference to worldwide IQ testing, not just the US, so that would be another factor arguing against its prominent inclusion in the lede. For the time being it seems best to concentrate on content rather than images, which can be moved around at a later stage. Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this image belongs in the lead. David.Kane (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just ask if someone has checked to make sure this image really appears in the source cited and that it is real data from a wide-ranging survey of some kind? I ask because I find it incredible that four groups were tested and found to have very different average IQ's, yet they all had the EXACT same frequency distribution of IQ relative to the mean. Studying human height you will find that more deprived populations tend to have wider bell curves, because diseases that stunt growth don't affect everybody, they come hit-or-miss. I would expect intelligence to behave the same way unless it really is 100% genetic with no environmental influences at all. If that's what the data says, then I have no objections, but I just want to be sure we're not letting false information into the article under the assumption that it's legitimate. —Soap— 13:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the new lead, I have been bold and made some (minor?) changes. Outside of that, I think that the new second paragraph is excellent, albeit a bit wordy. But my main concern is that there are no citations to support it. Then again, everything in there is supported later in the article. Question: Wouldn't it be a good idea to cite at least a few things here, at least the APA report? David.Kane (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the third paragraph, are there other academic bodies besides the APA that have made "official statements" which concluded that "the cause of the racial IQ gap is currently unknown?" Not that I know of . . . . David.Kane (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think using the image in the lead is a bad idea, even if Soap's concerns are unfounded, the image completely adopts and lends legitimcacy to the both of the problematic categories of "race" and "intelligence" without conveying any of the problemes involved in their definition. I would find it misleading in the lead, but appropriate in a section of the article particularly describing the studies on which the graph is based.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly peripheral to this discussion, but I would nevertheless be concerned that having such a prominent diagram showing race vs IQ is conflating the ideas of IQ and intelligence, which are different things. There are many issues with IQ, including one clearly shown in the diagram - the assumption that IQ is normally distributed (it's actually a ratio, as I'm sure you know). In fact the figures are fixed to make it normally distributed - but then the results for the different distributions for different races are affected in different ways by these adjustments, so they can't all be normally distributed at the same time. Hence the differences between the normal distributions is an inaccurate representation of the differences between the actual distributions. In summary the diagram is suspect for two reasons:

• Intelligence is not the same as IQ, so the lede should not give undue weight to IQ by giving it such a prominent image
• The normal distribution in IQ shown only applies after normalising the results - but you can't in general do this for more than one distribution at a time. As each race has a different distribution, they can't all be normalised at once. The diagram must show an idealised (and hence subjective) picture of what would have happened if the IQs all were exactly normally distributed with different means but identical standard deviations. This does not show an experimental result, but a "what if" speculation - again not something which should be given undue weight. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've just read Soap's comment - this mirrors my second concern (vice versa in fact!) that the graphs look suspect. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

These are serious concerns. What is the source for the graphs? They come from Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330, but did thse authors normalize the curves? That we provide it, i.e. that it is not copyrighted, suggests to me that a Wikipedian manipulated the data. The Wikipedian who uploaded the image is no longer active, butif he did it, I'd say it violates SYNTH; Slrubenstein | Talk

Evolution exclusions?

I understand that the article is a heated issue but when something needs to be said I say it. Specific arguments I am not at the moment qualified to debate have raised the issue and certainly there is much current academic work addressing evolution's influences here and with the transportation advancements of the 20th century along with cultural taboos regarding interracial relationships falling by the waysides, it's undoubtedly soon to be a moot and unverifiable matter soon anyway. HOWEVER I would really love to see someone present the argument that the human brain, an organ of our anatomy, is the only organ to be immune to the effects of evolution that have been observed in other organs in the various ethnic groups distributed about the planet. Adaptation, Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest, Diet over many generations- whatever you like. What made the brain immune? Humbly looking not to question but for an answer. Batvette (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, better food does not cause evolution, only survival of the fittest does. But the brain HAS evolved. The race/IQ gap exists because Africans evolved when they left Africa in order to deal with things like their land being covered in ice (something Africans had never seen). Only the smartest (black) Africans survived in the snow and ice. For boring reasons involving sunlight amount and synthesis of vitamins in the skin, the races which evolved in these colder places developed lighter skin. Skin color actually has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence (other than a strong statical correlation). The Africans going west became whites, and the ones going east became Asians. That's why those two races have larger brains than Africans (the "larger brains" is not controversial among scientists). And it's why Africans IQ-test as mentally retarded. This is not my theory; it's both supported and explicitly suggested by peer-reviewed articles in such Academic journals as Intelligence and the one by the APA, but nobody ANYWHERE dares talk about it outside academia.

Even a lot of (presumably well-intentioned) people here try very very hard to suppress all these truths, which as individual statements are uncontested among scientists. The way the truth-suppressors (and others like the media) avoid these facts without telling obvious lies is, to me HILARIOUS, and is really the only reason I care at all about race/IQ. The fact is, I don't care which race is smarter or even if any are smarter at all, but I LOVE watching liars squirm and sweat and make up yet more ridiculous explanations for their obvious lies! In RL they get mad and either shout at you or run away, but here in the wiki world, they throw you out if you shout. And if you run away, other people erase the lies you told, making you look like an idiot when you tell them to somebody else.

Nevertheless, the fact that whites and asians are, literally, more highly evolved is not funny at all; it's tragic. But it HAS been proven true, and you can't make truth false by beating up people who tell it. My personal view is that in this country, no one is educated to their full potential except retards, and that's a crime against humanity. TechnoFaye Kane 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Batvette, Techno: Wikipedia present ideas that can be verified is reputable, published sources. If you believe that any of the above statements are true, then please present reputable sources who discuss and explain them so that we can agree on the matter. Please note, however, that neither the article nor the talk page is intended as a forum for idle speculation on the topic. --Ludwigs2 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As a layman, I can give some ideas why evolution does not necessarily make people more intelligent. First, IQ does not correlate well with success - hence the invention of emotional intelligence, which is supposed to. Secondly, no one likes a smart ass. In a multi-player game, which life is, jealousy can count against the "best" player as the weak group together. You can see this in any revolution by the "masses" against their betters. In the old days, a better brain needed more nourishment and hence more likely starvation when food was short - this still applies across much of the world. In the modern world, higher intelligence leads to more powerful inventions and arguably better weapons for terrorists, global warming etc. Intelligence combined with greed has led to the raping of the world's precious resources - a more stupid country probably wouldn't have been able to squander millions of years of resources in a few generations, so doing better in the long run. All in all, it is not obvious that evolution always favours intelligence. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

>As a layman, I can give some ideas why evolution does not necessarily make people more intelligent.

But can you give any that aren't merely your opinion? You have not done so here.

> First, IQ does not correlate well with success

If by success you mean "rich white businessman" success, then I agree. I have had rich, lexus-driving managers who are profoundly stupid. You are also correct that the white man has done more damage to everyone else, the planet, and themselves than all other people combined.

But we're talking about evolution. What the greedy repiglican businessmen have done is completely irrelevant to that because evolution requires tens of thousands of years for even the slightest visible changes. The white man's wholesale pillage and destruction have only been going on for about 2,000 years. That's not enough time to say that intelligence prevents evolution. In fact, as life evolves, there is a monotonic rise in brain capacitity and intelligence. Monkeys aren't self-aware. Apes are (refs on req). And no ape ever made a fire.

Secondly, no one likes a smart ass.

I can vouch for that by all the nasty emails I get every time I write anything on the internet.

In a multi-player game, which life is, jealousy can count against the "best" player as the weak group together. You can see this in any revolution by the "masses" against their betters.

Sure! But that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

In the old days, a better brain needed more nourishment and hence more likely starvation when food was short - this still applies across much of the world.

Sadly, I'm afraid that you, literally don't know what you're talking about. Where have stupid people survived when smart ones died of starvation for no other reason than their brains required more nutrition? The brain uses only 20% of the body's energy output, and the difference in energy use between a smart and a stupid person requires a PET scan even to measure. It's microwatts.

In the modern world, higher intelligence leads to [all kinds of bad things]

Yes, but those bad things don't have anything to do with evolution. Evil white people have LOTS of kids, and that's how you measure evolutionary success.

> a more stupid country probably wouldn't have been able to squander millions of years of resources in a few generations, so doing better in the long run.

Yeah, but "the long run" hasn't happened yet. Only when people like cheney and the iraq towelheads nuke all human life off the planet can you say that intelligence subverts evolution. So far, the importance of intelligence in evolution is only surpassed by the inventions of RNA, prokaryotic cells, multicelluar organisms, and sex. TechnoFaye Kane 06:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed the point of my response. It is not intended to be a thoroughly researched and sourced text for article space, merely a spread of ideas which show why it is not obvious that high intelligence is always a one-way evolutionary bet. Since you asked, my comments are not all my opinion, so I suppose that means that I have already included ideas which aren't merely my opinion. I notice make a number of uncited assertions yourself, BTW. I'd be particularly interested in your source for your microwatts statement, given that the large brain size in humans is generally agreed to be both necessary for high intelligence and costly in energy terms - see Introduction, for example. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Two important secondary sources not used so far

• Nicholas Mackintosh, IQ and Human Intelligence, OUP, with a chapter on group differences including around 40 pages devoted to ethnic groups.This text book has received excellent reviews.
• Jefferson M. Fish, Race and Intelligence: separating science from myth, with contributions by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, biologists, statisticians and historians from major US universities,

Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. 1) Do you happen to have any extracts of these available? The pdf you kindly provided of Appendix B from Nisbett was very useful. 2) If not, could you describe just what sort of material/facts these books provide that are not already included in the article? David.Kane (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. The first can be read on amazon.com and the second on google books. Perhaps users more ingenious/devious than me can find complete versions without going to a library (eg Mackintosh seems to be on questia.com). Both these books I think are in the "references" article. The first seems extremely balanced and well written, probable for a non-specialist readership. Mackintosh describes in full detail most of the details of the debate from the point of view of a psychometrist; the second is a selection of articles by a diverse interdisciplinary group discussing different aspects of the debate about race and intelligence - in the particular they discuss why all attempts so far to argue for a genetic mechanism have been flawed. Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I am reading Mackintosh now and agree with your assessment. Most of the key chapter seems to be available, although some pages are missing. Side note: What is the proper method of using a secondary source like this in a Wikipedia article? That is, we could almost write both the environmental and heriditarian sections just relying on his excellent description of these two views. He seems to cover both sides fairly and completely. Would it be OK to do that and just cite him? (We would also cite some of the main work by both sides, as well.) I am unfamiliar with the conventions in the use of primary sources versus secondary sources. David.Kane (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these sources, so I cannot comment on how good an account Mackintosh gives of the two views although I am inclined to trust David Kane. But here is how I would answer the question: There are two main concerns: that a summarizers account is biased, or that it is incomplete. SO, I would frame the whole thing with a hook that Mackintosh's book provides a useful summary of the views. That way, if a future editor comes across another account that they think itself constituts a distinct view (and thus highlights Mackintosh's bias) it would be very easy for them to rewrite the lead to say that Mackintosh and X have different views of the debate, M empnasizing some things, X, something else. nd then, I would be clear to provide each element of his account separately with a separate citation. That way, future editors who think some M's account is generally fine but think some element is missing from it can add the missing element (with proper citation) without seriously scfrewing up the flow of the section. In other words, try to imagine how future editors may wish to change or add to what you write, and write in a way that allows for thatr without ruining the integrity of your own writing. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Report on Rewrite

I have finished my two days (plus two hours) of work on the rewrite. Comments: 1) Thanks to all editors for allowing my the freedom to make so many dramatic changes. 2) I did the best I could but, obviously, the article still needs a lot of work. My main failure was in not rewriting the environmental and heriditarian interpretation sections. Right now, they are just a collection of unconnected comments from the previous version. There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold! 3) The main improvements, I think, are: First, I used the outline that arose from the mediation. I played no part in writing that outline, nor do I particularly like it, but Wikipedia is all about consensus. Second, I dramatically decreased the length of the article. WP:Size recommends 30-50K for an article size, so my cutting was extensive. Third, I tried to significantly clean up the references and other junk. Needless to say, there is still much more that could be done. David.Kane (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Another important twin-study

David, in your nxt revision can you add a summary of the important twin study by ECJ Moore? Moore compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white families, and found no difference in IQ between black and mixed-race children, whether raised by black or white families. The IQs of both black and mixed race children, however, were about 13 points higher if raised by white families than if raised by black families. This study indicates no superiority whatever of the mixed-race children over the black children and it indicates that essentially the entire difference between the IQs of black and white at the time of the study could be accounted for by environmental factors associated with race.

Source: Moore, E. C. J. (1986). "Family socialization and the IQ test performance of traditionally and trans-racially adopted black children." Developmental Psychology, 22, 317-326.

If you have trouble finding the source I can try to access it for you. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This may help. --DJ (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Biological parents	Number of children	Initial testing	10-year follow-up
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study initially tested at age 7
Black-black	21	91.4	83.7
Black-white	55	105.4	93.2
White-white	16	111.5	101.5
Biological children	101	110.5	105.5
Moore (1986) initially tested at age 7-10
Black-black	9	108.7	not done
Black-white	14	107.2	not done
Eyferth (1961) initially tested at age 5-13
Black-white	171	96.5	not done
White-white	70	97.2	not done

Thanks DJ. Is MTAS "Weinberg et. al.?" I ask because, in terms of style, I think the table would look better if each part were consistent i.e. we either use the name of the srticle or research project for all three, or the name of the PI for all three. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Number 2 Complete (?)

(A version of this comment also appears on the mediation page.)

I have finished my one day plus a few hours of work on the rewrite. Comments:

• Thanks to all editors for allowing my the freedom to make so many dramatic changes.
• I did the best I could but, obviously, the article still needs a lot of work. My main failure was to just leave so much undone. Several of the new sections are empty shells. There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job filling in those sections. I hope they will be bold! I will add some material in the near future.
• The main improvements, I think, are:

• • First, I followed (my interpretation of) advice from Slrubenstein and MathSci. The article now uses an (excellent) secondary source (Nisbett 2009) as a framework in which to organize the article. Thanks to MathSci for providing Appendix B. As Slrubenstein, this allows future editors to fix up discrete sections (on, say, reaction times or inbreeding depression) without upsetting the structure of the article as a whole.

• • Second, I tried to significantly clean up the references and other junk. Needless to say, there is still much more that could be done.

I will leave it to other editors to judge whether or not this version, taken as a whole, is superior to the previous one. I look to the mediator for discussion about where we go from here. My recommendation: See if there is consensus that this version is better then where we started and see if there is consensus to end this mediation and go back to normal editing. David.Kane (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did the nutrition section go?

The article mentions lynn's world wide "data" without taking into account all the relevant facts. for south asia, for example, it is relevant to add the fact that almost 70 % of pakistanis suffer from iodine deficiencies, resulting in a huge loss of cognitive abilities (see e.g. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/16-twothirds-of-schoolchildren-iodine-deficient-report-hs-07). the same point has been made by the copenhagen consensus with respect to many other third world countries( see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_intelligence#Micronutrients_and_vitamin_deficiencies).

in fact, the wiki page about "iq and global inequality" (the book in which lynn's "world wide data" is found) states:

"lynn and vanhanen recommend the provision of iodine and other micronutrients as a way to increase cognitive functioning in the third world." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality#National_IQ_and_QHC_values) mustihussain 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead discussion

Mathsci, why don't you say what your problem with David Kane's version of the lead is instead of just reverting and risking an editwar? This seems like a good time to enter a BRD cycle we have had both the B and the R now we just need to discuss. At present the only argument you have given against David Kanes version is that he doesn't have permission to change the lead - thats not a very good one and I am sure you have some better ones - lets hear them and then start the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, I have explained in detail on the mediation talk page (it has taken over from this talk page) and on David.Kane's talk page.

Ok, as I am not watching those I only saw what looked like a potentially evolving editwar.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately David.Kane's carte blanche for editing preempts any discussion. The lede I restored was discussed in great detail on the mediation talk page. This again is one of the problems with Ludwigs2's unilateral decision to have the article redrafted in mainspace. After two days of discussion of the lede, in which Daivd.Kane did not participate very much but in which - rare event! - there was a consensus on both sides of mediation, David.Kane has now removed carefully crafted neutral phrases and replaced them by non-neutral, even inflammatory, phrases, which are unlikely ever to be agreed upon. WP:BRD unfortunately cannot be used when Ludwigs2 has imposed these bizarre editing rules which go against normal wikipedia policies. For example a discussion of the changes is also occurring on the mediation pages and on David.Kane's talk page (and mine). I don't think the present editing conditions are healthy. Mathsci (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Ludwigs idea that giving one editor special privileges as a rewriter of the article is not a very good idea (unless its done at a subpage) and does not work well with other wikipedia policies. Editwarring doesn't help either though, theres got to be some sort of constructive solution, I guess the mediation page is the right thing to discuss this.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus: Thanks for the suggestion to discuss. Here are two of my key issues for the lead. First, the article is supposed to have a global focus. It is not "Race and Intelligence in the United States" or "Race and Intelligence in the United Kingdom." It is just "Race and Intelligence." So, at least in the lead, all racial terms and links should be global (as best as possible) and not US-specific. For example, we should not use African American. Second, I am comfortable with a lead that does not mention any specific researcher my name. I am also comfortable with a lead that mentions a variety of notable researchers on both sides (as mine does.) But a lead which only mentions researchers by name on one side of the issue, as MathSci's does, makes no sense (to me). There are other issues, but those are the two key ones. David.Kane (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The article cannot have a more global focus than the data used in the studies on which it is based. You cannot simply extrapolate studies regarding americans or brits to cover the entire globe. Whether we like it or not studies of correlations between race and intelligence in areas outside of the US and UK are few and far between.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! If the article only cited sources (both primary and secondary) that only covered the US and the UK, then the lead should specify that. But the sources we have provide extensive coverage of other countries! Now, that coverage is not equal by any means. Englsh-language countries (Canada, Australia) have more coverage. Japan/Korea/Taiwan have more coverage than African countries. But, given that the sources we use discuss many countries, the lead should reflect that. Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article at present has been rewritten in an unneutral way by David.Kane, with a lot of POV-pushing. Often it's very hard to see any link between whay he has written and what can be found in the secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which specific sentences do you find problematic? David.Kane (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters the article I cited on the mediation talk page by Jeremy Gray and Paul Thompson explains there is almost no academic research in race and intelligence. But in the first sentence of the lede and further on you suggest the contrary. The whole lede goes on like this. Writing in that way is usually called "POV-pushing". Another problem is where do Australian aborigines come in the David.Kane hierarchy of races and which secondary source have you used for the four aggregated groups. Again this looke like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with no secondary sources. Why write this kind of stuff if you don't have a secondary source? Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Any way moot now. Mathsci (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"almost no academic research in race and intelligence"? I am not sure where to go with that. Do you disagree that, say, Rushton and Jensen (2005) involves race and intelligence? How about a dozen of the other articles listed in the notes? This may represent 0.0000001% of all academic research in all topics, but it is enough academic research to justify a Wikipedia article. And, obviously, my sentence makes no claim about the total amount of such research. I just claim/imply that such research exists. David.Kane (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page of mediation, I gave this quote from an article in Nature Reviews by Gray and Thompson: "In light of such unresolved ethical issues, many neuroscientists have been reluctant to investigate individual or group differences in intelligence. Few scientists investigate race differences in intelligence; those who do are overwhelmingly white." So 2 reputable scientists state exactly what I said. There are only a handful of scientists doing research into race and intelligence, many of them funded by the Pioneer Fund.

