Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Problems with this topic

1. Terms are unclear / in dispute
   • "race" means skin color but also has cultural & historical connotations
   • "intelligence" has never been defined well
2. Some racial/ethnic groups score measurably lower on average than others on IQ tests and college entrance exams
   • Some people positively GLOAT over this
   • Some people want to pretend it's not happening
   • Some people say the tests are biased
   • There's a long running social and legal battle over remedies for this "problem", e.g., affirmative action

All of the above complicate the (purely scientific) task of objectively determining what the relationship has been, is, or could be - between "race" and "intelligence".

That's my two cents. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Re: "'race' means skin color..." Race is not as poorly defined as it's often made out to be, and does accurately refer to genetic groups (Tang 2005).[1]--Nectarflowed ^T 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Ed, I think you are right about the diagnosis. The question now, I think, is whether it is sufficient to simply hyperlink the words "race" and "intelligence" to other articles, expect general readers to inform themselves, expect them to carry a correct understanding back to this article, and so forth. If we were dealing with a less momentous topic we might take the attitude that it is the readers' fault when they fail to figure out what is really going on. But I believe that we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence. The way that people ordinarily see things, unfortunately, makes them replace the word "some" with the word "all" without being consciously aware that they're doing it. "Some men are stronger than any woman" becomes "(All) men are stronger than women." The same kind of reasoning, especially at an emotional level, also applies to questions of [race] and [intelligence]. Do we try to deal with this kind of thing in the way we write the article, or not? P0M 29 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)

You claim that we have a "social responsibility", but is the point of an encyclopedia to provide information, or is it to shape a reader's mind and lead him or her to socially desirable thoughts and actions? I believe it is the former. Dd2 29 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)

So do I. The meaning of information is dependent on context. (And I don't "claim," I just "believe.") P0M 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)

I agree with the general claim (belief) that readers should not be misled. However, the "reader error" here has been taken to what I feel are unreasonable extremes. "Race and intelligence" does not mention any races, specify the nature or direction of the relationship, or make value judgments. The only statements that the title makes are that there is something called Race worthy of discussion, something called Intelligence, and some relationship between them. The day that Race or Intelligence (trait) adopts scare-quotes/qualifications, so should we. Until such a day, the title says no more or less than those two titles plus a conjunction. That conjunction is justified by the article's content on all sides of the issue. (That is, the views of pure debunkers like Gould fall neatly under "race and intelligence".)

There exists an enormous literature on race and intelligence, from scientific studies to popular treatments like Gould's work. Across almost all of those works, intelligence appears to be the most widely used term for measures of cognitive ability, and race appears to fill the same role for group ancestry. Given the area of inquiry's existence and importance, we should have an encyclopedia article on it, and we should not get hung up on what people might improperly infer from the use of the most common words in the title. We should start the article with some disclaimers, and to my mind, the whole front-end is practically dripping with everyone's cumulative caveats. Enough, already. --DAD 29 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Patrick wrote:

we have a social responsibility to frame the information somehow so that people do not jump to the conclusion that the present article title suggests, that one's race determines one's intelligence

Well, why don't we say in the introductory paragraphs that the article examines the question of how race and intelligence may or may not be related? I would suggest:

• Researchers have long sought to define the relationship between "race" (i.e. skin color) and intelligence. Some, such as Prof. Q of University #1, assert that race correlates strongly with IQ test scores. Others, such as Prof. R and Politician S, dispute the accuracy of Q's assertion.

We might even go so far as to say:

• Q argues from this correlation that there exists a "racial disparity" which he explains with the hypothesis that:

  the darker you are, the dumber you are (Journal of Irreproducible Results, Volume -6, page 4F)

• R and S loudly contend than Q is just a racist who:

  deliberately ignores other factors such as wealth and educational attainments of the test taker's parents; cultural bias in the tests themselves; the lingering effects of centuries of slavery and segregation; and the parodoxical attraction of under-educated sports heroes.

Okay, we can leave out the sports heroes, but that's how i would like to start things off. Nobody could possibly misconstrue it, anyway. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

In addition to its flippancy, this proposal has numerous problems which suggest only passing familiarity with the subject.

