|
It seems our current dilemma is not as bad as it seems. Right now, principally between Aryaman and Ludwig, we have a fairly specific problem of scope: Should "Race and intelligence" be broad, and cover all fields -- which will inevitably weigh towards the idea that race is essentially an unfair metric in intelligence (which others will argue is an unfair metric itself) -- or will it cover material under the assumption that there are researchers who study race (however defined by them) as a factor in intelligence research. It should be noted that Aryaman has already expressed that it's worth having some explicit discussion within the narrow-context article about some of the basic problems others have with the use of race in intelligence, while not skewing the discussion towards race.
- interjection: I have to object to the phrase inevitably weigh towards the idea that race is essentially an unfair metric in intelligence which is not true, and not what I was saying. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Either the measures made of race and the measures made of intelligence are valid and reliable or they are not; it's a question of whether the conclusions drawn are reasonable or spurious, not whether they are right or wrong. --Ludwigs2 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It's my opinion that both the wide-context article and the narrow-context article are worthy of inclusion. The former covers a huge area: Sociology, achievement gap, and white supremacy (the system, e.g., White Man's burden); the latter covers a narrow area: the academia that includes race within discussions of intelligence. I use my own opinion in this paragraph just to point out that there may be a middle ground.
A brief glossary: Wide-context refers to race in all or nearly all possible contexts (like the political aspects) and how that could relate to "intelligence"; narrow-context refers to race only as it's used academically in the study of intelligence, regardless of the definition or connotation of race - tacit or express - used by those academics (although, naturally, mentions will be made about the controversy). Xavexgoem (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) If I got any of this wrong, particularly the glossary, please correct me.
Here's the straw-poll. Feel free to add a short comment on why you think what you do (see WP:Consensus statement for tips on brevity), but please don't make a comment so big that you just know someone'll have to reply to it. There's an "other" section. Use it only if the parts above don't even come close to what you have in mind.
- Race and intelligence should cover both the wide-context and the narrow-context Note: the consensus is that wide-context will outweigh narrow-context, so only sign here if you understand that
- support. Any other solution is nothing more than creating a pov-fork. " POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies."
- Support. Again, the research need to be presented in full context, which includes reception from other venues of science. As I said earlier, limiting the scope to just psychometricians runs the danger of building a walled garden.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Race and intelligence should cover the wide-context; another article should more exclusively cover the narrow-context What should it be called?
- Support: I suggest creating Race and IQ (currently a redirect to Race and intelligence) as the article which will focus on discussing race as a factor in intelligence research. "IQ" is (a) more specific than "intelligence", though it can be seen as a sub-set of it, and (b) clearly indicates the distinction between "intelligence" in a general (social/political) sense and "intelligence" as it is used in the field of psychometrics (which is usually carefully defined and not nearly as "nebulous" as in the broader discussion). Both articles should have a header which explains the specific scope (e.g. "This article treats the issue of race as a factor in academic intelligence research. For a treatment of the historical, social and political context in which this discussion takes place, see: Race and intelligence, etc."). --Aryaman (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support': Race and IQ is a fine suggestion for the narrow article's title. The broad article can be at Race and intelligence. "About" tags at the top of the pages can keep the two linked. The motivation is empirical -- there is a coherent "narrow" focused literature on IQ that can stand on its own as an article. This approach is consistent with the current state of affairs where Achievement gap in the United States is also a separate article. I believe this will accommodate what are otherwise two different but equally valid visions for what a single Race and intelligence might contain. Evidence that these two visions can practically co-exist in one article seems severely lacking and contradicted by years of problem with the article. We can being by copying the current Race and intelligence content to Race and IQ and setting up the stub for the new Race and intelligence with the appropriate links out. --DJ (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: I think creating a Race and IQ page is a perfect way to handle dealing with separating the research issues from the general sociological ones. Aprock (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Also agree Race and IQ article is a good idea. David.Kane (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Race and intelligence should cover the narrow-context; another article should be made for the wide-context Ditto above
- Other (please be brief) But if you have an opinion about the above issues, please add them above
- I think we can (and should) cover both the wide and narrow context in the same article, where the focus is on the narrow context of research but the wide context is covered thoroughly enough to put the research into proper context. --Ludwigs2 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Ludwigs, can you give us some kind of objective standard for what provides "proper context"? We agreed that even the narrow scope article will cover context, as this is covered in the literature. In what way do you see that context as being insufficient? Some concrete examples might help clarify things. --Aryaman (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This is essentially the first option, as I had it figured. Maybe the small text is too misleading; I added it because it's likely to get a smattering of UNDUE comments as balance is created and maintained. With that said, I think Aryaman is asking the right question. (Actually, I'd rephrase the question: what is the minimum acceptable context? We were having a long and dreadful discussion above about percentages (...I think this was the mediation that happened, anyway...) between wide-scope and narrow-scope) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwig: Covering both was my first choice as well. But, now that I have studied the archives ad listened to other editors, I can understand why covering both in one article has never worked despite years of good faith efforts. If you have just one article that WP:UNDUE complaints dominate everything. Why not give this new idea a try? David.Kane (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the way I see it (not sure if this qualifies as an objective standard, but...): before the research can make sense, the reader has to be able to understand that the scientific question arose out of a set of social/political questions. These don't need to be gone into in great detail (because I'm sure there's already plenty on those questions elsewhere on wikipedia), but enough has to be lain out so that readers can see that scientists aren't asking this question out of a peculiar sort of curiosity. Scientists are asking this question because the ideas of race and intelligence overlap on a number of different social and political fronts (observable differences in wealth, status, criminality, educational achievement, etc., etc.). the R&I question is harped on both by those who want to use intelligence as an excuse for minorities' poor performance in society (e.g. Bell Curve type arguments) and by those who want to suggest there are no differences in intelligence (to show that society is racially oppressive in subtle but enduring ways). we might be able to do this to an extent through the research (some research I've read on this subject lays out the political and social aspects explicitly), but we probably should have a short section laying out the history of the field. more than that would probably be unnecessary - we surely do not have to find any answers to these questions, since scientists themselves don't yet have a clear view on the issue. does that makes sense? --Ludwigs2 07:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really do think that can be covered in the narrow scope article, as the research often does the same. However, you won't often find presentations of context in that body of literature going back much further than the beginning of IQ testing itself (ca. World War I). We can speculate as to why that is, but I think the most obvious reason is that this research is conducted by experts in intelligence looking at race as a potential variable in their work. Their field began with inception of psychometric testing, and it makes sense for them to start there. As a result, one can and does often find presentations of the history of the "Race and IQ" issue examined from that point forward (of course, with mostly inadvertent emphasis on the developments in the US). If we attempt to go beyond that, I'm afraid we're heading into uncertain territory, with synthesis, original research and plain old speculation lurking at every turn.
- For example, I don't think it's wise for us to attempt to examine the motivation behind studies which discuss race and IQ. I know people love to do it, and some of the speculation can be "reliably" sourced, but I've yet to read anything of that sort worth reporting on, as most of it boils down to a carefully crafted ad hominen argument. In opposition to most, it seems, I believe there are fully respectable scientists who have - out of nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge in their field of study - come to conclusions which, when taken out of the context of that field, appear alarming or even offensive to others. I'd like to believe that it is possible to write this article without catering to either "side" in the wider debate, and that we can do so by simply reporting on the results of research and the interpretations of those results. Metadiscussion of the type "Why do these people study this in the first place?" is inherently loaded as it operates on the assumption that their interest in the subject is something other than scientific. --Aryaman (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me, and you misunderstand the scientific point I'm making. I'm not suggesting that we deal with the motivation behind these studies (motivation being commonly understood as a fuzzy affective state). I'm suggesting that we cannot present the research without some clear insights into the questions being asked. Science without context is little more than propaganda, since by framing the question correctly one can (superficially at least) get research to say just about anything one wants it to say. It's a common failing among wikipedians to reach for some 'pure' form of science - that effort might pass muster on the physical sciences (it's still a mistake even there, but one with few ramifications), but it's a sure road to misrepresentation in any research that involves human beings. this is not about the motivations of individual scientists, this is about the way the questions that lie behind the research are framed. --Ludwigs2 19:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I understand you just fine, it's just that we have two diametrically opposed ways of viewing this. While you've said "Science without context is little more than propaganda", I would say "So-called 'context' is often exactly that which turns science into propaganda". Regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as "pure" science, there is such a thing as unbiased, unprejudiced reporting upon the results of legitimate scientific inquiry, and "couching" those results in any fashion is to be done with extreme caution, if at all. With that being said, how do you propose we discuss "the way the questions which lie behind the research are framed"? It sounds like some kind of investigative reporting to me, not an encyclopaedia entry. I'm willing to hear your suggestions, though. --Aryaman (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heavens... I think wikipedia was invented as my own personal hell, where I am forced to discuss basic principles of scientific methodology ceaselessly and without end.
- I suggest that we have a Background or History section that points out some of the surrounding dialog. for instance, I am sure there are journalistic and social scientific sources that talk about the political and sociological ramifications of the intelligence/race issue - they may even be referenced from some of the more analytical research that we already have, so that would just be a matter of following the citations back. I know for a fact that when the book 'The Bell Curve' came out, half of the critiques were analytic and half were socio-political, and that the authors themselves (what the heck were their names? - slipping my mind) came out with both analytic and socio-political defenses of the work. those right there are probably sufficient to give a good description of the cultural climate from which the research stems. --Ludwigs2 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I love the second paragraph, but it's effect may be somewhat diminished by the first ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- lol - point taken. In the future I'll keep my hellish musings to a minimum
 --Ludwigs2 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have no problem with what you've just described. In fact, one of my first suggestions when I became involved with this article was to do exactly that. But I have to say, this sounds radically different from your earlier descriptions. (I mean, "contextualizing in terms of preexisting beliefs about European superiority"?) As I've said, I think that even by sticking to the core psychometric literature, we can cover the history from the first World War forward, which of course includes all of the "Bell Curve" material. --Aryaman (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Ludwigs, it seems we agree on quite a bit, and our main point of disagreement is whether or not the narrow article can accommodate sufficient context. I think it can, but I don't see a way to demonstrate that without getting concrete. Would you object to the creation of "Race and IQ" as a narrow-scope article with the caveat that the History/Context section be adequately developed? --Aryaman (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to step into the 'separate article/article name' confusion here. let me say that I would definitely agree to a narrow-scope article where the History/Context section was adequately developed. I'd prefer not to create a content fork, and we can go on to debate the merits of different article names, but I think we're on the same page with respect to substance. --Ludwigs2 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, that helps considerably in moving things along. It seems, then, that we have 7 editors in favour of a narrow-scope article with an adequately developed section on History/Context (I don't think there will be any objection regarding the context as we've just discussed it, as apparently I was alone in my concerns regarding possible problems with synthesis/original research). That's remarkable, all things considered.
Now, it remains open whether this article should be named "Race and intelligence" (favored by mikemikev) or "Race and IQ" (favored by DJ, Aprock and myself; Occam has indicated that doesn't necessarily object to either title). Seeing as we're agreed upon a narrow scope, I think "IQ" is to be preferred over "intelligence". But now I'm just repeating myself.
- sneaking this in here: let me toss Intelligence and race into the mix, since it seems to me that the intelligence question was applied to pre-existing racial issues, not vice-versa.--Ludwigs2 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem as far as I'm concerned, as I made the same suggestion in the section Discussion: Scope above a few days ago. --Aryaman (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To the moderator(s): What's the best way forward here? Should we try to establish a stronger concensus on the title? Do we need a new section and/or poll? Or can we move ahead with actual editing? --Aryaman (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't support the creation of two articles. I was thinking of one, focused on the narrow context (but obviously with significant discussion of the wider). Whether this is called Race and Intelligence or redirected from there to Race and IQ is not a major issue. mikemikev (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think this poll is a good idea. I have one question though. Isn't 'just the wide-context' the same as 'both wide and narrow'? mikemikev (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- ugh. I'm not sure we (or at least I) am ready for this poll yet. I look at these categories, and what springs up in my mind is: The scientific question is whether intelligence is a function of race; the political question is whether race predicts intelligence. I don't know how to translate that into the wide/narrow framework given above. --Ludwigs2 12:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- @Mike - I defined what I meant up above. The narrow option excludes the wider one.