Now could you answer my objection about the Australian aborigines. Where did they disappear in your personal classification of racial groups into four aggregates? The wikilink by you to racial group blatantly assumed a scientifically valid classification into biological races which has been criticized in multiple secondary sources. I can continue with almost every sentence that you introduced into the lede and with those you omitted. Jensen's 1969 paper sparked controversy in the academic and public world: this is recorded in secondary sources. Why remove such things? To me it just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But perhaps you have a better explanation? Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to get involved, but of course, under WP:NPOV, all significant views should be presented. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Responses to MathSci:

• I could imagine including Australian aborigines in the lead. Do you really want to do that? There are certainly several editors who would agree with you. I did not put it in because I was making a good faith effort to create a lead that would reach consensus.
• Are you blaming me for the quality of racial group? If you think that this Wikipedia article is fundamentally flawed then, obviously, you should fix it. It seems OK to me.
• I was trying to trim down the history section. Indeed, as you can see, I trimmed all sections of the article, making it dramatically smaller than it used to be. Virtually every editor agreed that this was desirable. I have no problem with you (or any other editor) expanding the history section, or any other section of the article. David.Kane (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

History

I think that a history section - or additional sections organized historically - could be a good thing. But what would be the point? This is not a rhetorical question: I think we need to answer this question before it is possible to write a good history section. We need to discuss the rules - the principles or criteria - for deciding what would go into such a section, or sections, for determining how far back to go.

Offhand i can conceive of a few such principle and unles anyone objects I hope we can use them.

First, a history section can help show the institutional context, how it has changed over time, and how it has shaped research. Who uses IQ tests (i.e. the story from starting in the army to becoming almost universal) aqnd why? What scholars have studied the relationship between race and IQ. When did scholars first start publishing articles on the topic, and in which journals? When did journals focusing on this topic first come into existence? Who fonded them and supported them? What foundations support this research? What academic departments support thse journals or employ researchers? Scientific knowledge does not just appear. It is created in an institutional context. Such a section will help readers understand the context in which scientists work.

Second, a history of research qustions and how they have changed - this is one element of virtually any good lit. review and is always illuminating. Why is it that researchers' interests may change over time? What forces within the media shape this? And outside of the media? Or is there a natural progression of debats among scientists? Such a section can inform readers as to the role scientists themselves play in determining their research. What are scientists really interested in? What makes a research question appealing (why would a foundation pay for the research? Why would a journal publish it)? uch a section will help readers understand how scientists actually work.

Finally, a history of debates over this research. One might think of this as a history of criticisms of the research; I am supposing that the reasons people have been critical of the research has changed.

These are a few things that unfold over time, and to write the article as if all things were in play at the ame time would only confuse the reader. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that there are several complaints (from, at least, A.Prock, Bpesta22, Captain Occam, mikemikev) about the version that MathSci is working on. I share some of everyone's concerns, especially with regard to WP:UNDUE. I also enjoyed MathSci's (only!?) reply to these concerns:

"It's very nice to see wikipedians expressing their personal views, but that's not how wikipedia articles are written. I am continuing to prepare a version of the rest of the history as I've said above."

Charming! Fortunately, one obvious solution, especially if we add back a lot of the material from the version 2 months ago, would be to spin out (and link back to) a Race and Intelligence (History) article. What would be the best name for such an article? David.Kane (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history provides an essential context for the discussion of Jensen, Rushton and Lynn - as NPOV and NOR make clear, providing context is important and we cannot remove it to another article without violating policy. My comment was meant to show Occam, Mike and others constructive ways to collaborate w2ith MathSci. Obviously they are not going to like what he wrote - we are in mediation' that is by definition an attempt to resolve conflicts among editors who do not agree. It is not a poll. We do not take a vote. We seen compromise and to learn how to work together. I have proposed a framework for working together. If they do not like it maybe the mediatior, Ludwigs2 can provide a better framwork. But the task is to learn how to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversial claims treated as facts

The statement in the test scores section states

Racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world. One meta-analysis estimates East Asians (105), Whites (102), Amerindians (87), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans . This is primarily based on Lynn's work and Lynn's work has been criticized as unreliable (see IQ and the Wealth of Nations#Criticism). Some disclaimer is required.

The next statement Many MRI volumetric analyses have shown that on average, the brains of people identifying themselves as African-American are 5% smaller than the brains of people identifying themselves as White and 6% smaller than people identifying themselves as Asian.[50] [52]

The average brain volumes (in cm3) are approximately 1,268 (Blacks), 1,362 (Whites), and 1,415 (East Asians).[30]

This is based on Rushton's work which is also controversial. Firstly , most of the data used in Rushton's work is not based on MRI, but on external head measurements and autopsy data. External head measurements are the least reliable for determining brain size. Secondly, the idea of an average head size for a race may be an oversimplification. An average for a heterogeneous sample tends to be less meaningful. There may be an average weight of mammals, but this group includes, elephants, whales and mice. For reptiles it includes lizards and dinosaurs. For Africans it includes the short statured pygmies and tall nilotic peoples. Rushton seems to have used heterogeneous samples to arrive at his averages, so they are somewhat problematic and shouldn't be considered factual. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What revisions would make these sections in line with NPOV? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

i concur! by the way, racial theorists are extremely selective when it comes "data". what they forget to mention is that white females, supposedly, have an average brain size that is equivalent to the black male average...there is thus no why brain size can account for the "iq gap". in addition, in the physiology section it is stated that:"studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4.[51]". this is just hilarious! the statement doesn't mean anything at all from a statistical point of view. such a huge variation in correlation is most probably due to statistical fluctuations (i.e. lack of statistics) i.e. there is no way to determine what the real "correlation" is as long as there is not enough statistics...

i also want to add that the most annoying aspect of the current version is the omission of the nutrition section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Where_did_the_nutrition_section_go.3F). mustihussain 10:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My default suggestion would be to omit problematic data. An alternative is simply to state that scholars such such as Rushton controversially propose that races differ in average brain size and that these differences are responsible for group differences in average IQ. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you edit the article now in line with your second suggestion (that is an uncontroversial edit anyone can make), but raise the first suggestion in a new section on the mediation page? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

err, maybe I should stay out of here, but the purpose of meta-analysis is exactly to determine an estimate of the true effect when various studies report different values. There has been a meta-analysis on brain size and IQ (though not focused on race differences).

Bpesta22 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Queston about reference

The article says, "Racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world." The reference provided says "We should accept, then, without further ado that there is a difference in average IQ between blacks and white." This quote from mackintosh does not use the term "worldwide" or "around the world." Unless David or someone can fix it (make it clear that this is what the source says) I will have to remove the statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive revert - why

Reviewing the changes to the article, the talk page, and the "mediation" page, it is patently clear that most of the changes made to this article over the past 15 days were not discussed anywhere, that no consensus was reached, and that the process of making the edits had no transparency. I'm not wedded to any side in this ridiculous debate, but if one side is "winning" and the other side is "losing," by rule of some mediator, then the meditation didn't reach a conclusion, it reached a not-conclusion, and the mediator should be sanctioned and prevented from further mucking about. If some changes had broad consensus, then reinstate those changes - with clear consensus, a clear talk page discussion, and for-fucks-sake - ONE CLEAR EDIT. Hipocrite (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that David.Kane has reverted to his edited version. Is there any editor who typically disagress with David.Kane that believes his edits were an improvement to the article? If so, what parts of his edits were good, and which parts were bad? Please feel free to revert the parts of his edits that were bad without fear of a "mediator" declaring a version is blessed, as that is patent nonsense. Hipocrite (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite - I'm glad you're taking an interest in the page, but it would be nice if you made positive contributions rather than simply tried to upset the applecart. can you point to specific things in DK's additions that you disagree with, so that we can work to resolve them?

And please don't blame me for any problems you're seeing. If I was going to impose a bias as a mediator, it would have been for the environmental side. In fact, once I'm back to being a normal editor I'll start arguing for that point, so I'd appreciate any observations you want make now (they will help me then). but let's build a good article from this base, rather than just trying to dredge up more confrontations. --Ludwigs2 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot, because it's impossible to follow DK's changes, as they were not discussed or proposed as individual changes, he appears to have merely been given leave to do whatever he wanted. There's no draft that I can see anywhere. I blame you for failing to control the process, by creating a behemoth that was far too unwieldy for an amateur editor as opposed to a professional POV pusher to follow and then obviously losing the trust of one "side" of the mediation, and then taking that loss of trust to mean that the other "side" won. I'd like to see a point by point list of the major changes to the article, or a link to the fullsome discussion of the draft of the rewrite, and then I'll be able to comment more clearly about your failings. If those things don't exist, your failings where that you didn't require them. Hipocrite (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

well, if you're entire argument boils down to wp:IDONTLIKEIT, as the above would suggest, then I acknowledge that fact that you don't like it. However, that is not proper grounds for making changes to an article. unless you can point to specific things that you dislike, and give specific reasons why you dislike them, what are we supposed to do?

Look, I can argue for our side of the debate (your and my side, 'cause we're on the same side) very effectively with or without you, and I will do my best to improve the article and address your concerns whether or not you want to cooperate with me in that effort. but if you're going to interfere with the article just because you don't like me, well... that ain't right. Article comes first, always; there are more effective and honest ways for you to deal with me if that's what you have a mind to do. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all. My argument is "What the fuck did you change and why?" Can't tell from the draft (there was no draft). Can't tell from the edit summaries (they were rarely used, and were less than descriptive when used) can't tell from the big-diff, because the article was totally unlike the earlier one. There's not any accountability side. I don't even know what the sides are, but I know a clusterfuck when I see one - this is one.

I see you have a strong PoV on this subject. Do you think you were suitable as a mediator? I don't. Perhaps you should have sought a more experienced wikipedian without any baggage on the topic, like, for instance, me. Certainly, given that you think my process concerns have led you to decide I have a vested interest and just don't like the content, well, I think you've disqualified yourself, since I know fuck-all about the content. Hipocrite (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly capable of mediating without my personal point of view showing itself; that's not an issue. If you yourself have issues with my mediation skills, I'm more than happy to take that up somewhere more appropriate than article talk. lead the way, and I'll follow. Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion, and I'll take your critique under due consideration.