Most importantly, your statements misrepresent the debate as it exists in the literature and even on this site. That some racial groups in the U.S. have different average scores on cognitive tests is beyond dispute. What people are disputing, here, is whether there is anything meaningfully called a "racial group", whether cognitive tests have anything to do with the common-sense concept of intelligence, and whether any meaningful relationship exists (or, in extreme cases, whether the two subjects can even be placed in conjunction).

No scientist I'm aware of has "asserted" a correlation between race and IQ test scores ("assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof"). Correlations have been reported, and explanatory relationships have been both reported and hypothesized. Moreover, I don't know of anyone in this discussion who would equate race with skin color as you have ("i.e." means "that is"). I'm strenuously opposed to the use of labels like "racist" in the article, and hopefully do not need to belabor the reasons.

All these distinctions matter, and it is precisely this kind of fine-toothed comb that the present article has been subjected to over many months. I would urge great care in suggesting changes. All that said, I welcome your input. --DAD 30 June 2005 01:58 (UTC)

IMHO, the current article covers the appropriate distinctions sufficiently; or rather as best as we can w/o violating policy. Re-read the article and I think you'll see it's very carefully written. If this were a personal essay, I would emphasize the distinction between thinking about races/intellligence in terms of Platonic typologies/categories versus statistical populations/distributions. But I don't know of any good references to support making that kind of distinction matter-of-factly in the intro of this article, so we are left with more basic (citation supportable) claims like the distributions of IQ scores overlap. --Rikurzhen June 30, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Three POVs

On standardized intelligence tests, black Americans score an average of 10-15 IQ points lower than white Americans. There is no debate on this point. The controversy revolves around the interpretation of this difference. Some experts believe that the two groups differ in inherited abilities. Others argue that the difference in average IQ can be caused entirely by environmental differences between the two groups. A third view holds that genetic and environmental differences are so entwined that we cannot adequately resolve the controversy now.

Why can't we put it this way? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The presentation's fine. Given the centrality of these data to the entire page, I urge citations. I prefer the APA's language: "the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites (Loehlin et al, 1975; Jensen, 1980; Reynolds et al, 1987)" as it a) is the standard way of reporting the data, b) gives both magnitude and basis for comparison, and c) is followed by several citations. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)

You both have jumped to conclusions again, the controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why repeatedly correlate with just one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why repeatedly frame an abstract issue just one way? You don't seem to allow for the possibility that nutrition/environment is 100% the cause? Your propaganda is slipping, it's only a matter of time now. Instead of "POVs" why don't we use the scientific method to frame this issue? zen master T 30 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

The debate over whether IQ measures intelligence is treated on that page. The debate over what creates intelligence differences has never been framed solely or even largely in terms of race. However, the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations.

Editorial comment: ZM, you're teetering precipitously on the edge of being ignored (by at least me) for lack of productive/coherent contributions now, and not for lack of rather heroic attempts to accomodate your views. --DAD 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Here is how your language propaganda works, since you fortunately encapsulated it into just one sentence, you say "the question of why races differ in measured intelligence is necessarily framed in terms of race, and the article properly entertains all respectable non-race-related explanations" -- the fact is non "race" related explanations don't get a fair or scientific presentation if they are forced within your exclusive "race" descriptive framework. Why can't the nutrition cause possibility be described within the framework of a "nutrition disparity"? Please explain the scientific necessity that requires framing the abstract issue excluisvely in terms of race? Even a random racist would want to present this issue scientifically to achieve objective conclusions rather than use psychologically tricky language games, which is orders of magnitude more evil, I hope you enjoy your jail cell soon enough. zen master T 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

ZM, I'm afraid your conduct has just crossed the line. We're done. For the more level-headed contributors who share ZM's concern, the question, "Why do races differ in measured intelligence?" is necessarily framed (i.e., stated) in terms of race because otherwise that question would not have a first noun. That's all. At no point in the article is race claimed to be the sole or even the dominant cause of intelligence differences. --DAD 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

If you only state or describe an issue one way it makes it too easy for a propagandist to come along latter and confuse description with cause (repetition is used to do this), alternative causes can't get a fair or neutral presentation of the issue if it is only ever stated in terms of "race". From the way you and the article carefully construct sentences it seems you never want to allow for the thought or the possibility that race is not a cause at all? zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Suspicious bolding