- @Ludwig - I owe it to a bunch of editors to at least narrow down the scope of this mediation; I promised a straw-poll a long time ago. You actually defined the wide/narrow scheme better than I have: science question is narrow, political question is wide. Make sense? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- ok. my own knee-jerk preference, then, would be that it should cover the wide-context but focus primarily on the narrow context (and yes, I am genetically obliged to be a pain-in-the-ass ). let me think about it a bit, though, and decide whether I want to choose one of the given options or add in an 'other'. --Ludwigs2 12:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Xavexgoem: The point is whether the wide includes the narrow, thereby rendering 'both wide and narrow' equivalent. mikemikev (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Ludwigs: I'll be honest, and I think you've been hinting at them: We've got much bigger problems if we can't at least acknowledge that a good portion of the wide-context needs to be included in the narrow-context article. I don't think this has gone unacknowledged by any editors, though :-)
- Mike: It would include the narrow-context, but it would be swamped. That's Aryaman's worry, I believe. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) To be clear: the narrow option just means the academic research is more exclusive within the article
- So you need to remove the 'both' option, or votes for the wide/both option will be halved. mikemikev (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure this is an equivocation on what I mean (not with intent, but I rarely get to use the word equivocation :-p). Would it be better if I used academic and political + academic instead of narrow/wide? That's all I'm getting at. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC) And remember, I'm just talking about the content of that article. The other option moves to... wait, I see what you mean.
- Before I vote, let me ask something: Would it be possible (both in an article-naming protocol sense as well as in terms of people's views) to have one article named "Race and intelligence" and one named "Race and IQ"? I might be overlooking something, but that strikes me a good solution which would help make it clear that the two articles, while discussing related issues, have two different focal-points. Could we live with that? --Aryaman (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really like the idea of of using "Race and IQ" as a place where the more scientific aspects are described. Aprock (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that'd be #2 on the poll :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the main article R&I should cover the broad understanding, but I really think a detailed survey of recent and ongoing research need to be prominently featured. I think the best way of doing that is to have a sub article which goes into the nitty gritty and a reasonable summary early in the article. In fact, I personally like the idea of making this more of a meta-disambiguation page which summarizes many of the other related articles. But most importantly, I think the scientific research needs it's own page with a narrowly defined scope so that it can escape the various POV issues that R&I currently has. Aprock (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
With Aprock's vote, it's good to see people have not entirely forgotten about this mediation. However, I'd really like to get this thing to a point where we can resume editing again. Since I don't want to do any canvassing, could the mediator(s) please 'gently prod' those who have not voted yet? :) Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the best way to go is to go ahead and create the Race and IQ page, and move most of the scientific discussion from R&I into there, changing the redirect from the silly GD&I page to Race and IQ. I think it's still not clear what R&I should be exactly about (since it's supposed to be "broad"), but editing on R&IQ shouldn't be hindered by content questions. That's just my opinion though. Aprock (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We're discussing what to do with the Race and Intelligence article. We don't need to launch in an effort to create another article yet. Also, we need to be careful not to make any new article into a POV fork, which seems a real possibility, according to some of the comments I've seen here. Just my tuppence.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the Race and IQ article for two reasons:
- I am trying to prevent the research from being separated from the social context it developed in; creating a separate article will just shift that basic problem to a different page
- IQ is a technical term relating to a particular way of measuring intelligence - using it in the article title is potentially misleading. --Ludwigs2 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all worried that Race and IQ would constitute a POV fork. I think the social context question is a fine one, and should probably be addressed in both articles, with the bulk of the coverage in the more broad article and with the research minded one clearly summarizing and referring to those issues. With respect to using IQ in the title, I view it as clarifying, not misleading. Most of the research has been done with respect to IQ (or values which the researchers hope act as proxies). Because IQ is generally known to be a limited representation of intelligence, including that constraint in the title makes it much more clear that any results discussed in the article only apply to this one aspect of intelligence. Aprock (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Ludwigs here. We don't need another article which will just potentially shift the problem. We need to resolve the issue, not move it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem of people wanting to elevate the hereditarian hypothesis is going to go away. Aprock (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I haven’t voted in the poll is because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about whether or we should create “Race and IQ” as a separate article from “Race and intelligence”. I definitely agree that we need at least one article which focuses on the debate in psychometrics (that is, the narrow scope), but I also think we already have numerous other articles which address most of the social questions that would go in the wide-scope article.
- I think it would be fine for “Race and intelligence” to be about the narrow scope, while leaving the wide-scope content to other articles which exist already. However, I’m not going to stand in the way of creating an additional article about the wide-scope content, if that’s what consensus ends up supporting. All that really matters to me is that we have an article which covers the psychometric debate with sufficient focus to explain all of the data it involves, which the current article doesn’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ramdrake: We have been trying to "resolve" the issue for 2 months now. Perhaps I am just a pessimist, but splitting the overall article up (i.e., moving some parts elsewhere) is the only idea, in various permutations, that has received anything other than narrow support. Why are you against even giving this a try? What is the worst thing that could happen? David.Kane (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- David, I've been around the article for years (quite litterally) and have seen it split into several articles, only to see the articles fused back together after a few months. While the idea seems tempting, I don't think it can work that way. People will always push to present this kind of research as standard run-of-the-mill academic research whereas in fact it is marginal. This marginality needs to be pointed out, in order for the article to be neutral (relative to the real world).
- I'm also concerned with several editors' depiction of including information from other venues on the subject as giving a "social" context. There are many venues of science which have considered and rejected the subject, and that is in great part why there are so few scientists studying the matter, and why they are just about all confined tomone sub-specialty of psychology (psychometrics).--Ramdrake (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not find the distinction between narrow and broad context useful. Certainly, there are different contexts, but which one is narrow and which one is wide is perhaps contentious or vague. Let's just label whatever contexct we mean. Now, my understanding is that the debate over race and IQ is largely a public policy debate, led by scholars who are experts in education, the institution with which policy-makers are concerned. These scholars (like Jensen) are academics and have PhDs but are concerned primarily with public policy. I certainly see room for an article on these debates, which would include those researchers addressing public policy debates. I agree with Ramdrake that many of these are psychometricians.
- Race is a social construction, and from what I have read racial identity of IQ subjects is usually determines through self-identification.
- There is a good deal of research on the heritability of IQ conducted by those scholars who are experts on heritability, i.e. geneticists. As far as I know, most of them are not concerned with race. I can see this research in another article. this would not be a POV fork, but a content fork, and it would enable us to cover those debates that geneticists actually are concerned with, which have to do with the fetal environment for different kinds of twins and none of the stuff sociologists looking to explain racial differences in IQ look at. As far as I can tell those who claim that races are unequal (in IQ) for largely genetic reasons are a fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, you're arguing for the wide-scope article, which is fine. You want to see this as a public-policy debate. For psychometricians, the debate revolves around the reliability of data sets and the statistical evaluation of that data. Can you see the distinction here? To present modern psychometry as being driven by public policy is to misrepresent their intent. Does anyone really believe Jensen conducted his research on the g factor to influence public policy?
- Right now we have at least 6 editors willing to support the creation of a narrow-scope article. Of those 6, 4 have said they would not object to the creation of an article which explores "race and intelligence" from a wider scope. I think we're finally making some progress, and that this proposal could resolve the outstanding issues with this article.
- Ramdrake has made it clear that s/he thinks an article devoted to "Race and IQ" equates to "pushing this kind of research as standard run-of-the-mill academic research whereas in fact it is marginal". Other than its hotly contested subject matter, what makes this research so "special" (read: non-academic and undeserving of a neutral presentation)? We have an article on Near death experiences, despite the fact that it is quite "marginal" within the professional psychological community, and no other field of science would seriously entertain it as anything other than an effort to substantiate the psychological needs of the religious and the socio-political needs of their institutions. We seem to be able to discuss that narrow field of research neutrally and intelligently without providing the reader with reams of "context" on "the historical factors contributing to the emergence of NDE research", and without discontented editors harping that the subject needs to be presented as "marginal", "fringe science" or even "pseudo-science", or that we need to include the views of anthropologists, biologists, and sociologists in that discussion. It is my firm belief that if this were about anything other than "race", we would have resolved this issue long ago and moved on to more productive editing.
- Yes, both Slrubenstein and Ramdrake have been actively involved with this article for several years. Many other editors have come and gone, yet both of them have remained - as have the problems. We now have some agreement in this relatively "new" group of editors that splitting this into two clearly defined articles is a good way to proceed. I'd rather we move forward than sit and listen to the same arguments which fill several years worth of archives. --Aryaman (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is pretty obvious that Jensen's research was driven by a desire to contribute to or inform public policy. This is true of much research and I see nothing wrong with it, nor do I see anything wrong with saying so. If your point is that there are also debates about the reliability of IQ tests, well, I have no quarrel with that or with covering that in an article. My main problem is with people who wish to include fringe views about genetics and IQ - views that are not considered mainstream by geneticists and that misrepresent debates among people who study inheritance and IQ. There is a big difference between the matter at hand and NDE, which I am sure even you can see: so far, research on NDE has not sought to influence public policy. Research on race and IQ scores is of great concern to policy-makers. That said, if you are suggesting to model an article relating to Race and IQ on NDE, well, fine by me. But to my mind that calls for multiple articles (as we have with evolution and creationism and intelligent design) because there are people who research race and IQ who are not fringe scientists. You seem to be confusing an object of study with a point of view. Near death experiences are objects of study, the view that they reveal something about an afterlife is a fringe view. Race and IQ is an object of study, the view that average differences are largely due to genetic factors is a fringe view. I'd like to see an article - or articles - that do justice to the legitimate research on race and IQ. If you are saying we should have another article for the fringe views, well, okay, but we would need to do so in a way that does not create a POV fork. These fringe views are notable as far as I can tell only outside of the scientific community, i.e. in public debates. Why not cover it in an article that is about public debates over race and intelligence?