That being said, if you (and allow me to quote you) "know fuck-all about the content", why in heaven's name do you feel entitled to make massive reverts to the article? I had assumed that you made that revert because of some informed opinion that the content itself had some kind of flaw, but now you seem to be saying that you reverted for no reason related to content whatsoever. Does that qualify as a good editing practice in your opinion? it does tend to lead back to the idea that you are editing out of IDONTLIKEIT sentiments. don't violate wp:POINT here - if you have a concern not related to article content, don't muck with the article just to make it heard. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Ludwigs2, you are incapable of mediating, because you didn't do it - you did not engage the parties, you did not set out a process, you did not seek common ground, and you did not conclude with consensus. In otherwords, stop, now. I'm not proving a point, I'm trying to fix an article by at least trying to follow some sort of norms - you know, like WP:BRD. That didn't work, because someone felt they were "blessed" in reverting over and over to their preferred version. Instead, I tried tagging the article to direct readers to the talk page, but that was also reverted by the same person. Problematic, to say the least. Hipocrite (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that in this entire exchange with me you have repeatedly attacked a number of different editors on several points, yet have not made one single substantive comment about content? --Ludwigs2 06:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because unlike the "mediator," I'm well aware I'm not yet informed enough to take sides on content, but I certainly know process failures when I see them. Hipocrite (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

lol - ok, you have a good night now. --Ludwigs2 06:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate overview

I have tried to write a small (probably too small) section about the actual debate outlining the different reasons that the topic is controversial - possibly a little more mention of some of the hereditarian viewpoints could be introduced, as I have mostly been concerned with supplying the different reasons (scientific and political) that some groups have difficulties in swallowing the hereditarian viewpoint. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Another development in the social sciences which has influenced the approach to studies of race and intelligence, is the move away from seeing racial categories as biologically defined, instead seeing such categories primarily as social constructions)." What right do sociologists have to make biological claims?

"claims by some scientists working with intelligence, such as Stephen Jay Gould" Gould does not work with intelligence. The man is a joke even in his own field (See Maynard-Smith). mikemikev (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sociologists don't make biological claims - they claim (correctly) that the biological definitions of concepts such as "race" or "intelligence" are not as straightforward as some would have it because they are in fact to a large extent socially rather than biologically defined. This is relevant because it is a huge part of the reason that there is even a debate abvout this issue. If the reader does not understand that there is disagreement between scientists who see race and intelligence as basically biologically defined concepts and those who see them as basically socially defined then she won't have a chance of understanding what the disagreement is all about. Stephgen Gould is not universally seen as a bad scientist and frankly your opinion (and Maynard Smiths) on that matter is irrelevant in this context - Gould is not mentioned as an example of an authority but exactly as a person who has a opinion on the nature of intelligence that is outside of the mainstream just like Howard Gardner - you should try to read sentences in context instead of just seeing red flags whenever a pet peeve of yours is mentioned. The reason why it is relevant to mention that some people have opinions about the nature of intelligence that are not mainstream is to SHOW the reader that there is a plethora of viewpoints BOTH about race and about intelligence and that THIS is a big part of the reason that there is no general consensus about how best to explain the race gap.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You still do not get even the most basic principle of Wikipedia editing, do you mike? This is not the place to push your own point of view. What Maunus and Mathsci are doing is summarizing material already published in reliable secondary sources. It does not matter whether any of us agrees with or likes what they say. I think many more evolutionary scientists have heard of Gould than of Maynard-Smith. And while Maynard-Smith was a perfectly credible scientist, so was Gould. Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). By what right do sociologists make biological claims? Well, by wwhat write do biologists make sociological claims? The fact is, there is a branch of sociology of science in which sciologists study scientists, scientifically. But that is not what Maunus is referring to or talking about. Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers do not speak for themselves

They do not, David.

If these numbers come from someone's research i.e. a peer-reviewed journal article or a book by a professional scholar, then you have to summarize the conclusions reached by the researchers i.e. is this significant, insignificant or what? This is an NPOV issue, NPOV compliance in part requires us to provide context, so this illustrates the NPOV problems with your edits. If there is only one view about the meaning of these numbers, provide the one view and make it clear whose view it is. If there are two views, provide the two views. And so on.

If you do not add this important invormation I will restore the edit you deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was about to post that myself. It is completely impossible for someone who is not part of the debate to know whether a range of 0.4 - 0.7 is statistically significant or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus: Without reading the study in question, how do you "know whether a range of 0.4 - 0.7 is statistically significant?" I believe that the cited study claims, correctly, statistical significance. David.Kane (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But then that ought to be spelled out for statistics illiterates like myself.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

that the correlations found in different papers range from 0 to 0.6 (as mentioned in the text) don't mean anything at all! 0 correlation means that there *no* linear dependency between the parameters studied i.e. the covariance is zero. if the correlation between two parameters (e.g. iq and brain size) is zero, we can *not* predict the value of iq by looking at the corresponding brain size, and vice versa. a correlation of 0.6 might, *perhaps*, yield *some* predictive powers but not significantly (in my field of science we look for correlations that are at least 0.95 or more before we make any conclusions). secondly, if the correlation really ranges between 0 to 0.6 then we are dealing, most probably, with chance correlations, and this means that there is not enough data. the study is inconclusive. thirdly, a *strong* correlation does *not* mean that there is a *direct* causality between the parameters. in order to verify that you need to do simulations and calculate how probable the correlation in question really is....! mustihussain 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for information's sake, in social science research, correlations in the .4 to .7 range are considered very good. this is because in social scientific research it is impossible to control for all significant variables (short of kidnapping children at birth and raising them in identically structured home environments), so any number of uncontrolled non-random factors have to be accounted for in the random models used. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

0.4 is considered very good???? lolzzzzz, i didn't know that! no wonder social sciences are in such a mess :-) anyway, the given range (0 to 0.6) is still strange. 0 correlation means we can not predict anything, while with a correlation of 0.6 we can predict, according to what you said, "very good". now, what does this mean? can we predict the iq by looking at brain sizes, yes or no? can we predict poorly, rather good, good, or very good? take your pick. as i said before, the study is inconclusive, and correlation does *not* necessarily mean causation. mustihussain 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

Mustihussain - spoken like a true lay-person. correlations are not some 'magic number' that have meaning irrespective of context. scientists can abuse material objects in a way that they cannot abuse human beings (short of Nazi concentration camps, that is - I hear Mengele got some very high correlation numbers), and within those constraints .4 is acceptable and .6 starts to look pretty good. as someone once said "it isn't the hard sciences vs the soft sciences - science is science. it's actually the hard sciences vs the easy sciences." testing a rock is easy, testing a person is hard. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about? i am totally aware of the fact that correlations are not some magic numbers. as i said: correlation does not necessarily mean causation (hence the need for strict requirements), and you need to figure out how probable the correlation in question really is. but if 0.4 is acceptable then what is left? if we forget about c = 0 (which means no correlation at all), and everything above 0.3 is acceptable, you are left with 0.1 < c < 0.3....speaking frankly: it seems social scientists can prove anything they want! however, it does not change the fact that the text mentions a range from 0 to 0.6 i.e. from non-correlation to "acceptable" correlation. so the answer to the question "can we predict the iq by measuring brain sizes?" is : some studies say yes and other say no! this is not science. this is "stamp collecting" !mustihussain 01:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

btw, what are the chance probabilities for the correlations found? mustihussain 01:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We have proven one thing, numbers do not speak for themselves, which was the reason David Kane gave for reverting an edit. Since David Kane's reason was wrong, I will restore what was deleted. If David Kane thinks the edit is incorrect, he is fre to correct it, but we need an explanation of whether or not the correlation is significant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain thinks the edit is origina; research. Since numbers don't speak for themselves, it is irresponsible to include this data without any context at all, and it violates policy. I have removed it - here it is:

Within human populations, studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures. Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4.

Until the proper contxt can be added and we can return it to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, we agreed several months ago to use a data-centric approach. You agreed to this yourself. Per our agreement about this, leaving the data out entirely is not an option.

One other thing we established in mediation is that data itself is not POV. You can find the 0.4 correlation mentioned by Flynn, Neisser, and Nisbett in addition to Jensen and Rushton. None of them dispute this data; the only thing they dispute is what it means in terms of the cause of the IQ difference. I don't think there's anything wrong with presenting a statistical fact, which is acknowledged by both sides of the debate, without any commentary like this; and neither did any of the other users who approved of adding this data. If you do, can you please explain specifically what additional context is required in order to present this data? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Because policy requires it. We can't just take facts out of context. And because it would make the article better - in what way would it not? The "data centric" approach simply means that we present the data on between group differences in IQ scores up front as a way of raising the question. But for ANY interpretation or explanation, we must provide the context, not just the data. Otherwise it cannot go into the article. Simple policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

David kane HAS the source, it should be a piece of cake for him to add the relevant information in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to be specific. What exactly do you mean by “context” in this case? The sentence you removed already mentions that a wide range of different correlations have been found in studies about brain size and IQ, so there’s no danger that readers will think 0.4 is the only result ever obtained by these studies. Everyone else who approves of this section apparently thinks that’s sufficient context for this data, so if you think additional context information is necessary here, you need to be specific about what else needs to be added.

Since you’re the person who isn’t satisfied with the content that consensus has produced here, you need to make a specific proposal about what needs to be changed about it. It isn’t helpful to just say that you won’t accept the consensus version, while not offering any specific proposals about how to improve it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What "consensus version?" David Kane wrote it, during his own overhaul, and then invited editors to be bold. Will you please provide a link to th section on the mediation talk page where parties to mediation crafted this passage and agreed to it by consensus? Please back up your bluster with this one fact.