I have re-reverted Zen's changes again. Zen, I said it further up already: the "suspicious emphasis" you are claiming to remove is the common boldfacing of terms that appear in the title. That is standard Wikipedia style, see our Style Guide. The article on Race and intelligence is forced to boldface the first appearance of the terms (as it does). Since both terms are known to be controversial, the present article takes them up again in the Background section and gives a somewhat more elaborate definition of both nouns. That has nothing to do with emphasis. You also continue to remove a lot of italic Wikilinks. For example, you haved changed "people labeled Blacks" into "people labeled blacks". First, please don't destroy Wiki infrastructure by removing hyperlinks. Second, the italics in Blacks here is because the word appears "as a word". Again, the style guide forces us to set it in italic type. (Read section 4.2 of WP:MOS, the section called Words as words.) Your energy might be spent on better things than removing markup that follows typographical conventions in this encyclopedia, instead of assuming what you call "suspicious emphasis". Arbor 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)

The style guide suggestions are only applicable to the intro section. The emphases is obviously playing games. zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Some key terms or concepts are bolded when they first appear in order to assist in readability, as the topic is unusually complex and the page unusually long. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 30 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

I don't think it's a game, but I don't see any point in bolding the title terms later in the article. "Intelligence" is used dozens of times thorughout the article. Why is that particular use of the term bolded, for example? How does it help the reader? -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:57 (UTC)

ZM's concerns

1. ZM believes the comparison race and intelligence presupposes a biologically causal relationship.

   Not exactly, the presentation of the issue must accept the possibility that "race" is not a factor. The first issue is the way language is used to present this subject (propaganda-esque). The second issue is facts are in disagreement on this issue yet the issue is only presented one way, why?

2. It hasn't been made clear to the editors of this article why it would imply more than correlation when other normal comparisons don't, such as 'race and senate representation' or 'South East Asian countries and monsoons.'

   The other possible correlations should not include "race" at all.

3. RyanFreisling and Kizzle have responded on ZM's talk page that it implies causation because of the unjust history of race and intelligence research, and implies superiority between groups.
4. Is there a solution? "Intelligence" is culturally deeply valued, so intelligence research may give the appearance of ranking the value of people, based on their performance on cognitive tests. This is a problem whenever intelligence research is brought up. Consensus among editors of this article is that some disclaimers are needed in the intro in order to limit readers' interpretations.--Nectarflowed ^T

As I've said repeatedly, the article and title should reflect where the lack of consensus begins, which in this case is the "IQ" and other tests. Repeated emphasis on a dubious correlation to only one bit of information about the test taker ("race") is the next level of error as far as this alleged scientific research goes. zen master T 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

A possible fix

I propose the following language to properly contextualize the information about test scores and so-called races.

Even though there is a correspondence between racial groups as commonly defined in American society and intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests and similar instruments, that correspondence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that race determines intelligence. Presumably there are genetic factors that are responsible for some of the characteristics categorized as racial traits. Presumably there are other genetic factors that are responsible for native intelligence and that serve as a foundation for achieved scores on intelligence test instruments. There is, however, no necessary connection between groups of genetic traits, and in fact the exact recipes of genetic characteristics that determine all individuals are different (except in the case of identical twins). Furthermore, successful expression of genetic potentials for traits such as intelligence may depend on contingent factors pertinent to individuals or related groups of individuals. just as some kinds of vegetation thrive in one environment that another kind of vegetation may find unsuitable.

Please help me polish the language. P0M 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

I agree with the this edit: [2]. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Don't blame me! I stole most of it from one of the other guys. Shhh. ;-) P0M 1 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)

What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue? Instead of "presumably" how about something like "no scientific basis/consensus"? The "thrive/environment" point probably should mention nutrition and other possible environmental causes? The paragraph still suffers from the same problem of framing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics" which is not right, all possible causes should describe the issue using their own descriptive terms. Why does the proposed paragraph also try to sneakily describe "intelligence" only in terms of "genetic potential"? Is the author of the paragraph arguing that "genetic potential" is the only valid way of describing "intelligence" now too? What is the scientific basis for such an argument? The above paragraph is much more subtle (nice try) but is still riddled with the same errant exclusive framing of the issue around "race" or "genetics". zen master T 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