- As to "the same arguments," it cuts both ways and I do not see how comments like that express any assumption of good faith. I am trying to respond to your comments reasonably and expect the same. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's stick to the facts. There are specialized journals and scholarly conferences in which all of these topics, including the evidence for and against a genetic contribution to IQ differences between races, are discussed with academic detachment -- and not simply as fringe theories like intelligent design but as empirical and scientifically answerable questions. That should be all we need to substantiate the topic of race and IQ research for inclusion in its own right. Further, the volume of this literature and the context in which it typically appears does not make it especially well suited to be put into the same article as a socio-political debate -- the psychometricians certainly protest that they're empirical conclusions should be evaluated as science first, not politics. Further, as a practical matter, the integration of these two approaches (science on the one hand and politics on the other) just doesn't seem to be able to be accomplished by editors of Wikipedia. For the sake of making a distinction that will lead to lasting agreement, and a distinction that is rooted in a real-world difference, we need to put the psychometrics in its own article. --DJ (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, let's drop the political background. The historical background itself would be interesting, but maybe not necessary to include. However, presenting it solely from the viewpoint of a few psychometricians is building a walled garden. If we present the science, we need to present the science as it is also seen by geneticists, anthropologists, etc. We need to present the subject in its entirety, and not selectively choose those who debate the subject a la Rushton (or Jensen, or whomever). If we do that, we are doing nothing but building a POV fork. And even local consensus cannot override Wikipedia community policies.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- We've agreed in the past that the Neisser et al. report is probably the best single piece of literature for presenting the academic context in which this debate takes place, as well as for presenting the "mainstream" views on the individual issues concerned. Using it as a guide in framing the article is something I think everyone either has or would agree with, and I don't see how doing so could be considered "building a walled garden" in respect to other disciplines. --Aryaman (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- When DJ mentions sociological debates, she conflates two different debates. One is on the social causes of IQ differences between races. I agree that this belongs in a different article than the one on psychometrics. There is a separate debate on the sociological and political forces shaping psychometric research. This cannot be detached from our coverage of thpsychometric literature. If there is too much material for one article I suggest doing what we do elswhere: have an ommibus article, that summarizes psychometric research and debates among psychometricians, and that also summarizes sociological analysis of tpsychometrics, linked to separate articles that go into detail on these to related topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Question: we already have an article on heritability of intelligence to cover research by geneticists. Why shouldn't the article on g-factor of intelligence be our main article for covering psychometrics and debates among psychometricians? I agree the article neds work, but hey, isn't that one purpose of talk pages, to figure out ways to improve articles (the article on the inheritance of intelligence also needs work). It seems to me that we already have a great article that covers psychometric research on intelligence. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- g factor is not the place for this debate. Neither are the articles on Heritability of IQ, Psychometrics, Psychometric approach to measuring intelligence, Environment and intelligence or any of the articles listed in the Category "Race and intelligence controversy". Those issues play a role in "Race and IQ", but we can't shift this debate into those articles. (And isn't it odd that we have a category titled "Race and intelligence controversy", but we can't seem to write an article on the actual science which lies at the root of this controversy?) --Aryaman (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you agree with my other point, I am glad you did not find it objectionable. As for "the actual science that lies at the root of this controversy" can you clarify just what you meant? I thought that the science covered in Heritability and IQ and General intelligence factor are the "actual science" at the "root" of this controversy. What science at the root of this controversy is not covered by these two topics (or the other three you added to the list)? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- With your "other point", do you mean that in which you refer to DJ? If so, I prefer to let him/her say whether or not s/he is "conflating two different debates". As far as their being a "separate debate on the sociological and political forces shaping psychometric research": do you have reliable sources which discuss the "debate on the sociological and political forces which shape psychometric research"? I'm not aware of such debate within the psychometric community, though I suppose there may be well be such debate in other disciplines and/or in the general public in regards to psychometry. Psychometricians take their research seriously, and they debate the data sets, statistical analyses and various interpretations of that data. For example, Flynn, an "environmentalist", does not agree with Jensen, a "hereditarian", in regards to the interpretation of the data, but maintains respect for him as a scientist and for his work. To get sweeping criticism akin to "the results of psychometric studies which claim to demonstrate that at least some of the difference in average IQ between racial groups is due to genetics is just academic racism under a different name", you have to go outside the discipline. Within psychometry, this is a perfectly "valid" option, and cannot be ruled out categorically.
- By "actual science", I mean the studies which have been conducted on "race and IQ". Heritability is one aspect, IQ is another, and the g factor is yet another. All of these and more play a role in studies on race and IQ - which is why we can't file this debate under any one of those headings. --Aryaman (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Well, since race is a social construct I would think that the core scientific research on race and IQ as such would be by sociologists. As for a "separate debate on the sociological and political forces shaping psychometric research," yes, I do have reliable sources which discuss the "debate on the sociological and political forces which shape psychometric research." You are right that there is no such debate within the psychometric community, but why would anyone expect there to be one? Psychometricians are not trained sociologistds or political scientists, so I would not expect them to conduct research on sociological and political forces shaping their work. The research would be conducted by sociologists and others - aside from the sociology of science there are a number of historians and anthropologiss who study scientists and play a leading role in Science and Technology Studies. By the way, the question of whether psychometricians take their work seriously or not is not an issue, as best I can tell, in the research os social scientists who study science and scientists. Shamans take their work very seriously and when they enter an altered state of consciousness and heal someone, they believe that they are working within the most serious traditions of their vocation. Physicians take their work very seriously when they do their work too. That both sets of actors may be subject to social and political forces is something medical anthropologists and sociologists are concerned with, not shamans and physicians. The same is true for psychometricians.
- I did not know that Flynn or Jensen had degrees in genetics, and am still not sure how genetics is a branch of psychometrics.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why are we going over this again? "I would think..." Well, the fact of the matter is psychometricians are the folks to go to when you want to know about race as a factor in intelligence research. Psychometricians are the experts in intelligence research, and they can tell you about numerous factors involved in the development of intelligence, including socio-economic status, health, and yes, even some claim to tell us about race. Now, are you going to tell me that we need to get an economist in here to "balance out" what a psychometrician says about the role of SES in IQ? Seriously? Give me a break, Slrubenstein. --Aryaman (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are joking aren't you? You keep arguing AS IF I am saying psychometricians have nothing to say about race. Where have I ever said that? What I have pointed out is that they are not qualified for research on genetics. Don't you know that psychometricians use statistical methods applied to their data, and the data they get on race is almost always self-reported? Yes, yes, yes of course they can make claims about race and IQ, understanding that race is a social construct. This still is not close to doing research on genetics. I once again point out that neither Flynn nor Jensen have degrees in genetics, and genetics is not a branch of psychometrics. Of course they can analyze the relationship between IQ score and the race of the respondent. That is asking a question about intelligence and race, a social construct. That is not research on genetics. That is my point. And given that sociologists (and anthropologists, although they research different questions about race) are the experts on race, you should not be surprised that sociologists study the relationship between race and IQ.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
this proposal is a pov-fork
I don't buy the premise that there is a "wide context" and a "narrow context". What you're saying is that you want to create an article that only covers the work of hereditarians as if this work is a subject in it's own right. But who says this? What supports this conclusion? From my point of view this split represents nothing more than a pov-fork. Can anyone explain to me why this is not simply a pov-fork? It's not justified in the literature on this subject. Can someone point out where there is a consensus in the academic literature that this division exists? This is not content forking, it is pov-forking plain and simple. I'm totally opposed, this proposal amounts to saying that those who support the hereditarian hypothesis should have their own article. This is totally against wikipedia's normal content policy isn't it? Alun (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood the proposal. This is not about "creating an article that only covers the work of hereditarians". I'm not quite sure where you got that, but it should be evident from the above discussion that we're discussing limiting the scope of the article to the psychometric debate. In other words, including both "hereditarian" and "environmental" POVs. So, no, it's not a POV-fork. --Aryaman (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Arya it is clear that the proposal is not to limit "the scope of the article to the psychometric debate". Read the proposal, it is to split the article into two, with one article covering the so called "narrow context" and the other article covering the so called "broad context" neutrally. That is a pov-fork and should not be allowed. There is nothing in the literature that would suggest that the academics who research this ever split the field into two in this way, it's an invention of wikipedia editors to allow this pov-fork. I suggest you read the proposal again because it clearly suggests splitting the article and you don't seem to understand that. Alun (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wobble has a point, in the sense that in the field of psychometrics alone, the hereditarian hypothesis is taken seriously. However, it isn't really taken seriously in any other relevant (population genetics, anthropology, sociology, etc.) venue of science. This needs to be pointed out, lest we frame this research improperly.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
break
- Slrubenstein: Races are not 'social constructs', they are examples of genetic clustering as a result of divergent evolution. You might as well say that apples and oranges are social constructs because we do not (yet) have a precise genomic definition, and that a sociologist would be best placed to measure the relative concentrations of malic acid in these fruits. mikemikev (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is totally incorrect, do you have any sources that are reliable that say this? I don't think any reliable source would ever claim that "races" are the same as genetic clusters. Likewise no reliable sources have ever claimed that genetic clusters are the result of divergent evolution (most claim that the clusters represent ancestral populations, i.e. founding populations), that is genetic bottleneck followed by founder effect. Every source I have read avoids making claims about divergent evolution, simply because they are interested in neutral polymorphisms, that's because we cannot infer the relatedness of populations using genetic markers that are under selection, and divergent evolution clearly means traits that are under different selective pressures in different environments. Alun (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It make no difference to the issue whether racial genomic differences are caused by genetic drift or selective pressure. Do you really think that differences between races are not caused at least in part by selective environmental pressure? Ludicrous. mikemikev (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it makes a great deal of difference whether differences between populations are due to selective pressure or are neutral. It's one of the fundamental concepts of microevolution that we can only measure population history and/or partitioning by using neutral genes. Using genes under selection would produce erroneous results. That's why all studies use STRs or SNPs that do not change amino acid sequences, because these are considerd to be selectively neutral. Or are you trying to say that populations in malarial regions that have selective pressure for haemoglobin S are a different "race"? That would mean that some Africans, some Europeans and some Asians are the same "race" because they live in malarial regions with strong selective pressure, but these populations are clearly not close either geographically and they all live on different continents. Alun (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- We're not looking at population history, we're looking at intelligence. And of course I'm not saying people with one trait in common are the same race. We're talking about many genes, thousands, distributed unevenly. mikemikev (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Mike, but current scientific consensus is that races are social constructs. I can supply many refs to that effect if you wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please do if it's not too much trouble (on my talk page). mikemikev (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, we’ve been through this before when we were debating about the Race and genetics article. Yes, races are social constructs, but they’re social constructs that correlate quite strongly with genetic clusters based on biogeographical ancestry. This fact is important in medicine, because races often have varying rates of reactions to certain drugs. For doctors to assume that race is “biologically meaningless” would not only be erroneous; it would be somewhat dangerous. And most of the references that you and other have provided about race and genetics acknowledged this.
- Bringing up the “social construct” point here is really a red herring. If the correlation between social races and genetic clusters is strong enough for races to vary significantly in one biological trait (reactions to drugs), then it’s possible—at least in theory—for them to also vary in another biological trait (average IQ). That doesn’t necessary mean they do, but as Nisbett points out in Intelligence and How to Get It, whether or not this is the case is an empirical question which can’t be answered A priori. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Captain what you're saying is not accurate. Concepts of "race" only sometimes "correlate with genetic clusters based on biogeographical ancestry", and often it's not strong at all. Most medical researchers fully acknowledge that using "race" as a proxy for biogeographical ancestry is often imprecise and inaccurate, and can lead to bad medicine, but argue that "race" can serve as a useful proxy. They argue that inthe future when individuals can be screened genetically routinely, then the use of "race" as a proxy will be irrelevant. So I think you're being less than accurate in what you're saying. Alun (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also a little confused why you think the fact that clustering analyses represent fundamental divisions within the human population. No one has ever made this claim. See Rosenberg et al. (2005)
Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness... The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.[2]
So they're saying that clustering does not support any "race" concept. Clusters do not represent homogeneous genetic pools. Witherspoon et al. (2007) for example show that people belonging to different clusters are often genetically more similar to each other than they are to people in their own "cluster", so clusters are not homogeneous gene pools, they simply compare individuals with a "typical" genetic type. So I don't understand why you think that the fact that some constructs of "race" sometimes correlate with statistical clusters supports the conclusion that "race" is valid. Besides when one looks at clustering analyses, the majority of people in the world belong to more than one cluster. Furthermore there are plenty of geneticists and anthropologists who do not accept the validity of clustering analyses, and we can find sources to support that claim. This is because clustering analyses are dependent upon the assumptions made by the scientists. So for example one will produce different results depending upon the type of genetic element one decides to include in the analysis, STR vs SNP vs indel vs Alu etc. One will get different results depending upon the sampling strategy one uses, e.g. does one only include people who have four grandparents from the same geographical region? Does one sample small numbers of people over smallish geographic distances (continuous sampling), or does one sample large numbers of people in geographically distant locations (discontinuous sampling). Finally the result will be highly dependent upon the software used and how it infers human evolution. For example Waples and Gaggiotti (2006) use a computer simulation to model population splits, then use some methods for clustering to see how the clustering compares to their model populations, because their populations are perfectly defined they can evaluate the performance of the clustering analyses, they conclude that Structre, one of the most widely used software packages for clustering analyses, often underestimates the number of ancestral populations, especially when slow mutating elements like SNPs are used. That just goes to emphasise that the software used to analyse the data make certain assumptions that may be incorrect. So please don't confuse clustering, which may well be a statistical artifact, with natural divisions of humanity. Furthermore you need to understand that biogrographical ancestry is not the same as clustering, clustering often clumps groups together that are biogeographically distant, whereas modern genetic analysis can be extremely accurate in determining the geographic ancestry of a person.