In the meantime, I am not the only person who has trouble with this, Maunus and Mustihussein, as well as the anonymous editor, have trouble with this, so that is four people. And this entire discussion makes it explicilty clear what context we are asking for. [redacted]You are just trying to provoke me. No dice. Start playing nice. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mustihussein: You should research the concept of effect size as it applies to a correlation co-efficient. In employment selection, for example, a correlation of .30 is typical, with .50 (coincidentally, the value for IQ predicting job performance) having tremendous utility. See also Taylor Russell tables for an example of what a measly (r = .30) correlation can do to improve prediction accuracy assuming optimal base and selection rates.Bpesta22 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "fact driven" means presenting numbers without comment. That would be especially unhealthy in a case like this where there are several possible views espoused by different scholars on each set of facts. I think the right way would be to present the facts (at least those facts that are not disputed) AND then present any notable interpretations published of those facts. That means that if we Witelson, BEresh and Kigar draw any conclusions about those numnbers we should add it and attribute it to them - if other authors criticise this conclusion we should add that and attribute the criticism to them. Now if the data is in fact concluded to be inconclusive by the authors of the study I think that maybe it is more relevant to have that conclusion than having the numbers, as they simply risk being confusing.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed here. The original proposed addition was from TechnoFaye, and several users raised problems with it. Ludwig and Mikemikev modified the draft in order to address those problems, and after that the users who’d originally had problems with it appeared not to anymore. They didn’t specifically say that they approved of the new version, but since their initial problems with it had been fixed, and they didn’t raise any new objections when Mikemikev specifically asked if anyone had any, I think it’s reasonable to assume that nobody minded this content until now.

Maunus, it sounds like what you’re saying needs to be added in terms of context is some information about how various researchers interpret this data. I’m fine with adding that—I think it would be helpful to mention how this data is interpreted by Neisser and Nisbett on the one hand, and Jensen and Rushton on the other. More generally, I’m fine with the idea of adding more context, as long as I can understand exactly what it is that needs to be added and it’s being cited properly. Would you consider describing the views of these researchers about this data to be a satisfactory solution in this respect? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly!·Maunus·ƛ· 10:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

THis is pretty much all I have been askng for, and I assume that it can be found in the source that the data comes from (i.e. the original researchers), so it should not be hard to add. If Neisser, Nisbett, Jenson and Rushton cite it, it would certainly enhance the article to know how they use the data and whether they all agree ti the way it be used. Again, I think that would enhance the article a good dealt. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, as long as nobody else has a problem with this, sometime soon I’ll put the sentence you removed back in the article along with additional information about how the people I mentioned interpret this data. If there’s anyone who has a problem with this idea, now’s the time to mention it. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, Captain Occam - I appreciate it and it will make for a stronger article. Just put what Witelson, Beresh and Kigar say, before discussing how others have used the data. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good sign that it was so easy (!?) for us to come to agreement on this. I have added back the citation and will try to find a copy and then provide it so all may consult. Again, I did not write this sentence and I did not check the citation. I was just doing what people told me to! David.Kane (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Was not paying attention and did not see that Occam promised to do this. Anyway, I am pressing on. Article is available here [2] for all (I think). David.Kane (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the source clearly support the claim. "Numerous studies relating measures of brain size such as brain weight, head circumference, CT or MRI brain volume to different intelligence test measures, with variously defined samples of subjects have yielded inconsistent findings with correlations from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4." In fact, it looks like we have some copying/pasting going on. (Not by me!). David.Kane (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you david for finding the quotation in question! the magic word in the quotation is *inconsistent*. the synonyms of "inconsistent" are: incompatible, uncertain, incoherent, dissonant and incongruous. in other words, the findings are incompatible, uncertain, incoherent, dissonant and incongruous!mustihussain 14:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

David, I agree that Neisser’s view about this ought to be mentioned, but I think for NPOV reasons we ought to present the other views about this data also. There are two others: one is Jensen and Rushton’s, and the other is Leonard Lieberman’s, who agrees that the difference in brain size between human groups is genetic but thinks that it should be viewed in terms of biogeographical ancestry rather than “race”. I’ll edit this paragraph to include these alternative views also; if anyone has a problem with me changing this, please discuss it here. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

History section as proposed by Mathsci

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. By the mid-1930s most psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In 1969 the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen published a long article reviving the older hereditarian point of view, with the suggestion that eugenics was more likely to increase the average intelligence in the US than remedial education for blacks. His work, publicized by the Nobel laureate William Shockley, sparked controversy amongst the academic community and even led to student unrest. A similar debate amongst academics followed the publication in 1994 of The Bell Curve, a book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray reviving the hereditarian viewpoint once more. It provoked not only the publication of several interdisciplinary books on the environmental point of view, some in popular science, but also to a public statement from the American Psychological Association acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanatation of it, either environmental or genetic. The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund.

Early history

The idea that there are differences in the brain structures/sizes of different racial groups, and that these differences explain varying rates of intelligence, was widely held and studied during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Francis Galton spurred interest in the study of mental abilities, particularly as they relate to heredity and eugenics. Beginning in the 1930s, race difference research and hereditarianism—the belief that genetics are an important cause of differences in intelligence among human groups—began to fall out of favor in psychology and anthropology after major internal debates.

In !895 R.Meade Bache, University of Pennsylvania, published an article in Psychological Review concerning the reaction times of three population groups in the USA, with in decreasing order of speed, Native Amricans, African Americans and whites. He explained the slowness of the whites by the fact that their brains were more contemplative and did not function well on primitive tasks. This was one of the first examples of scientific racism, in which science is used to bolster beliefs in the superiority of a particular race.

In 1912 the Columbia psychology graduate Frank Bruner reviewed the scientific literature on auditory perception in black and white subjects in Psychological Bulletin, characterizing, "the mental qualities of the Negro as: lacking in filial affection, strong migratory instincts and tendencies; little sense of verneration, integrity or honor; shiftless, indolent, untidy, improvident, extravagant, lazy, untruthful, lacking in persistence and initiative and unwilling to work continuously at details. Indeed, experience with the Negro in classrooms indicates that it is impossible to get the child to do anything with continued accuracy, and similarly in industrial pursuits, the Negro shows a woeful lack of powere of sustained activity and constructive conduct."

In 1916 George O. Ferguson conducted research in his Columbia Ph.D. thesis on "The psychology of the Negro", finding them poor in abstract thought, but good in physical responses, recommending how this should be reflected in education.

In 1916 Lewis Terman, in the manual accompanying the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, referred to the higher frequency of morons among non-white American racial groups stating that further research into race difference on intelligence should be conducted and that the "enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence" could not be remedied by education.

In the 1920's psychologists started questioning underlying assumptions of racial differences in intelligence; although not discounting them, the possibility was considered that they were on a smaller scale than previously supposed and also due to factors other than heredity. In 1924 Floyd Allport wrote in his book "Social Psychology" that the French sociologist Gustave Le Bon was incorrect in asserting "a gap between inferior and superior species" and pointed to "social inheritance" and "environmental factors" as factors that accounted for differences. Nevertheless he conceded that "the intelligence of the white race is of a more versatile and complex order than that of the black race. It is probably superior to that of the red or yellow races."

In 1929 Robert Woodworth in his textbook on psychology made no claims about innate differences in intelligence between races, pointing instead to environmental and cultural factors. He considered it advisable to "suspend judgement and keep our eyes open from year to year for fresh and more conclusive evidence that will probably be discovered".

In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences", dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that enviromental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson's analysis in 1978, this change in attitude had become widespread by then, with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the Nazi claims of a master race and the economic changes brought about by the depression.

1960-1980

In 1965 William Shockley, Nobel laureate in physics and professor at Stanford University, made a public statement at the Nobel conference on "Genetics and the Future of Man" about the problems of "genetic deteriotaion" in humans caused by "evolution in reverse", in contrast to the capacity for social management and organisation of early American settlers. Speaking of the "genetic enslavement" of African Americans, owing to an abnormally high birth rate, Shockley discouraged improved education as a remedy, suggesting instead sterilisation and birth control. In the following ten years he continued to justify discrimination scientifically, claiming it was not based E.O.on prejudice but "on sound statistics". Shockley's outspoken public statements and lobbying brought him into contact with those running the Pioneer Fund who subsequently provided financial support though the intermediaru Carleton Putnam for his extensive lobbying activities against equality for blacks, reported widely in the press. The Pioneer Fund had been set up by W.P. Draper in 1937 with one of its two charitable purposes being to provide aid for "study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race ... and ... into the problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States".

The most significant of Shockley's lobbying campaigns involved the educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen, from the University of California, Berkeley. Although earlier in his career Jensen had favoured environmental rather than genetic factors as the explanation of race differences in intelligence, he had changed his mind following extended discussions with Shockkley during the year 1966-1967 spent at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford.

In 1969 Jensen wrote a long and outspoken article in the Harvard Educational Review, "How Much can We Boost IQ and Achievement", arguing that racial minorities, because of genetic limitations in intelligence, should be taught, not through conceptual explanations, but instead by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote. He decried the "misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks which would only result in "genetic enslavement" unless "eugenic foresight" was brought into play, i.e. population control. In this article Jensen revived the standard hereditarian claims. Shockley conducted a widespread publicity campaign for Jensen's article, supported by the Pioneer Fund. Jensen's views becoming widely known in many spheres. As a result there was renewed academic interest in the hereditarian viewpoint and in intelligence tests. Jensen's original article was widely circulated and often cited; the material was taught in university courses over a range of academic disciplines. In response to his critics, Jensen wrote a series of books on all aspects of psychometry. There was also a widespread positive response from the popular press — with the New York Times Magazine dubbing the topic "Jensenism" — and amongst politicians and policy makers.

In 1971 Richard Herrnstein wrote a long article on intelligence tests in The Atlantic for a general readership. Undecided on the issues of race and intelligence, he discussed instead score differences between social classes. Like Jensen he took a firmly hereditarian point of view. He also commented that the policy of equal opportunity would result in rigidification of social classes, separated by biological differences, resulting in a downward trend in average intelligence that would conflict with the growing needs of a technological society.

Jensen and Herrnstein's articles were widely discussed. Hans Eysenck defended the hereditarian point of view and the use of intelligence tests in "Race, Intelligence and Education" (1971), a pamphlet presenting Jensenism to a popular audience, and "The Equality of Man" (1973). He was severely critical of environmentalists whose policies he blamed for many of the problems in society. In the first book he wrote that, "All the evidence to date suggests the strong and indeed overwhelming importance of genetic factors in producing the great variety of intellectual differences which [are] observed between certain racial groups", adding in the second, that "for anyone wishing to perpetuate class or caste differences, genetics is the real foe".

Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the environmentalist establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted disruptive campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behaviour through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the radical organisation Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.

This disruption was accompanied by a high level of commentaries, criticisms and denouncements from the academic community. Two issues of the Harvard Educational Review were devoted to critiques of Jensen's work by psychologists, biologists and educationalists. Broadly there were five criticisms:

• Inadequate understanding of population genetics. Richard Lewontin pointed out that heritability estimates depend on the specific group and their environment, i.e. that a distinction has to be drawn between heritability within groups and between groups. Many other scientists made the same point, including Stephen J. Gould, Walter Bodmer, Gerald Dworkin and Ned Block. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and Walter Bodmer questioned Jensen's use of socio-economic status as a method of controlling environment. Jensen's inference of racial IQ differences from class differences was criticized by Sandra Scarr-Salatapek.
• Overestimation of the heritidary component of IQ scores. Mary Jo Bane and Christopher Jencks suggested that an estimate of 45% was more realistic than Jensen's figure of 80%. Leon Kamin queried Jensen's reliance on the twin studies of Cyril Burt. Critics were in agreement that the expression of a gene depended strongly on environment and hence so would the development of intelligence.
• Unjustitied assumption that IQ scores are a good measure of intelligence. Multiple problems were brought up by critics, including the difficulty in defining intelligence, the form of the tests, acquired ability in doing tests, the variations in IQ during a lifetime and the difficulties in administering tests to minority or disadvantaged children.
• Unjustified sociological assumptions in relating IQ to occupation. Bane and Jencks queried correlating IQ with social status.
• Political criticism and insults from a broad spectrum of scientists. Many critics questioned Jensen's motives and whether his work was an appropriate use of public research funds. The Association of Black Psychologists asserted that this kind of use of IQ tests could result in "Black genocide".

1980-present

In the 1980s, the New Zealand psychologist James Flynn started a study of group differences in intelligence in their own terms. His research led him to the discovery of what is now called the Flynn effect: he observed empirically a gradual increase in average IQ scores over the years over all groups tested. His discovery was confirmed later by many other studies. Flynn concluded in 1987 that "IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence".

In 1994 the debate on race and intelligence was reignited by the publication of the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The book was received positively by the media, with prominent coverage in Newsweek, Time, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Although only two chapters of the book were devoted to race differences in intelligence, treated from the same hereditarian standpoint as Jensen's 1969 paper, it neverthless caused a similar furore in the academic community to Jensen's article. Many critics, including Stephen J. Gould and Leonard Kamin, pointed out flaws in the analsysis and unwarranted simplifications. These criticisms were subsequently presented in books, most notably The Bell Curve Debate (1995), Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) and an expanded edition of Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996). In reponse to the debate, the American Psychological Association set up a ten-man taskforce, chaired by Ulrich Neisser, to report on the book and its findings. In its report, published in February 1996, the committee made the following comments on race differences in intelligence:

African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

From the 1980s onwards, the Pioneer Group continued to fund hereditarian research on race and intelligence, in particular the two English-born psychologists Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster and J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, its president since 2002. Rushton returned to the cranial measurements of the nineteenth century, using brain size as an extra factor determining intelligence; in collaboration with Jensen, he most recently developed updated arguments for the genetic explanation of race differences in intelligence. Lynn, long time editor of and contributor to Mankind Quarterly and a prolific writer of books, has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as "the truth that dares not speak its name".

Comments on Mathsci's history

Thanks to MathSci for taking the time to write this history. Feel free to use this section to make comments. Here are some of mine:

• This history is long and detailed. Nothing wrong with that. But if it gets too long relative to the rest of the article, it will need to become its own article.
• Footnote 8 is missing a title. I assume it is a book which summarizes the "Two issues of the Harvard Educational Review" mentioned. Or is it a reprint of those issues.
• Footnote 10 mentions "Pearson Education". Is that the title of the book?
• This is a general question about how general footnotes and formmating work. You cite Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, p. 148, ISBN 019852367X as footnote 11. Mackintosh's book is already included in the article. How do we handle a case in which one footnote just mentions the book in general and one cites a specific page from that book? In my editing, I try to ensure that the whole book is given as early as possible. Then, I do something like "Mackintosh (1998), page 150.", as in footnote 20 of the current article. Is there some cooler way to handle this issue?
• "The most significant of Shockley's campaigns" does not make sense to me. Shockley was campaigning, like a politician running for office or a general on the march?
• Is your paragraph about Jensen's 1969 article based on the article itself or on a description of the article?

More later. In summary, although I have some concerns with numerous small items, I have no objection to including this in the article (or sub-article) and then editing it in place. I look forward to reading other comments. David.Kane (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments on Mathsci's proposal:

Like the history section that you proposed on the mediation page, this is heavily slanted against the hereditarian perspective, and I would oppose it being added to the article for that reason. It’s too long for me to provide a complete list of examples of this, so I’ll just go with what’s in the last paragraph: why is it relevant to mention that Lynn and Rushton have written articles for American Renaissance? They’ve also written articles for numerous peer-reviewed journals, but none of those are mentioned here; only American Renaissance is. This is equivalent to, when providing a brief description of president Obama, mentioning his connections to Jeremiah Wright and nothing else.

I think it’s obvious that the reason why American Renaissance is the only publication mentioned here is because it’s the best way to make Rushton and Lynn look bad. If you’re going to cherry-pick facts like this based on whether they support the perspective that you’d like to get across, you shouldn’t expect your proposed contributions to make their way into the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the article actually use many other articles by Rushton and Lynn as sources? Doesn't that mean the article is already calling attention to those publications? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on, do you really think that citing an article by an author in a particular publication is the same as mentioning in the body of the article that they’ve written articles for it? This is so obvious that I don’t think it needs to be explained. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)

@ David.Kane. Thanks for noting the slips. For refs. tthe recommended wikipedia method is via harvnb and harvtxt so that notes point to references. (See for exmaple Handel concerti grossi Op.6 for how this is done.)

@ Captain Occam. That's what the book by Tucker says about American Renaissance, so that's what I wrote. It's on page 139 here and again in much greater detail on page 182. American Renaissance receives funding from the Pioneer Fund according to that source. Rushton happens to be president of the Pioneer Fund and Lynn happens to be a member of the board (postcript, page 214). Note that Mankind Quarterly, also funded by the Pioneer Fund and edited by Lynn, is described in the same source as a "notorious journal of `racial history'"; and as a "racist journal" in this source:

• Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan idols: Indo-European mythology as ideology and science, University of Chicago Press, p. 402, ISBN 0226028607 {{citation}}: Check |authorlink= value (help)

Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, it doesn’t matter whether there are sources which emphasize this. There are also sources which emphasize Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright; that doesn’t mean when mentioning him in an article we should describe him in this way also. Not all sources are NPOV, particularly on the topic of race and intelligence, and when we’re using a source that isn’t we need to make sure we describe the topic neutrally even if some of our sources don’t.

This is pretty basic. I know you would agree that even if we’re going to use Jensen’s & Rushton’s Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability as a reference for some parts of the article, not everything in that paper deserves to be mentioned in the article, because to do so would go against NPOV policy. The same principle applies here also. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

<---I can't see any relation between this material and Obama related articles. Please could you explain yourself? The secondary sources listed below are academic books written by established academics, most of them experts in the history of psychology. You must provide much stronger arguments for rejecting these impeccable sources. It is also true Rushton and Lynn are on the board of the Pioneer Fund, which funds their research and Jensen's, and this fund is connected with American Renaissance and Mankind Quarterly, as explained in Tucker (2002). Here are the sources I used for the material I added:

1. Benjamin, Ludy T. (2006), Brief History of Modern Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 188-191, ISBN 140513206X
2. Tucker, William H. (2002), The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, pp. 43, 180-181, ISBN 0252027620
3. Lynn, Richard (2001), The science of human diversity: a history of the Pioneer Fund, University Press of America, ISBN 076182040X
4. Tucker, William (2002), The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 0252027620
5. Wooldridge, Adrian (1995), Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395151
6. Richards, Graham (1997), Race, racism, and psychology: towards a reflexive history, Routledge, p. 279, ISBN 0415101417
7. Maltby, John; Day; Macaskill, Ann (2007), Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence, Pearson Education, p. 302, ISBN 0131297600
8. Mackintosh, N.J. (1998), IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, p. 148, ISBN 019852367X
9. Maltby, John; Day; Macaskill, Ann (2007), Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence, Pearson Education, pp. 334-347, ISBN 0131297600
10. Hothersall, David (2003), History of Psychology (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, pp. 440-441, ISBN 0072849657
11. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J. et al. (1996), "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns", American Psychologist 51: 77–101, http://www.psych.illinois.edu/~broberts/Neisser%20et%20al,%201996,%20intelligence.pdf
12. Tucker, William (2002), The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 0252027620
13. Richards, Graham (1997), Race, Racism and Psychology: Towards a Reflex ..., Routledge, ISBN 0415101409
14. Richardson, Angélique (2003), Love and eugenics in the late nineteenth century: rational reproduction and the new woman, Oxford University Press, p. 226, ISBN 0198187009

Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You don't seem to have provided a specific change you'd like made to his proposed text so that it could be neutral. Please provide a specific change to the proposed text you would like to discuss. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this proposed revision is too long for us to handle everything about it at once. Mathsci hasn’t yet demonstrated that he’s willing to change this at all, and he also hasn’t answered any of David.Kane’s questions yet. If he does, then we can move on to other, more specific advice. But I don’t think there’s any point in getting into this even before we know whether Mathsci is willing to compromise about it at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you alledge that "Mathsci hasn’t yet demonstrated that he’s willing to change this at all, and he also hasn’t answered any of David.Kane’s questions yet." However, if you review the actual facts, Mathsci made all of the changes DK requested - here and here. Now, moving on, what do you want changed in the proposed history section. Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a comment above thanking David.Kane for his comments and did I not implement them? At this stage I think Hipocrite was premature in inserting the material. He certainly didn't ask me. The addition of the short summary at the beginning was one bonus that came out of this revert war. I intend to slightly shorten the content, but that will take time. Editors should give a careful explanation of what's wrong with these secondary sources. I'm quite willing to listen. Have I made some dreadful mistake with University of Illinois Press, Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press? Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the two diffs you posted are just Mathsci fixing typos and Wikifying names of people who have articles about them. Those aren’t the sorts of changes I’m talking about. I’m talking about content-related suggestions, and Mathsci’s reply here seems to indicate that I shouldn’t expect him to understand the point I’m making about this enough to reach a compromise about it.