- So there are two fundamental problems with what you say, firstly your claim that "race" correlates "quite strongly" with genetic clusters is not accurate, even most medical practitioners who advocate the use of "race" as a proxy (and many medical practitioners do not) for biogeographic ancestry would say it is a loose correlation, though they do claim that it can be useful. Secondly your assumption that these clusters represent natural divisions of humanity is erroneous and not supported by either the evidence or any reliable sources. Mostly what you're saying is OR actually.Alun (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so there's 0.1% genetic difference between races. Is that enough to cause significant intelligence differences? We don't know. That's why we need to present the data of psychometricians. Actually 0.1% is a big difference. The genome contains 3 billion base pairs, and changing ONE of these can result in phenotypic effects. mikemikev (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- This has no bearing on the article, this is just OR. Alun (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's 0.1%, maybe it's 0.0001%. I'm just saying that a small difference in the genotype can have a big effect on the phenotype. That's not OR. I mention this because you assert that members of different groups are sometimes more similar than those of the same. Yes, for a small number of genetic markers (and even then not usually). For many markers this never happens. mikemikev (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly a small difference in genotype can have a big difference in phenotype, a single bp change can produce sickle cell disease. But that's irrelevant, right, we're not talking about phenotype, we're talking about whether humanity can be sensible categorized into groups based on genetic similarities/differences. Witherspoon et al. show that it is indeed true that people from different statistical clusters can be more similar to each other than people from the same cluster, even when thousands of loci are used in the analysis. You claim that this is only true for a small number of markers, but that's not true, humans are a very homogeneous species genetically (that's a fact), so the opposite is true, only a very small number of genes vary between human groups. Indeed you acknowledge this, indeed you contradict yourself, you say that the differences between people from different clusters may be only 0.001% (presumably meaning we share 99.999% base pair homology between groups), then say the opposite, that differences between clusters vary only for a "small number of genetic markers (and even then not usually)". You are right first time BTW, though I don't know the actual percentage figure for base pair homology. But to the point, clustering analyses only use genes that vary between populations and ignore genetic similarities between population groups. Witherspoon et al. wanted to measure similarities between randomly chosen individuals within and between populations. They show that using 10 loci individuals from very separated populations (Europe, Africa and East Asia) are more similar to a person in another population 30% of the time, when 100 loci are analysed the similarity is 20% of the time, but when 1,000 loci are analysed the similarity is 10% of the time. That means that even when 1,000 loci are measured there is a one in ten chance that two people classified into different clusters are genetically more similar to each other than they are to another individual in their own cluster. They conclude that "many thousands" of loci would need to be evaluated for two individuals within the same cluster to always be more similar to each other than to an individual in another cluster. But the larger point is that this is true of people from very distant parts of the world (Europe, Asia and Africa). Witherspoon et al. show that when intermediate populations are included (continuous sampling) even more genes would be required, they conclude that
On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase [the chances that two individuals were more genetically similar to someone outside their cluster than to someone within their cluster]. This is illustrated by the fact that [the chances that two individuals were more genetically similar to someone outside their cluster than to someone within their cluster] and the classification error rates, [the chances that the clustering analysis puts someone into the wrong cluster], all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005).Genetic similarities within and between human populations Witherspoon et al. Genetics. (2007) 176(1): 351–359. doi:10.1534/genetics.106.067355.
Sorry it's such a long response but I thought a comprehensive response was required. :-) Alun (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- So there are genome pattern differences between races. It doesn't matter how much, because we don't know what they are doing. The similarities could be all junk. Until we know you cannot say 'race is just a social construct'. There's no evidence for that. mikemikev (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's please stick to the science: "Yes, races are social constructs, but they’re social constructs that correlate quite strongly with genetic clusters based on biogeographical ancestry." The accuracy of this statement depends largely on the size and history of the population we are talking about. If you define the Black race based on studies of Blacksliving in the US, and then do drug tests on different populations in the US and discover that one works better with Blacks, this is because you are really using "race" as a proxy for a population in the US and as long as the drug tests and prescription of that drug are on African Americans, it all works out. When you move to peoplewho are also consider members of the Black race but who are part of a population the drugs were not tested on (say, Kenyans) you can and often do run into trouble because you are no longer working with the same population. In short, as long as Americans are talking about Americans, it can appear as if the self-designated term correlates very highly with certain biological traits. The fact is, this kind of association has to be handled cautiously and there have been members of the medical community who have called attention to times when assumptions about the correlation between race and biogenetic "clusters" does not work at all. In other words, what you are presenting as straightforward science is not. (1) it is more controversial than you suggest and (2) when there is no controversy, people are using the terms in far more restricted senses than you seem to be. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that we need to be very careful with ascriptions here. clearly there are genetic markers that distinguish between different races. however, the move from saying there are genetic markers that distinguish between races to saying that races are genetically distinct is highly contentious. there are, for instance, genetic markers that distinguish redheads, that distinguish people of Nordic descent, that distinguish Koreans from Vietnamese, and none of these unique marker clusters are used to indicate separate races. Koreans are an excellent case in point, incidentally - they were largely reviled by the Japanese before and during WWII (to the extent of being considered a separate and lesser race, if I remember correctly), but that racial segregation was largely wiped out by the American occupation of Japan and the Korean war, and only remains today as a distinct form of prejudice. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- "clearly there are genetic markers that distinguish between different races."- Seriously? Where do you get this information from? I think this would be news to any serious geneticist. If you want to make wild claims like that in an article then I'm going to demand an extremely good source. I know of no reputable scientist who would make such a claim. Indeed there are hundreds, probably thousands of published works from both geneticists and anthropologists that say the exact opposite. I know of no one who is reputable who would make this claim. Can you support this with a citation? Alun (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Tang (2005)
We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.
mikemikev (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clusters are not genetic markers. All Tang et al. have done is show that in the USA genetics can be used to identify some groups with a priori assumptions about "race" ethnicity. What Tang do not claim is to have found specific genetic markers that are reliable in determining someone's "race". What was the original claim? Oh yes it was "clearly there are genetic markers that distinguish between different races", Tang et al. do not make that claim. Your source doesn't support Ludwig's claim. Alun (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cluster in this sense is a set of genetic markers. Several subjects reported "other" for race and were correctly categorised, verified by follow up. Therefore genetic markers have been used to distinguish races. Whether or not Tang makes this claim is no matter, it is evident from his work. mikemikev (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No a cluster is not a "set of genetic markers". A cluster is a statistical construct. (see Lewontin's Fallacy for more information, there's even an infobox that I made that explains how clustering analyses work here). Tang et al. do not make a claim in their paper that they have produced a set of genetic markers that "distinguish between different races". In the case of Tang et al. (and I know the paper very well), they only sample from the US population. The statistical construct they produce is only applicable to the population they sampled (the USA), it is only applicable to the set of alleles they measured, and it is only applicable to the statistical analysis they used. Change these variables and the whole construct will change. This is even true of ancestry informative markers (AIMs), and AIMS are deliberately chosen because they vary significantly between populations. But even when one uses genes that vary significantly between populations, a large number are needed before biogeographic ancestry can be inferred by statistical analysis. Even then AIMs often produce strange and clearly erroneous results. Furthermore clusters do not represent genetically homogeneous populations, in most analyses the majority of people belong to more than a single cluster (I suppose making most people "multiracial" if one believes that clusters are races), and it is true that people from different clusters can often be more genetically similar to each other than they are to people within their own cluster. The problem with what you say is that on Wikipedia you can't say what you believe in an article, you have to say what the research says. Tang et al. make some interesting observations, but it is erroneous to claim that they have produced a set of genetic markers that identify people by "race", they do not make this claim. You may believe this to be true, but that's not actually what they say, and your quote (taken out of context I might add) does not support the original statement. Alun (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "No a cluster is not a "set of genetic markers". A cluster is a statistical construct." It's both.
- "The statistical construct they produce is only applicable to the population they sampled (the USA)," They would get the same result in any location.
- "it is only applicable to the set of alleles they measured," Obviously. This is not a counter argument.
- "and it is only applicable to the statistical analysis they used." Obviously. This is not a counter argument.
- "But even when one uses genes that vary significantly between populations, a large number are needed before biogeographic ancestry can be inferred by statistical analysis." Tang used 326 microsatellite markers.
- "Even then AIMs often produce strange and clearly erroneous results." Tang got a 0.14% error rate.
- "Furthermore clusters do not represent genetically homogeneous populations, in most analyses the majority of people belong to more than a single cluster" Here you assume what you're trying to prove.
- (I suppose making most people "multiracial" if one believes that clusters are races)," Most people are multiracial? Are you allowed outside?
- "and it is true that people from different clusters can often be more genetically similar to each other than they are to people within their own cluster." I love the way you refer to Lewontin's fallacy then commit Lewontin's fallacy.
- "You may believe this to be true, but that's not actually what they say, and your quote (taken out of context I might add) does not support the original statement." I do and I believe it does. mikemikev (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t think anyone here is arguing that races are “genetically distinct” in the sense that there’s a clear boundary between one and another, or that a person can only belong to a single race. The idea of races as distinct, platonic categories is one that definitely lacks any basis in biology, and I don’t think anyone who supports the herediarian position claims to advocate this idea. The only thing which matters here is that certain alleles are distributed unequally between races, and that some of these alleles can have biological effects (as in the case of drug responses).
- Until more of the genes which influence IQ have been identified, this is about the most that genetics can tell us on the topic of race and intelligence—that it’s possible in general for genetic traits to vary between races, and that it’s an empirical question whether or not they do in any particular case. For this reason, while the social and genetic meanings of race might be relevant to provide some background information for the narrow-scope article, they can’t provide much evidence either way in the debate (among psychometricians) about whether the empirical evidence indicates that the genes whose distribution varies between races include genes which influence IQ. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a slippage here. Anyone can tell you that genes can vary among humans. I still have trouble making the link to race and intelligence. Geneticists use twin studies to measure the heritability of IQ and there are plenty of things that they can speak to, and are still debating - race and intelligence just doesn't seem to be one of them. And I have yetto see any evidence that any debates among psychometricians concerning variation in IQ scores among races indicates ánything about genes. As I said above, psychometricians are not geneticists; genetics is not a branch of psychometrics; their research on race and IQ has not demonstrated anything about genetics. It is not their field. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why are allowing this (meta-)discussion to derail the mediation? Slrubenstein doesn't like the fact that psychometricians make statements regarding potential genetic factors in the development of intelligence - because they are not geneticists. So? The fact is, they do. They also talk about gender, the physical environment, economics, nutrition, brain chemistry and a whole slew of other factors despite the fact that they do not hold degrees in those specialized fields, either. They have the responsibility to do their own literature research and apply those results to their area of expertise - psychometry. Slrubenstein thinks they've done a poor job. So? Since when are Wikipedia editors supposed to let those kinds of personal opinions guide their editing practices? I personally don't care if psychometricians started reporting on a potential correlation between average nose length and placement on Maslow's hierarchy: if they do it in respectable scientific journals and have their theories taken seriously by their colleagues, then it qualifies for coverage on Wikipedia, even if I personally think they're full of it. Let's please move forward with something more constructive. --Aryaman (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aryaman - no need to make it personal.
- I'm having one helluva time figuring out where to go from here. The straw-poll established nothing, and I'm surprised to see the level of anger among some of you. I still have the suspicion that there's an undercurrent here that I'm not aware of. It's fairly obvious to think of what that would be. Anyone care to fill me in? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Something I find problematic here is the extent to which users are getting involved in this debate without having consented to the terms of the mediation. When this mediation case first began, those of us who were involved in it needed to agree to certain terms regarding our conduct in this case. But when people involve themselves in this case without having agreed to behave here the way you’ve asked us to, this page is more likely to just become a replacement for the article talk page, which is what seems to be happening now.
- I’m thinking of Alun in particular. Although it looks like he objects to the proposal that we split the article into “narrow” and “wide” scope sub-articles, I’m not able to tell what solution he actually advocates to this article’s problems, because he hasn’t posted an opening statement or answered any of the mediators’ other requests for us to explain our positions. These requests of us were made for a reason, and if people are going to debate here without having complied with them, it’s going to make it very difficult for the mediation to resolve anything.
- I would suggest that the users who are new to this mediation case go back and post opening statements, as well as responses to the mediators’ other demands for all of us to explain our positions, except that so much of the discussion here has been a result of what was originally posted in response to these requests, I’m not sure someone posting an opening statement now would be able to serve the purpose for which these statements were intended. Something I think you might want to consider doing is restricting this mediation case to the nine of us who originally consented to it and posted opening statements. Otherwise we’re going to continue having people dropping in like this to say that they dislike any new idea that’s been proposed, without having provided any explanation of what solution they would suggest instead. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Captain you can see clearly that I support keeping a single article that includes the full range of debate on the issues at hand. That's why I wrote 'support next to that proposal. I do not support creating pov-forks. That is simply a bad idea. There is no justification for doing this with respect to the literature, or with respect to the subject matter. This is simply a means to produce an article that does not cover the substantive issues raised by anthropologists and geneticists regarding the non-existence of biological "race". When one considers that this is central to having a balanced article with respect to the subject matter, then it is clear that this is a pov-fork. Indeed it's clear that any article that did not contain a substantial debate with respect to the validity of "race" could never be neutral, and obviously neutrality is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- More importantly Captain, you cannot breach Wikipedia's core policies with a consensus. So I'm saying that the proposal to split the article is a breach of Wikipedia's core content policies and can never happen. The solution is to discuss the issues on the talk page of the article. In my view those who believe in the existence of "race" and the research of hereditarians seem to be implacably opposed to including a great deal of the research that contradicts their beliefs, and so have sought to exclude that research from the article. Now they seek to create a new and different article without the research that they object to. Well that is not how Wikipedia works, you have to accept that this research on the non validity of biological "race" does belong in the article, that many geneticists and anthropologists have used the work to counter the racialist (I use the word in the traditional sense of "believing that race is a biological reality") perspective of hereditarians (i.e. that the work on the non-validity of race has specifically been used to argue against the assumptions that hereditarians have made regarding the existence of "race"). It is a breach of our neutrality policy to seek to exclude research you don't like, it is a breach of our neutrality policy to seek to create a pov-fork article that excludes that research. Basically you need to accept that other points of view do actually exist, do actually have validity, and do actually belong in the article. If you can't accept that, then you are rejecting one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Alun (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alun, you’ve been quite clear that you don’t approve of Varoon Arya’s proposed solution to the problems with this article, but you haven’t told us anything about what specific solution you would propose. Over the past two months, we’ve been discussing a lot more than just whether or not to split the article; we’ve been trying to come up with a long-term way to stabilize it. Your saying you want an article “that includes the full range of debate on the issues at hand” is not specific enough to be useful here—it’s not even clear how this would differ from the current version of the article, which is the one that’s proven so unstable.
- By dropping in like this to criticize VA’s proposal about how to stabilize the article, without offering any alternative of your own about how to accomplish this, the only thing you’re doing is making it more difficult for the mediation to reach a resolution. Your involvement here is disrupting the mediation for another reason also, which is that a lot of the points you’ve raised in your last few posts have been addressed by other users (and VA in particular) earlier on this page. It seems pretty clear that you haven’t been following this case as it’s progressed, but that now you expect other users to re-explain these things to you before you’re willing to compromise. (Another possibility is that you have no intention to compromise and that you’re just stonewalling here, but I’d rather assume good faith.)
- Xavexgoem, if Alun isn’t willing to change his conduct here, I think it’s necessary for you to do something about it if you wish for this mediation case to continue. As long as things stay the way things currently are, nothing is being discussed here that couldn’t be discussed on the article talk page, which is a more appropriate place for this sort of thing. If you either can’t or won’t do anything about this, then the mediation case ought to be closed—we won’t be losing anything by moving this argument to the article talk page, and at least that way we can resume editing the article normally. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- "but you haven’t told us anything about what specific solution you would propose." Yes I have, I refer you to my above statement "The solution is to discuss the issues on the talk page of the article."
- "you don’t approve of Varoon Arya’s proposed solution to the problems with this article" whether I approve or not is irrelevant, the proposal is a breach of our neutrality policy and is a pov-fork. therefore it cannot go ahead anyway. If it were to go ahead I would simply put it up for speedy deletion as a pov-fork. It wouldn't last very long. It's a bad proposal that breacher policy.
- "the only thing you’re doing is making it more difficult for the mediation to reach a resolution" Whatever resolution the mediation reaches cannot breach Wikipedia policy on neutrality, so it's better that mediation takes longer and a decent resolution is reached, than we end up with a pov-fork that is only going to be speedy-deleted anyway. Besides mediation is not the end of the road.
- "you expect other users to re-explain these things to you". Where have I asked for anyone to "re-explain" anything to me? I understand this subject matter very well. I also know that you can't resolve a situation by ignoring our content policies by introducing a pov-fork that is not neutral. That's policy it has nothing to do with expecting others to explain anything. indeed it seems I'm the one explaining to you that your proposal is a non-starter simply because pov-forks are not allowed. Go and check the policy if you don't trust me.
- "Another possibility is that you have no intention to compromise and that you’re just stonewalling here, but I’d rather assume good faith." This is a bad faith comment though isn't it?
- "Xavexgoem, if Alun isn’t willing to change his conduct here, I think it’s necessary for you to do something about it if you wish for this mediation case to continue." Please, no appeals to authority. Xavexgoem cannot put asside Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality and pov-forking any more that you or I can. Policy is policy. You might as well accept it, arguing about it, or trying to intimidate me with threats of "it’s necessary for you to do something about it" won't change that. Alun (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am very disturbed by this turn in the discussion. Alun has participated in these discussions from the beginning and is one of the best-informed contributors to the article, and an important person in this mediation. Arya writes, "Why are we allowing this (meta) discussion to derail the mediation?" But what can this possibly mean? That he does not comprehend my or Alun'sposition or why we consider them central to the issue? Well, Arya, is that not precisely what makes this a conflict requiring mediation? Arya and Captain Occam seem to believe that "mediation"simply means confirming their views. It is not. It is a place to take a conflict and seek assistance in resolving it. No one should be surprised if people participating in mediation present conflicting views - if we did not, we would not need mediation, would we? The idea is to pinpoint th key conflicts, so we can address them constructively. But when Alunor I try to do this, we are accused of derailing mediation?
All we have been doing in this meta-discussin is to respond to claims made by Arya to Captain Occam that are either unclear or contentious.
Above, Arya insisted that there by an article that represents deates among psychometricians. Can w compromis on this? Yes, I am all for such an article and asked why the article n the G-factor was not such a placeWikipedia can cover this. Is this an unreasonabe question? Arya's reply:
- g factor is not the place for this debate. Neither are the articles on Heritability of IQ, Psychometrics, Psychometric approach to measuring intelligence, Environment and intelligence or any of the articles listed in the Category "Race and intelligence controversy". Those issues play a role in "Race and IQ", but we can't shift this debate into those articles. (And isn't it odd that we have a category titled "Race and intelligence controversy", but we can't seem to write an article on the actual science which lies at the root of this controversy?)
Now Arya move from wanting an article on psychometrics, to one on race an intelligence. I point out that race is a social construct and that sociologists study this, and I also accept that psychmetricians can study the relationship between IQ nd race (a social coflict). Then Arya, Captain Occam, and others add "genetics"to their understanding of race, and I think here we get to one of the core points of conflict, where we need mediation: race is not a genetic term, and psychometricians are not experts on genetics. I have no problem with psychometricians making claims based n the study of IQ results. But when they make claims about genetics, they are leaving their sphereof expertise. In some cases they simply produce fringe science (you may as well ask a physicist what he thinks about race; he may have an opinion, but it may not be scientific and his opinion is certainly not a notable scientific opinion). When psychometricians make claims about genetics that geneticists do not make, I think we have a problem that any article at least eeds to address. But whenever I or Alun or others try to explain why, we are accused of derailing mediation? Well, what do you tink we need mediation for?!? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, but I'd add that you cannot have an article on "race and intelligence" that a priori assumes that "race" is a well established and accepted biological/genetic construct. The very fact that hundreds of scientific papers have been published that show that "race" is not a scientific concep, that it is "fuzzy" and poorly defined just emphasizes the point (and I have provided many sources to both Arya and Captain Occam many times to show this, but they have a habit of dismissing sources that they don't like). But we are being asked to put the debate about "race" aside, as if it were somehow irrelevant to the subject at hand. In other words what we are being asked to do is create an article about "race" and intelligence that treats "race" as a "resolved biological fact" and only deals with research about group differences in test scores. That is a clear breach of our neutrality policy. It's obviously a pov-fork. It's clearly an attempt to say lets remove the uncomfortable and massive body of work on the subject that deals with "race", and only cover the section of work that treats "race" as a concrete entity. From my perspective then what we're seeing is the same as always, an attempt to remove those parts of the debate about "race" and intelligence that are not accepted by some editors. But I think those editors just need to accept that this debate is a legitimate part of the subject. Whatever they believe, the article does not exists to support that belief, it exists to give all relevant points of view. And yes, it's true that there is a massive body of work that has been written that specifically deals with the non-existence of biological "race". That body of work includes anthropology, sociology, population genetics, classic genetics, biological anthropology, molecular anthropology, medicine, medical ethics and probably much more. The proposal is simply an attempt to bypass our neutrality policy. Alun (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wobble, I tend to agree with what you say, if not quite the lengths you go with it. This is pretty much why I keep pushing for an expanded history and background bit. let me just clarify things as I see it:
- RACE
- clearly, 'race' exists as a cultural and social construct: people were using the term as a reference to supposed sub-sections of the human population long before the dawn of modern science.
- clearly, the cultural and social construct of race has significant cultural and social (and thus political) ramifications. being assigned to a race will (within most societies and transnationally) mean dramatic differences in social and economic prospects, life conditions, life expectancy, and numerous other personal issues.
- clearly, the cultural and social construct of race has some genetic tie-ins: we evaluate race socially by observing things like skin color, facial features, body type, and hair type, all of which are inherited genetically. (don't read more into that than I said -that's meant to be a comment on social perception, not on race).
- INTELLIGENCE
- intelligence (poorly defined as it is) is usually assumed to be a mix of inheritable qualities and opportunities. most people assume that smart people have smart children; most people recognize that children need to be raised and educated in the correct circumstances to develop their intelligence.