I really can’t make this any clearer. The only relevance that American Renaissance has to this article is that people (i.e. Tucker) bring it up in order to attack Rushton, the same way they bring up Jeremiah Wright in order to attack Obama. Tucker is a reliable source, but NPOV policy requires that we do more than just repeating whatever we can find in reliable sources. (And the same is true in the opposite cases—Jensen & Rushton 2005 is a reliable source also, but we shouldn’t repeat everything we can find in it, either.) If you really don’t understand this, and aren’t willing to compromise about it, then that means we won’t be able to obtain consensus about this revision and it won’t be going in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Where has Rushton been attacked in what I write? Please explain why the material in Tucker's book breaks WP:NPOV a little more carefully. Your comments about Obama should probably be redacted - believe it or not I have no idea what they mean, Have you read any of the book by Tucker? Most of it can be read on amazon.com if you've recently purchased a book. I have barely started to polish up the history section by the way and any constructive suggestions are welcome. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

American Renaissance is a white nationalist magazine. It’s a political magazine, not a scientific one. Apart from its connections to Rushton and Lynn, it has nothing to do with the scientific debate over race and intelligence. So why is it being mentioned, when we aren’t mentioning any of the scientific publications for which Rushton has written and which are considerably more relevant to this topic? As far as I can tell, the reason why American Renaissance is being singled out among the dozen or so other publications that could be mentioned is because it’s the one that the greatest number of people are likely to have a problem with. Tucker is bringing it up in order to make a point—that Rushton has “connections” to a white nationalist organization, just like conservatives bring up Wright in order to show that Obama has “connections” to an anti-white pastor.

In both cases, mentioning this is POV. Digging up and mentioning a person’s most controversial connections, particularly to the exclusion of more relevant information, is how one goes about conducting a smear campaign, and as such it isn’t something we should be including in the article.

If you still don’t understand this, there’s nothing I can do to explain it any more clearly. But as David.Kane pointed out here, there are several other users who have similar problems with this section. So if you can’t understand or change any of the problems we’ve raised with it, you probably shouldn’t expect to be able to obtain consensus to include it in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is your explanation of American Renaissance relevant here? Here are screenshots of three of the pages in Tucker's 2002 book which mention American Renaissance that I used [3], [4] and [5], so you can see the originals. History does seem to be involved with ethics and Tucker carefully shows the links between the various organisations run by the Pioneer Fund, Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't both Rushton and Lynn contributed many articles to AR? Again I have no idea who Jeremiah Wright is or why you're mentioning him. Rushton and Lynn appear to be running the Pioneer Fund, which pays their salaries and finances their research - that's in the postscript to Tucker. Where is the smear campaign? Is it in Tucker, perhaps, on one of the screenshots? Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’m not able to believe anymore that you don’t understand me about this. WP:AGF has limits, as you can see from the fact that you’d already reached this limit with several other users before reaching it with me. As far as I’m concerned you’re just filibustering here; repeating yourself endlessly without even attempting to respond to any of my points.

It’s fine with me if you want to do that, but you should keep in mind what David.Kane has pointed out about your proposal: that there are at least five different users have a problem with it. If you were willing to compromise about this section, then it might be possible to put it in the article in modified form. But as long as you aren’t, we won’t be able to reach a consensus about it so it won’t get added to the article at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Bpesta22 liked the last segment that we're talking about, so I don't quite know what you mean. I don't particularly mind one way or the other whether we include Tucker's phrase on American Renaissance. Certainly in the 3 days I spent preparing this material, there were far more difficult things to handle - for example potential secondary sources that I could not access through any of my 3 university accounts. So dropping American Renaissance (even if properly sourced) is no big deal to me. It's certainly not something I'm going to waste any time over. It took more time to write Christopher Jencks: I still haven't worked out when he was born, but I am hopeful. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dropped. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I have many criticisms of your history. But the fact that it's about 5 times too long is the most egregious. It overwhelms the current state of the art, which should form the meat of the article. Why don't you just suggest modifications to David's history? mikemikev (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this: That matchsci write a separate History of the race and intelligence controversy into which he puts his entire, well sourced, history, and then from that creates a condensed summary to put in this article with a link to the main article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, the history section should be as long as it needs to be to adequately cover the material, so length is not too much of a concern at this point (at least until we assess what can safely be removed for brevity). Mathsci is good at things like this, and I think we should give him a chance to flesh it out properly. If the section becomes overly-long by necessity, we can always open a discussion about creating a content fork for it. or we can follow Slr's approach, start with a content fork, and then discuss whether it is sufficiently small to justify reintegrating it into this article. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing the history section - the D in WP:BRD

David.Kane added material from a primary source with his own commentary. I have reverted his addition. If David.Kane can find a book or article on the history of psychology (or nearby commentary) discussing what he wanted to add, then it can be added. Otherwise this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the current history section, exception for the few lines summarising it, comes from anything but secondary sources in the history of psychology. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are not in and of themselves OR or SYNTH, and have some valid uses on wikipedia. that's just an FYI so that people aren't misled by the above statement, not a judgement on the particular edit (which I haven't examined). Mathsci, please try not to wp:BITE. --Ludwigs2 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No not at all - certainly not in history sections. That's just WP:SYNTH. Can you possibly just go and find somewhere else to edit on wikipedia if you're just intending to lurk around here making misleading remarks? I can give you a few suggestions. Bach's trio sonatas for organ is a red link for example. Mathsci (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

noted, but my point still stands. and I'm more of a Beethoven fan; Bach's ok, but I find him a bit obsessed with form at the expense (at times) of substance. --Ludwigs2 04:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in adding or discussing content, could you please stop making trolling remarks? It's not very helpful or constructive, Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

my point still stands. but thank you. --Ludwigs2 05:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is poor. There is no reason to say "something was published" in a history section and cite the thing that was published - it's not-notable, and it's synthesis. If the thing was notable, an unquestionably reliable secondary source would have addressed it. This is pretty standard WP:OR for intermediates - the kind of thing that a mediator in a contentious article should know like the back of their hand. I think it's time for you to step aside. Hipocrite (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci: if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I actually didn't disagree with you. I simply clarified wikipedia policy, because we are dealing with relatively new editors and I don't want them to get the idea that primary sources can never be used. is that alright with you, or would you like to continue disagreeing with something I didn't say? --Ludwigs2 06:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you having a hard time telling people apart? Stop saying things that aren't relevant and people will stop instructing you about the obvious things you missed. Hipocrite (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I just glanced at it, and didn't realize you were multithreading. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

First, MathSci writes "David.Kane added material from a primary source with his own commentary." Untrue! BPesta added that content. I merely provided the correct citation. A good thing, right? Second, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no Wikipedia policy against the use of primary sources, at least for facts which are not mentioned in secondary sources. So, Bpesta's addition (properly cited) was perfectly reasonable, under the assumption (which I think is true) that that special edition of Intelligence is not mentioned in the textbooks that MathSci uses. A true statement, properly sources to WP:RS is allowed on Wikipedia. Surely, no one disagrees with that? Third, we have the much more difficult judgment of notability. Reasonable editors can disagree with that, just as some editors disagree about other sentences in MathSci's summary. But, before, we can have that discussion, we need to agree that BPesta's addition is not a WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop the madness

Mathsci and Hipocrite the behaviour you are exhibiting is unbecoming and destructive to the editing environment. Your behavior towards Ludwigs is completely uncalled for. I am saddened to see that the only ones who are actually trying to construct consensus on this page are the ones with whom I agree the least. If you keep this up the page is going to get locked and someone is going to get blocked (thats a prediction not a threat, as I am of course personally involved by now). ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the page will be locked or someone will get blocked if the only response to serious concerns about a full rewrite is consistent reverting and the only response to content that was proposed, discussed, and modified based on that discussion is reversion to remove it. However, I suspect the people being blocked will be the people who neglect to discuss their changes. I still don't know which side I'm "on," but I'm certain that which-ever one it is is, in fact, the right side. Could someone point out the people pushing a fringe PoV so I can disagree with them? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to report that in my three days involvement I have not noticed and fring POV pushers. I have noticed different viewpoints and people who want theirs included in the article - but I have also noticed that everyone is open to colaboration and to let the opposite viewpoints be heard as well. Fact is that it was a positive surprise for me that the editing environment was so civil - that positive experience seems to have ended abruptly with the end of mediation.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I think that we have built up a lot of goodwill over the last few months. Again, I appreciate all the time and effort that MathSci put into his history section. I look forward to its inclusion in the article. Indeed, I wish that Hipocrite had been polite and waited patiently for MathSci to finish and then add it to the article himself. Of course, as with everything on Wikipedia, there will be debates. Although I like MathSci's history (and any objective observer would admit that it is of very high quality), I share some of the concerns expressed by Bpesta, Occam and MikeM about it. But I feel that all those concerns can be handled within the context of normal editing. When MathSci is ready, I hope that he will add his history to the article. David.Kane (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on different formats for Notes and References

I am impressed with how much nicer the formatting for Notes/References used by MathSci in History of the race and intelligence controversy is compared with the Notes/References formatting in Race and Intelligence. I am thinking of changing this article over. Main benefits are 1) Things look nicer and 2) It is easier to deal with multiple footnotes to the same reference. (For example, footnoting specific pages in the APA report or pulling out multiple quotes.) Comments? David.Kane (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the 'Significance' section

This section has been moved to article talk from the mediation page, as a still-open discussion. The original debate was left in mediation, but archived with a link back to this page --Ludwigs2 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Reference: The section being referred to would draw material from here, an earlier version of the article.