- Speculation has arisen (mostly in the general population, not in the scientific world) that there's a relationship here - perhaps one of the genetic tie-ins noted in #1.3 above or some condition of upbringing might relate race to intelligence - this is offered as an explanation for the differences noted in #1.2 above. (let's leave aside the poor logic of this - smacks of equating correlation with causation)
- Scientists from many fields (psychology, sociology, anthropology, genetics, political science, etc) now enter into the debate to try to deal with the speculation in 2.2 - some are trying to show it's true, some are trying to show it's false, and they are all approaching it through different methodologies - psychometrics, sociological studies, genetic analysis, critical historiography, conceptual deconstruction, and many more. so far as I can tell, science has come to a few conclusions on the topic but hasn't yet resolved the issue.
- It's clear to me that this article wants to be about #3.3, but I don't think we can actually discuss #3.3 without going through the other points first. the real question for this mediation is how much time we spend on those other points, no? --Ludwigs2 19:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, this is helpful but I would add two clarifying points. First, under "race," I would not say that the social constuction of race has "genetic" tie-ins - you are right, I just would not word it this way since people made these tie-ins befre anyone knew anything about genetics; I'd say that in the US race has biological markers (it is much more complicated in Brazil and Latin America where to a degree SES and langage can change one's race). The critical point here is that historically, some people have also considered low-intelligence to be one of these biologcal markers of race. Now, there is a big difference between a prejudice - basically an assumption - and a conclusion reached through scientific methods. But as Arya points out below (in reply to a query from Xavexgoem) this is one of the major sources of undercurrents of anger and suspicion haunting these discussions.
- To your section on ïntelligence"I would also add a point: researchers in different fields including genetics and psychometrics have also been conditing research that is not responding to or driven by popular beliefs about race and intelligence. I think it is very important that articles give full weight to these other bodies of research. personally I think there may be value in having separate articles on what I see as properly scientific debates, versus scientists responding to popular debates (I would consider this to be a content rather than POV fork). But i think there is a serious issue here of whethr certain scientists are coducting independent scientific research or are simply reproducing popular positions and again, as Arya suggests below in response to Xavexgoem, this is another issue haunting discussions which may be a source of anger or hostility, especially if any of us are geneticists or psychometricians for whom this becomes a matter of professional pride.
- There ought to be an "encyclopedic" wiki-way to handle these underlying sources of tension but here, I'd say the help of a facilitator is needed. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think your analysis is very good Ludwigs. When you say "the cultural and social construct of race has some genetic tie-ins" the important word is some. Let's put it another way, The majority of African-Americans have European ancestry, some even have more European ancestry than African ancestry, and others have significant Native American ancestry. But they are universally classified into the same "race" as Africans, even though genetically they may be more closely related to Europeans and/or Native Americans. The current US president is a good case in point, he's no more African than he is European, but I've never heard him described as "white". Now a decent genetic test would not classify him as African, or as "black", a decent genetic test would show that he has equal African and European ancestry. Maybe even more importantly his African heritage is from east Africa, whereas most African Americans trace their African ancestry from west Africa, from a genetic point of view east African are not identical to west Africans. So a genetic test designed for African Americans that have west African ancestry might just give the President (who does not have west African ancestry as far as we know) a result nobody would expect. The same reasoning applies to intermediate groups, right? So because of US demographic history there have not been significant numbers of Middle Eastern and South Asian peoples in the USA. So the US has not developed a classification system that includes these intermediate populations. Well come to think of ti it doesn't have significant numbers of Indigenous Australians, so the US "racial" classifiaction system does not include these people either. So what "races" a society recognizes varies tremendously in time and place. Most geneticists and anthropologists understand that the physical markers that are used to socially classify people are only fuzzily and vaguely related to genetics. Or to put it another way Africans, people from the south of India and Indigenous Australians all have very dark skin, and have all been understood to be "black" in various times by various societies. To claim that these geographically distant groups share a more recent ancestry with each other than they do with neighbouring groups that may be less dark skinned, or in other words, to claim that these groups are all part of a single "black" race that is genetically homogeneous just because they all look "black" would be a very wrong conclusion to draw. But I think your general analysis is spot on. Alun (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alun, you appear to be doubting the validity of SIRE here. Is it reasonable to imagine that a South Indian in the USA would classify himself as black, after the categories were explained? Or that mixed race people would not be aware of that? And that people studying Race and Intelligence are not well aware that African Americans have some European ancestry? The classification system is developed ad hoc for the study in question. mikemikev (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to what you mean by that. You appear to be referring to Tang et al. again, which is the only source I am aware of that uses the term "SIRE" (self identified race/ethncity). They use it as a shorthand for their specific way of classifying people in a single paper. As a classification system it is not scientific and is not based on genetics. But besides that I don't mention either Tang et al. or their classification system at all, so how you draw the conclusion that my analysis is only applicable to a single paper is beyond me. As you point out, classification systems are developed ad hoc, which must mean that the systems are not natural divisions of humanity (or else they would be stable and constant, rather than changeable between different studies), and therefore not "biological races", but social constructs (for example my self identified race/ethnicity is Welsh). Certainly "SIRE" is a social construct because it encompasses ethnicity, and "race" and both are social constructs. You seem to contradict yourself a lot. Above you reply to SLR that "races" are not social constructs, but here you say that classification systems are "developed ad hoc", which shows that you do understand that these groups are porous and fluid, and so are not based on immutable genetic difference, after all if they were constant genetic entities then new classifications would not need to be developed ad hoc, indeed if they were strict biologically defined entities, we wouldn't be having this argument because it would be settled. The very fact that much research draws the exact opposite conclusion to you, and that even the research you cite rarely actually says what you claim it says, speaks to the fact that biologists, geneticists and anthropologists do not claim that "races" are genetically defined populations.see here for a good essay on this Alun (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Is it reasonable to imagine that a South Indian in the USA would classify himself as black?" I don't know, how is this relevant? We're not talking about the USA, we're talking about whether the human species can be classified into discrete entities called "races", and I point out that what a "race" is or is not is dependent upon time and place.
- "Or that mixed race people would not be aware of that?" Aware of what? Of the fact that they have ancestry from different continents? Many people who do have ancestry form different continents aren't aware of it, obviously. But even if a person is aware that they have ancestry from Europe and Africa, it does not mean that they identify as being of "mixed race". Most African Americans have ancestry from Europe, but the overwhelming majority do not describe themselves as being of "mixed race". So they self describe as African-American or Black, and are classified in the same "race" as Black African people. Why are you pretending that most African Americans describe themselves as "mixed race"?
- "And that people studying Race and Intelligence are not well aware that African Americans have some European ancestry?" So you're claiming never to have heard of the "one drop rule"?[3][4] Take for example the children of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Sally herself had a White father, and her children also had a White father. And yet they were still slaves, and were still classified as Black. But they had at least 75% White ancestry. Besides those who study intelligence and who are aware that African American people have European ancestry have asked the sensible question "if Europeans are genetically 'more intelligent' than Africans, then why is it that light skinned African Americans, who have more European ancestry, and therefore more European genes, do not display greater intelligence than dark skinned African Americans?" Which is a sensible question that addresses the issue head on. All one needs to do to resolve the question is to measure the skin reflectance of those sitting the tests and calibrate IQ by skin hue. But when that is done we find no difference, because being African American, or Black is a social construct, and however much European genes an African American has makes no difference to the discrimination people who are classified as Black get when it comes to education and social exclusion. Indeed people who study intelligence differences between White and Black people who have taken the European ancestry of Black people into account find that degree of European ancestry does not correlate with IQ. Only those who do not take degree of European ancestry into account, but lump all Black Americans into a single group (i.e. who classify acording to the "one drop rule"), as if their ancestry (and therefore genetics) were homogeneous, continue to claim that the test score gap is genetic in origin.[5] Then we have the White American population, about 30% of White Americans have genetically detectable African ancestry, but I'd bet most are completely unaware of this ancestry, which is probably due to some ancestor passing as White.[6][7] Indeed the White American population is also interesting regarding the amount of Native American ancestry it has, I heard the other day (and I can't remember the source but it was a reputable scientific radio programme) that about 40% of people born as "American Indian" in the early 20th century, dies as White Americans. Alun (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that putting on hold the detailed Race and genetics debate or moving it to a more appropriate context would be appropriate. That will allow us to stick with higher-level questions. --DJ (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- DJ, do you agree that claims about genetics do not belong in the Race and intelligence article? Because if you do, then I can easily agree with you that this debate between Alun and mikemikev belongs in a different context. But you cannot have it both ways. Other editors, like Arya and Captain Occam, eventually end up making a claim about genetics. If they think that such claims have a place in the R&I article, well, then the above points made by Alun are highly relevant. Maybe here too we come to a place where the issue in need of mediation is clairifed. Does genetics belong in the Race and Intelligence article or not? Here comes Alun saying that it does not, and he provides many reasons that come directly from verifiable sources. Then you say that his comments belong elsewhere. Well, in a way, isn't that Alun's point? Are you agreeing with him, that discussion of genetics does not belong in the R&I article? Well, maybe this is progres, but i am not sure that Arya and Captain Occam agree.... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I merely mean that we should stay focused on one question at a time, and I don't think that's the question we were currently focused on. --DJ (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmm.... I thoght the question of whether psychometric analysis involving race (self-defined) is relevant to genetics was one of if not te core issue of the edit conflict and thus mediation. Now I am perhaps confused about what you think this mediation is about, what we are in conflict over. What are you thinking? If you thought this is a tangent, why did you not tell mikemikev in the first place, to spare us all this talk? Did you or did you not consider mikemikev's question relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
clear disagreement
If ever there were a clear expression of our disagreements, the exchange immediately above captures it. I would suggest that we as a group have expressed at least two very different opinions about the scope and content of the article. I hesitate to define what those two opinions are precisely, but I'd note that they look something like two different academic disciplines addressing a related topic, and perhaps we could call them the psychology approach and the sociology approach. So I would ask, can we agree that at least two very different ideas are being expressed? --DJ (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- DJ, I am glad you say this, because I think one of the points of this discussion should be to identify the core issues that require mediation. Obviously many diffrent issues are at play, and a close reading of this entire talk pages shows that there are some places where we all agree, or are close to agreement. Very good! But we came here because we need mediation, not because we agree on many things. So identifying the core issues of contention is ery important. I agree with you that this is one of them and while a good deal of talk has been expended in this meta/break sections, if the mediators could review these and try to rticulate what they see to be the core conflict, and perhaps facilitate a discussion that leads to some agreed-on principles, I think the mediators could be very helpful here. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem, as I see it, is that the subjects are intertwined. Ludgwig's 2.2 and 2.3 above capture this. We have the science (one thing), and the background to the science (the other thing). Way above, we had discussed percentages over hereditarian/non-heriditarian views. It hadn't worked. Could these two issues be the reason? Should we step back? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the undue/fringe argument over genetic causes of IQ differences a reflection of the underlying psychology/sociology problem or is it a separate issue? Or perhaps to put it another way, would undue/fringe issue still be an issue in the hypothetical situation that there was a psychology (psychometrics, IQ) focused article of some name? --DJ (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this comment means, or where this 'undue/fringe' label comes from. the question of whether different racial groups show differences in intelligence that are genetic/heritable is a perfectly valid scientific question, one that researchers have worked on and continue to work on. most evidence to date suggests that there are no racial differences, but the scientific question is still open and the people who advocate that there might be racial differences are neither a fringe viewpoint or a tiny minority viewpoint. Fringe viewpoints generally require a divergent and unsupportable ontological presumption (e.g. the assertion that minorities are actually separate species, as some of the more loony white supremacists have done, would be a fringe theory). you can't accuse one side in an ongoing argument of being fringe. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if DJ means exactly the same thing, but the "fringe/undue" issue which has been referred to before, both in this mediation and in the discussions immediately preceding its inception, refers to the following chain of events:
- Slrubenstein, Ramdrake and others wanted (and continue to want) the article to have a wide scope. They feel that only by including the views of anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, etc. can any discussion which touches upon the issue of "race" be done "properly" and "according to Wikipedia policy". Other editors, including myself, were fine with that as long as we were allowed to make an adequate presentation of the psychometric research which has been conducted on race and IQ including hereditarian research. However, to do justice to the research (e.g. to cover the data gathering methods, data sets, various interpretations, criticisms, etc.), a good deal of space is needed. As this section began to grow, it was claimed that we were violating WP:UNDUE, and this included claims of WP:FRINGE, e.g. "you can't have so much space, especially for such a 'fringe' theory as hereditarianism". It was worried that, by attempting to present hereditarian arguments on more or less equal footing with environmentalist arguments (as is practically required if you want to make a coherent presentation of how the debate developed and continues to progress), we (me, in particular) were pushing a "racialist agenda" - regardless of the fact that we never tried to suppress or eliminate any of the criticism of the hereditarian position. This is what led to this particular mediation, and that's why the opening statements largely revolve around the question of a "percentage" of coverage the discussion of these issues could be allowed. I personally think setting a "percentage" is a rather childish way to deal with this, and have argued nothing other than that Wikipedia should provide fair and coherent coverage of the academic research involved, regardless from which "side" it stems. --Aryaman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- That leaves me scratching my head bit, I'll confess. are the 'the views of anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, etc.' not considered to be valid research? I mean, I know... wikipedia tends towards a funky perspective on science that privileges 'cool toy' science (e.g. a fascination with tech-based, number-producing research), but there are reams of social scientific research on this topic. or is the problem that people are engaged in synthesis, trying to qualify and argue with the empirical research on heredity? unfortunately, the article has been moved around so much that I can't see the issue you're talking about. can you provide a link to the problematic section? --Ludwigs2 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to your first question: Yes, of course. As I said, there was no real argument about whether the results of other disciplines should be included, as we were all working towards one article with a relatively wide scope. The problem was that the level of detail required to make sense of some of the psychometric material was interpreted as giving it undue weight in proportion to the article as a whole. Prior to the mediation, there was no coherent presentation of the so-called "hereditarian" positions and none of the criticism scholars have made against the so-called "environmentalist" positions appeared in the article. When this was brought up on the talkpage, we were scolded for "POV pushing".
- My proposal to create an article limited to the psychometric debate, including ample coverage of both "hereditarian" and "environmentalist" research, was made as an attempt defuse the WP:UNDUE dispute. I'm willing to grant that, in a wide scope article, we can't go into the psychometric research in any detail without putting the proportions out of whack. But that doesn't mean that such a detailed presentation cannot or should not be allowed to happen in an article of its own. It's a significant, notable, bona fide area of research, the literature fits the WP:RS requirements, and it' a complex enough issue that it deserves adequate coverage. Other editors, however, feel that this would represent a "POV-split", because by limiting the scope of such an article to psychometric literature, the article might not be able to make it amply clear that most if not all scholars outside the fields of psychometrics, medical research and criminology no longer consider "race" meaningful except as a social construct. Apparently, we need to convince the reader that the psychometric debate is not a real academic debate at all, but simply a bit of socio-political posturing done by some crackpot psychologists who no one likes much anyway before we can venture to present them with any discussion of what the debate is actually about. OK, that last bit what somewhat pointed, but that sums up how it looks from where I'm sitting.
- In answer to your second question: For me, WP:SYNTH only becomes an issue when one attempts to go about this article as "Race" and "Intelligence" instead of "Race and intelligence". When we bring in "experts on race" and "experts on intelligence", and then see how well their views match up, we're committing WP:SYNTH on a grand scale. Of course, it's very tempting and easy to do because this is an "X and Y" article, and there is a ton of literature on both "X" and "Y". To prevent this, we need to stick to literature on "X and Y", with both topics being discussed in conjunction with one another. Admittedly, most of this literature comes from psychometricians, as should be expected given this particular "X and Y" constellation. But requesting that we stick to such literature is shot down as "POV-pushing". Given the Neisser et al. report (undertaken by a panel of scholars, commissioned by the APA, and presenting what is considered to be the majority consensus among qualified scholars on all the major issues), particularly the sections "Genes and Intelligence" and "Summary and Conclusions", I can't understand how editors can seriously argue that limiting this to psychometric literature would render us incapable of treating this issue in a sensible, fair and circumspect fashion. The mantric "Psychologists are not geneticists" does not phase the APA, and it shouldn't phase us, either.
- As for finding a diff to point to, I'm as lost as you are, to be frank. You can go back to late October to see how it was when I became involved. T34CH created some havoc in the editing history a few times, so finding a representative version of the article during then and now is quite difficult. Occam has links to some of the better incarnations of this article, and if he's reading this, I invite him to drop a note here. --Aryaman (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. I have several times sugested breaking these interrelated but diverse topis into divers aticles e.g. one on heritability of IQ ne on public policy debates, one on ebates amoing psychometricians - and I have been accused of undermining mediation by pushing a proposal no one wants. Okay. But now I am accused of wanting one article that covers all things. Come one guys, which one do you wish to criticize me for?
- One thing I am adamant about is that the cntent of articles should reflect what scholars actually do in their role as scholars, and proportionately. I have no problem with an article on psychometric debates cocerning intelligence. The thing is, Wikipedia already has one: it is called "the g-factor of intelligence." This is solely about psychometric research. Now, why would Arya reject this? Arya insists we have an article on "race and intelligence." here w get to one of thosecritical issues in need or mediation. My view is this: We have an article on psychometrics, an on the g-factor. If actual debates among psychometrics on IQ and race are just a small fraction of the work they do, well, it is only reasonable that a discussion of race occupy a small fraction of the article, right? And if dbates about race are actually fringe in relation to all the work psychometricialns do, well, then it just dosn't rise to our standards. Arya's desire for an article on race and intelligence from the psychometricians POV is, well, a POV fork, because he cannot get wht he wants into the many articles we already have on psychometrics.
- So then he says we need an article specifically n Race and IQ. Well, okay, but f it is the toic (race and IQ) rathe than the discipline (psychometrics) that defines the scope of the article, it is just a plain old fact that other people aside from pyschometricians have discussed race anintelligence,certainly socioogistsand anrhropologists. But Aryadoes not like this either..
- The mor we discuss this the more it appears that Arya wants an rticle one, well, what Arya wants. So are we to create an idiosyncratic article ment to represent Arya's specific interest which, I guess, will have to be policie by him since only he really kows what he is intereested in? We shouldn't be working this way a Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, is that really fair? This is not about Arya. There are obviously several editors here who agree, big picture, with Arya's position above (although we may disagree on the details). The key issue is that we think this topic (Race and IQ covering the work by folks like Jenson, Lynn and others) merits lots of coverage in Wikipedia, so much coverage that it would be too large to fit in another article. So, the issue for us is where to put it? Arya is just one voice among several making this point. David.Kane (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- If it is unfair, I apologize. But I did not think Arya wa being fair to me, and honestly, I am struggling to make sense of his position. I made a proposal for covering different debates concerning these two issues (race and intelligence) and Aryaoffered provisional suppo9rt, so Arya knows full well that I favor articles with justifiably narrow scopes, yet hebegins by writing, "Slrubenstein, Ramdrake and others wanted (and continue to want) the article to have a wide scope." In fact, when discussing my proposal it turned out that Arya wanted a narrower scope than me! So for him now to be represeting me as wanting a wide scope is perplexing and I don't know how o interpret it as meaning either Ara lacks good faith or, if he is acting in good aith, I really do not understand him and I am just tring to express my onfusion. Above, Alun DJ and I all agree that discussion of genetics elogs in a different article than one on psyhometrics. This seems to me to involve linked articles with clearly defined scopes, and narrower than what Aya is calling for. No one is objecting to n article on psychomentrics, and no one is objecting to presenting the data on average differences in IQ score in an article on race and intelligence. Yet Arya thinks we have a fundamental disagreement. Well, if it is not "Whatever Arya wants to lump together," well, okay, what would it be? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- From what I have gathered through the course of this mediation, DJ, Occam, David, Mike, Aprock and possibly Ludwigs agree that the psychometric debate on "race and IQ" is a real academic debate which deserves adequate coverage on Wikipedia. Ludwigs raised the point that the discussion needs to be put in context, and I don't think any of the listed editors would disagree. We all have slightly different views on what exactly the article should look like, which is to be expected and even welcomed, but we agree on that core point. Of course, if I have misunderstood or misrepresented their positions, I apologize.
- I'm not sure how to summarize the positions of Slrubenstein, Alun and Ramdrake, or what exactly their core objection is. The central concern seems to be that of a potential POV fork. It's been argued that an article on the psychometric debate would represent such a fork, as it would unfairly represent the issue from the perspective of psychometrics over and above those of other disciplines. Yet when we tried including the views of all relevant disciplines, were faced with objections of WP:UNDUE when it came to editing the sections specifically relevant to psychometry.
- Let's imagine, for the sake of illustration, that everyone here agrees that the psychometric debate is an issue which deserves adequate coverage. Further, let's imagine that we have in hand a body of text which covers the psychometric debate to everyone's satisfaction, and that the question is simply what to do with said body of text.
- Now, if we propose to put this text in an article devoted to it, we receive complaints of POV. If we propose to put this text in an article which treats not only psychometry, but also all other disciplines potentially relevant to the issues of race and intelligence, we receive complaints of UNDUE. Chopping the text up into pieces and scattering them across other articles is not an option, as we've already agreed (hypothetically) that the psychometric debate is an issue which deserves adequate coverage.