I've opened this thread to discuss the inclusion and nature of a Significance section in the article. I know there's a dispute over this, but I am not sure of the full details of what's being debated. can someone clarify? --Ludwigs2 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1: Look at the material this section would contain, and evaluate its quality and relevance. (To know what topics this section would be about, we can look at the link Ludwig posted.)

2: Write the outline of this section, based on the material that we’ve agreed is relevant enough to go in it.

3: Write the section. (Or perhaps have David.Kane write it for us, if he’s going to continue being our main writer.)

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

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

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

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

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

Let me make sure I'm getting this right. Aprock has objected to the inclusion of this material in the article on the grounds that it has "no relevance to the issue of race and intelligence" and/or that it gives "undue weight to controversial researchers". I've requested that we address his concerns before attempting to frame an outline for the section, as that seems to me to be the most efficient way of going about resolving the issue. He, in turn, has requested someone produce an outline for the section before we discuss his concerns. Is that a fair summary? --Aryaman (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aprock has not refused to discuss these issues. My reading of Aprock's comment is that, until he sees some concrete input with specific suggestions, eg sentences on a subpage, it's not possible to discuss content. Otherwise put: it is impossible to discuss vague suggestions until they have been turned into more concrete proposals envisaged for the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I don't understand. There is a concrete section we're discussing - chock full of real sentences and everything - and it's linked at the head of this discussion. I don't consider this vague at all. The easiest move would be to copy and paste it into the article and then improve it from there, but Aprock has objected to this. This is the discussion where we're supposed to find out what Aprock (or whoever else) doesn't like about the section so we can start attempting to address his concerns. I'm having a hard time figuring out where the sticking point in all of this is. --Aryaman (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman: please try to avoid psychological statements. the fact that A.Prock hasn't yet explained himself is not a 'refusal' to do so. patience, please. allow him to look over the draft and decide how he wants to approach the issue, at least for a bit. I would appreciate it if you'd go back over your last few posts in this section and strike out the more demanding-sounding phrases. perhaps the best thing would be for you to copy the proposed section over here (put it in a quote box) so that we can examine it concretely. --Ludwigs2 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed and/or struck what I'm guessing sounded "demanding". If I didn't get it all, help me out. As for copying and pasting the section over here: Do we really want to do that? It's (currently) a largish section, and there are ca. 50 in-line citations. I personally find it easier to work in multiple windows (I'm not a fan of scrolling), but if others would find it helpful, I'd have no problem doing it. --Aryaman (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Current outline:

• Significance of group IQ differences

• Within societies

• Scope
• Practical importance
• Controlling for IQ

• Between nations
• For high-achieving minorities

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

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

I'm going to throw in a structural comment, just for consideration. This outline seems to be conflating several different areas of significance. For instance, in my own head I think in terms of 'political significance' (laws, policies, etc), 'social significance' (practices and functional social organization, within and across communities), and 'theoretical significance' (how this debate influences other scholarly areas), all of which play out across all of the outlines sections. for instance, 'between nations' could refer to discourses in the discipline of International Relations, or policies adopted by the UN, or immigration laws, or social exclusionism (such as the occasional problems that crop up in France and Germany over Turkish and Arab migrant workers and refugees). Would it be better to restructure it along those lines (assuming there's proper sourcing), or am I missing a point somewhere? --Ludwigs2 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

comparison of ledes

This section has been moved to article talk from the mediation page, as a still-open discussion. The original debate was left in mediation, but archived with a link back to this page --Ludwigs2 18:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

comparison of two versions of the lede
David.Kane's lead	Varoon Arya's version
Race and intelligence research investigates differences in the distributions of cognitive skills among human races. IQ tests have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation among the major racial groups, with a rough average rank ordering of East Asians > Whites > Amerindians > Blacks. At the same time, there is considerable overlap among individual scores, and members of each racial group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Many factors that could potentially influence the development of intelligence have been advanced as possible causes of the racial IQ gap which, though subject to variation over time, has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began. Environmental and cultural factors affect individual IQ scores and, therefore, racial group averages. Hereditarians argue that genetics explain a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn. Proponents of the environmental interpretation argue that genetics explain none of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, James Flynn, Richard Nisbett and Stephen Ceci. The American Psychological Association has concluded that the racial IQ gap is not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, but that no adequate explanation of it has so far been given. References	The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of intelligence testing in the early twentieth century, particularly in the United States. Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests performed in the US have consistently demonstrated a significant degree of variation between different racial groups, with the average score of the African American population being significantly lower - and that of the Asian American population being significantly higher - than that of the White American population. At the same time, there is considerable overlap between these group scores, and members of each racial group can be found at all points on the IQ spectrum. Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, most notably in Africa, though these are generally considered far less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the discussion of their connection involves the results of multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Many factors that could potentially influence the development of intelligence have been advanced as possible causes of the racial IQ gap which, though subject to variation over time, has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began. It is generally agreed that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores, and it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors, though none are conclusively supported by direct empirical evidence. Far more controversial is the claim put forward by several psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has an ultimately genetic origin. This claim has not been accepted by the wider academic community and has been met with widespread disapproval in the popular media. The American Psychological Association has concluded that the racial IQ gap is not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, but that no adequate explanation of it has so far been given. References

reading these over, I think it's clear that DK's lede privileges the hereditarian approach a bit, while Mathsci's privileges the environmental approach. neither is horribly biased, mind you, that's just the way they lean. I personally prefer Mathsci's version, except for the last paragraph (which comes off as a stomp and grind, though I don't think that was intentional). would it be possible to take the first two paragraphs of Mathsci's lede and blend in extracts from paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of DK's lede? I think we might find a nice neutral statement that way. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have brought up the abuse of WP editing procedures on WP:ANI. David.Kane has ignored consensus and written one of the worst ledes I have ever seen in my experience as a wikipedia editor. I take a lot of trouble locating and using sources in writing articles: this process is slow. I even provided some downloaded sources on my wikipedia web page for David.Kane. In the meantime, even if mediation terminates soon, I have ordered the books of Mackintosh and Jefferson Fish. Then, when normal edting resumes, not pushed by WP:SPAs, editing of the article can proceed in a more cautious and standard way. There is no need for editors to invent or suppress important details when writing the lede. That is the very worst kind of editing. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

well, there are subtle but important differences. for instance, DK's version seems to presume that both race and intelligence are themselves non-problematic concepts, which might be misleading. and then there are tonal differences ('Proponents of the environmental interpretation' vs. 'Far more controversial is the claim...' about genetics). these kinds of emphatic distinctions tend to get put under a magnifying glass by editors, and cause a world of headaches. otherwise I agree with you. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

FYI - I've restored Aryaman's lead for the duration of this discussion, because that was the last version which I know had consensus. this isn't a judgment; just keeping things fair. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(mediator note: compacting DK's sections into a bulleted list. --Ludwigs2 04:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

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

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

First, though, to address DK's points:

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

Now for the compromise draft:

Race and intelligence research investigates differences in the distributions of cognitive skills among human races. Beginning in the early twentieth century, popular science and academic research have debated the possible connection of race and intelligence, originally as a comparison of African Americans and Caucasians in the United States, but later extended to other races and regions of the world. In the US, intelligence quotient (IQ) tests have consistently demonstrated statistical differences: the scores of the African American population are on average lower than that of the White American population; the Asian American population on average scores higher; Amerinds scores on average fall between Caucasian and African American scores. Similar findings have been reported for populations around the world, most notably in Africa, though these are generally considered far less reliable due to the relative paucity of test data and the difficulties inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores. The distribution of IQ scores has considerable range - individuals in every racial group may have IQ's that lie anywhere on the spectrum of scores. These difference show primarily in aggregate studies.

There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the race and intelligence debate involves multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, complicating scholarly discussion. Many factors that could potentially influence the development of intelligence have been advanced to explain the racial IQ gap. There is general agreement that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores, and it is widely assumed that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors, though none are conclusively supported by direct empirical evidence. The more controversial view that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap is ultimately of genetic origin has been advanced by academics such as Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn. This claim met with widespread criticism in the popular media, particularly after the publication of Herrnstein and Murray's book, "The Bell Curve", and has not to date gained acceptance by the wider academic community.

The racial IQ gap has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began, although IQ scores as a whole have themselves been subject to change over time. The American Psychological Association has concluded that the racial IQ gap is not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, but that no adequate explanation of it has so far been given.

Notes:

• all references are the same in both the above versions, and retained here.
• I've added a reference to The Bell Curve to explain why the genetic hypothesis garnered public criticism
• I've replaced the word 'significant' (and variants) with the word 'statistical' (and variants) with a link to statistical significance. People often misinterpret the word 'significant' to mean 'important', when that is not the sense of statistical significance at all.
• I've shuffled things around, integrated things, and rewritten for clarity, mostly. I've expanded on a couple of points: the bit about IQ range at the end of the first paragraph, and the bit about the gap remaining steady while IQ scores have changed at the beginning (now) of the last paragraph.

For your inspection. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Something that David.Kane and I have both said about this lead, to which nobody has provided a counter-argument, is that it's unbalanced to mention specific researchers who favor one hypothesis but not who favor the other. Since you’ve preserved this aspect of the lead in your compromise version, can you explain why you think this is appropriate? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you have taken with this. Given that Occam feels the same as I do about the inclusion of names from just one side, and that no one has provided a rational for doing so, I hope that you would take his concerns seriously. Again, if I could only change one thing it would be to make the racial terms/links non-US specific. That is just wrong. Below are some minor comments. Feel free to use them or ignore them.

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

Hope that is helpful. David.Kane (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

@D.K. You make some good points - my responses (point to point):

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

again, I am searching for a compromise version here (and needing to argue a bit on Mathsci's behalf, for various reasons). This is just the way I see it. --Ludwigs2 07:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)