- My question to Slrubenstein, Alun and Ramdrake is this: Given the hypothetical situation above (which is not very far from reality), what do you suggest we do? Where can we put our coverage of the psychometric debate on race and IQ without, in your opinion, violating either POV on the one hand or UNDUE on the other? (And please try to just answer the question. I'm done "debating" this with any of you; I'm trying to find exactly what it is you want so we can establish common ground and move forward.) --Aryaman (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- look, Ary, if I can be so bold: I think the problem here is that no one wants to give the impression that the psychometric studies are the only or even the major perspective on race and intelligence. The worry with making a separate article is that the separate article will be taken as the primary view on the topic (which is why, I think, there's less of an issue with using the 'g-factor in intelligence' article, since that article name clearly restricts the scope of the article). If you move it to an article called Race and IQ, well... in the common mind, Race and IQ is indistinguishable from Race and Intelligence, and so it will look as though we have two articles on the same subject with different viewpoints (i.e., a pure POV fork). if we're going to use a separate content fork on psychometrics, it has to be clear that it is only an expansion on a minor technical subfield of the larger issue - then I think everyone will be happy. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The existence of Achievement gap in the United States gives me hope for a similar solution. --DJ (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that we don't want to mislead readers into thinking that there isn't more to this issue than the results of psychometric research - and I hope others are willing to see that this was never my intent. I had hoped "IQ" was sufficiently distinct from "intelligence" to indicate this difference, but I see this is not the case for several editors. I had also hoped that the idea of placing a header at the top which specifically stated that the psychometric article would deal only with "race as a factor in academic intelligence research" could satisfy those concerns, but, again, I see that this is not clear enough. I have also proposed "Race in intelligence research", but there has been no noticeable support for this title, either. Regardless, I remain entirely open to any suggestions for a title which would make the nature of the article clear. --Aryaman (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- well, how about the obvious (if ungainly) Psychometric research into race and intelligence, with a {{main}} template at the top linking back to the appropriate section of the Race and Intelligence article? --Ludwigs2 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- If others agree, I could live with that (though, I also wouldn't object to a more felicitous formulation if one can be found). --Aryaman (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head earlier Ludwig. The people who study the subject in greatest detail believe that intelligence has a significant genetic component. But we're then expected to cater to a never ending collection of lame sociological/genetic arguments to the contrary. However, cater we must. I propose simply making clear the result of race IQ studies, and then having two sections: 'Genetic/Environmental Explanations' and 'Environmental Explanations', of unlimited size. Other sections can be added if agreed on. mikemikev (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- please don't misrepresent my position; I said no such thing. please refactor my username from that statement. --Ludwigs2 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
mikemikev, you are not a party to this mediation and I am tarting to wonder whether you are just tryin to disrupt it - DJ pointed out, above, that your question opening the section "break" was just a big unproductive tangent. Now you make a blatantly false claim:"The people who study the subject in greatest detail believe that intelligence has a significant genetic component." The people who study genetics, that is to say, geneticists, make no such claims about gees being a signiicant component of the difference in IQ scores between races. And psychometricians, who are experts on IQ tests, but not on gentics, have pointed to a gulof in average IQ sores among races - but races are social constructs, and not genetically meaningful. My main objection is to any article that introduce pseudoscience or fringe science (for exampe - and mot notably - Rushton). Arya wants an article that does justice to psychometric research and we have several aticles on psychometrics, espeially theone on the g-factor of intelligence which can easily be expanded to include all major debates among psychometricians on intelligence. Every once in a while someone accuses me or someone else of trying to keep genetics out but I fully upport the article on the heritability of IQ which is ALL about the genetic component of intelligence. People agree that ace is a social construct and I suspect there is a lot of reearch by sociologists on raial inequalities that still isn't on Wikipedia. That's the shame of it all. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, I would appreciate it greatly if you would answer the question I posed to you above. --Aryaman (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You mean, Where can we put our coverage of the psychometric debate on race and IQ without, in your opinion, violating either POV on the one hand or UNDUE on the other?" Well, understanding that rae is a social construct and that psychometricians are looking at race as a self-defined or self-designated category, I first hae to ask: is this debate primarily among academic psychometricians, or is it occuring primarily among a more specific group of people concrned with social policy e.g. in education but conceibably other areas. If the answer is, academic psychometricians, I would just make it onesection within the article on psychomerics, which right now can be longer. If the answer is, debates relate to education and to various formsof social inequality, then I would make it a separate article and clarify the context in which the research and its results are important, maybe call it Psychometric research on race and IQ although I wouldave to ask, why not "social groups and IQ" - I ask because I assume that part of the analysis is ruling out other factors (where pople live, income, etc) so the analysis is no fixating on race but asking how IQ varies with a range of factor. I am just asking the question. A genral article on race and IQ would have to include research by sociologists insofaras there is research on the topic. I would be against anythin that violate OR via SYNTH meaning, when I say include sociologists I mean only those who are explicitly looking at rce and IQ (it ould indeed be messay and inappropriate to add stuff by sociologists on race independent of research on race and IQ). We still need to discuss criteria forpseudocience or fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- SLR - I think ary was talking about the comment just before mikemikev made his unfortunate comment. please don't let that little bit of misdirection derail an otherwise productive conversation. --Ludwigs2 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Luds, Arya asked me o answer the question he asked me so I looked hrough the talk and found the last instance of his directly asking me a quetion, and I quoted his question and answered it. Arya, if this is not what you eant i hope you can understand my miustake as reasonable. But until Arya says so I assume I was doing what he asked me to which was to answer the question he asked me. Ludwigs2, if you do not like that please fault Arya for asking the question and insisting I answer it. Do not blame me for answering a question I was asked. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- No blame intended; I was a little annoyed at mike for throwing in a completely off-base comment, and I was just trying to keep it from having too much impact. sorry if I misinterpreted. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aryaman: From what I have gathered through the course of this mediation, DJ, Occam, David, Mike, Aprock and possibly Ludwigs agree that the psychometric debate on "race and IQ" is a real academic debate which deserves adequate coverage on Wikipedia. Ludwigs raised the point that the discussion needs to be put in context, and I don't think any of the listed editors would disagree.... I'm not sure how to summarize the positions of Slrubenstein, Alun and Ramdrake, or what exactly their core objection is
- No one has a "core objection" to presenting the subject neutrally. But there is an objection to attempts to give undue weight to what is a fringe pov. I find it odd that after months of being told that, you still don't seem to be able to summarize the argument of those you disagree with. Indeed if you really don't understand what our argument is, then how can you disagree with it? My main objection is that the genetic hypothesis is a fringe hypothesis, there is a massive body of work that explicitly disputes the genetic hypothesis (i.e. gives many other points of view), which is based on discussions surrounding the validity of "race" as a biological construct, the validity of IQ in terms of measuring intelligence, just what intelligence is, the genetics of screening for genes associated with "intelligence", environmental factors affecting test score achievement, psychological factors such as stereotype threat etc etc (as I say somewhere else on this page, there is work from anthropology, genetics, population genetics, psychology, medicine, public health and many more). This body of work composes a massive and comprehensive counter argument to the genetic hypothesis, and is significantly larger and more robust than the genetic hypothesis, and therefore will, and should, take up a very large portion of the article. The objection then, is that some editors want to remove this massive body of work apparently because they personally believe the genetic hypothesis is true. Because they cannot do this, now they want to create a pov-fork so they can avoid WP:NPOV. We all as editors have to accept that Wikipedia must contain information that we disagree with, that's what makes it neutral, we are not here to advocate for any given point of view, our goal is to provide a neutral environment and let the reader decide. Alun (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wobble, maybe I'm misunderstanding as well. I had thought (this is the scientist in me, maybe) that the research refuting the genetic hypothesis was part of the research on the genetic hypothesis. are you saying we're debating a section that explicitly promotes one side of the scientific debate? --Ludwigs2 08:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would also have thought that this was the case. But clearly an article that only discusses the psychometric data will leave a great deal of the evidence against the genetic hypothesis out, because a this work is not based on psychometrics. Alun (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- mikemikev: "The people who study the subject in greatest detail believe that intelligence has a significant genetic component. But we're then expected to cater to a never ending collection of lame sociological/genetic arguments to the contrary."
- Which just goes to emphasize my point that for some editors this is about promoting their own beliefs rather than trying to include the opinions of all experts. I'll try to explain simply:
- "The people who study the subject in greatest detail believe that intelligence has a significant genetic component."
- Quite, and no one disputes this. But no one knows how environment affects genes or how genes affect environment, and no one has ever been able to identify specific genes associated with intelligence. Some scientists think there are no such thing as genes for intelligence. I think you have made two common mistakes. (1) You've fallen into the trap of thinking that heritability is a measure of genetic contribution to intelligence. It is not, heritability does not measure how much genes contribute to intelligence, it estimates how much genes contribute to the variation in intelligence within a given population. There are a great many papers that criticize the use of heritability and question it's validity, and these too have a place in the article. But we do not know how much genes contribute to intelligence, but anyway environment is all important. A child with mediocre genes who gets a good education is always going to do better than a genetically gifted child who has no access to education whatsoever, and no expert who studies the subject would ever deny that either. It is inconceivable that the % contribution of genes vs environment is ever going to be an absolute, and these are certainly not the dichotomies that they are sometimes claimed to be, it's unlikely that genes alone, or environment alone, have any sort of contribution, and that all contributions are the result of interactions between these two things. (2) You fall into the trap of implying that "races" are well defined genetic groups. But they are not, there is no evidence that there are any genes for intelligence, let alone that they are distributed differentially between the social constructs we call "races".
- "we're then expected to cater to a never ending collection of lame sociological/genetic arguments to the contrary."
- Well ignoring the blatant bias in your post, and the fact that none of the arguments have ever claimed that there is not a significant genetic component to intelligence, yes. That's because we have a neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia does not care whether you personally think that sociology/genetic arguments are "lame", as long as they are from reliable sources then we include them. That's what I mean when I say that all editors have to accept the inclusion of points of view they don't like. Alun (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- "But we do not know how much genes contribute to intelligence, but anyway environment is all important." Anybody who actually attempts to calculate comes out with 50-80% genes, the rest environment. Identical/Non-Identical twins raised apart provide the most compelling evidence. Your argument appears to be we don't know exactly, therefore we have no idea.
- "You fall into the trap of implying that "races" are well defined genetic groups." Galaxies are not well defined collections of stars. Should we not mention them? Planets? What's pluto these days? Races are valid biological categories, like species, family, individual. None of them are perfectly defined. You don't like mentioning race, so you pretend it doesn't exist. That's fine, just find somewhere else to fantasize. mikemikev (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- And another thing, above I expressed my opinion on the R&I controversy. I then expressed a disconnected and completely neutral policy proposal. You are now objecting most strongly. However you are constantly expressing your opinion, mainly "Races do not exist", an opinion contrary to current scientific consensus and based on a thirty year old statistical error, and then using that opinion to try to influence policy. I hope you can see the hypocrisy here. mikemikev (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, I do not think you understand the concept "heritability." Alun provided a perfectly good explanation, practically textbook. Also, races are not biologically meaningful concepts. I think every attempt to define race to make it biologically meaningful ends up equating it with population, which is not at all what psychometricians are looking at when they test for relationships between race and IQ score. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand heritability just fine. And keep repeating that mantra. mikemikev (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike: "Anybody who actually attempts to calculate comes out with 50-80% genes, the rest environment."
- That is incorrect, it is impossible to calculate, you're confused about heritability, an estimate of the contribution of genes to the variation within a population It does not measure the contribution of genes to intelligence. You should really know the difference.Alun (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike: "Races are valid biological categories, like species, family, individual."
- I don't dispute that in some instances race is a valid biological classification, though most biologists use the term subspecies. But it is well accepted by anthropologists and taxonomists that the human species is not divided into biological "races"/subspecies. There are many reliable sources to support that, and the most obvious example is the fact that we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, different subspecies should have different tripartite names, and humans don't. Wikipedia doesn't exist so you can give your opinions about the validity of biological "race" with respect to the human species, it is only interested in the opinions of reliable sources.Alun (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike "However you are constantly expressing your opinion, mainly 'Races do not exist'".
- I don't think I ever said "races don't exist", I think what I said was that "races" are social constructs. That's what experts tell us, that's what reliable sources tell us. So that's what we write here. Alun (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike: "an opinion contrary to current scientific consensus and based on a thirty year old statistical error, and then using that opinion to try to influence policy".
- Actually the claim that current scientific consensus agrees that "race" is real is hardly news. "Race" is real, it's clear that "race" is a social construct that can have a massive impact on the quality of life a person gets, from whether they get a job, to whether thet get decent heath care. But I guess you're talking about biological "race". Well anyone who claims that the current scientific consensus is that biological races are real needs to support that claim with a really exceptional source, because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. indeed the reason that we do not consider that "race" is a biologically valid category within the human species is not because of Lewontin's observations (I think you are alluding to that), although what Lewontin says is very convincing, but much more to do with the wor of people like Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu. As for influencing policy, how can that be true? I'm not saying that we should change wikipedia policy because I believe biological races are not real, which is what you are accusing me of, but that accusation doesn't make sense. I can't change policy by myself. What I said was that I think creating a new article to avoid the neutrality policy is a pov-fork. That policy already exists. Your argument is more than a little confused at this point. Alun (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alun, I'm not going to waste any more time knocking down strawmen. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I would like to continue this discussion, but other editors have expressed concern that this is not the place for it. I think you will contribute to this mediation and I encourage you to stay involved. mikemikev (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ummm, good, I'm glad you're not going to use straw man arguments. Alun (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah. I should have said "knocking down strawman arguments". 146.179.209.207 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|
I'd be bold and make the moves myself, but I'm relatively new to this page and I'd be worried I'd miss something. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