The (continued, belabored) claim that there is no scientific basis for relating race and intelligence is false. Take the Ashkenazi example: in Cochran 2005, we have a hypothesis (Ashkenazim were selected for high intelligence) which generates several testable predictions: inheritance patterns for genes in particular clusters should happen with far higher frequency than chance; some of these alleles should confer higher cognitive function; the biological function of these genes should relate to known correlates of intelligence such as neuron density and arborization. Evidence, statistical and otherwise, supporting these predictions are reported, and additional predictions are outlined. Not only is there a scientific basis, there are scientific results, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. --DAD 1 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Zen-master: As long as you repeat what you have said before and do not respond to attempts to get a point by point clarification going, we will get nowhere. Look at what you just said:

What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the issue?

Every time you state your objections you should avoid "virtual blank" expressions like "the issue", "the discrepancy", etc. In a series of articles that would take the possible influences on intelligence one by one for examination there would be a place for examining whether there is any correlation between genetic heritage and intelligence. I think that must be what you mean by "the issue" -- either that or you have ignored my attempts to fill in some of these virtual blanks above. Assuming that I've got that part right, then your question becomes:

What about the point that there are valid non "race" or "genetics" ways of describing the question whether there is a link between race and intelligence?

So you want a "non-race" way of examining whether there is a correlation between race and intelligence?

Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe you're assuming that it does? You maybe want to deny that [race] determines [intelligence] by refusing to look at the fact that [race] correlates with [intelligence]. But even if you can prove that malnutrition limits intelligence, that brain trauma limits intelligence, etc., etc. (which shouldn't be any problem to do at all), that will not change the fact that [race] is correlated to [intelligence] if (after you've qualified things as carefully as I did above -- and I checked with a university biology professor to make sure I was making no beginner's mistakes) you get that kind of test results. Sure, your opponent says, all these things limit intelligence.

But here is what you should be looking at (and it's been pointed out by somebody before): It may be that the genetics of intelligence are fine and some intervening factor pertinent to one [race] mucks things up. It could be that Anglo type people reduce the intelligence of their children because they deprive them of some element of nurture. Perhaps Anglo types are so moralistic and legalistic about alchohol consumption that they absolutely never give kids any alcohol before their teens. Jewish people and Chinese people are more intelligent, not because of any genetic superiority but because both cultures are cool about letting even the little kids have a thimblefull of wine every once in a while. (Crazy example, but who knows, at least the part about wine consumption is true.) Or maybe some [races] need ten times as much of some trace mineral as other [races] in order to let the brain develope fully. The genetic potential is there, but they need the extra chromium and it's not in their diets. Once you notice that that [racial] group is not doing well on IQ tests you poke around, make your discovery, and start advising them to take chelated chromium pills. Suddenly IQ tests go up -- but only if you face facts.

Unless you actually look at the question of whether [race] correlates with [intelligence], and then look at the question of whether different genetic characteristics cause different levels of intelligence, you cannot fight those conclusions (which, I am sure you will agree, are already out there). It's like monster man comes on the scene and Batman says, "I won't fight you. I will go off and fight the numbers runner over there." P0M 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

You say face facts yet you perpetuate and repeat presumption inducing language, why? The fact is you and others choose to present this issue only in terms of "race" or "genetics" out of some political motivation when there are many other ways of presenting it. Even a random racist would seek a true scientific basis for their beliefs but you've gone way beyond that, you and others have perverted science and language into a racist economic caste system mass propaganda tool. You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world. You must literally want people to assume "race" is the cause for the "IQ" disparity without them ever truly thinking about it -- what else explains the endless repetition and errant framing of the issue exclusively in terms of "race" or "genetics"? This repetition combined with the improper framing is trying to appeal solely to third parties' "gut reaction" thoughts about this issue so they will assume "race" is the cause without them ever truly thinking about it. It is as if you and others want the world to be controlled by an artificial racist "IQ" based economic caste system, but Truth and justice will come soon.

To be clear, since you keep misinterpreting, I have never said we should eliminate the claims by "researchers" regarding "race" and "IQ", I have merely stated it is unscientific and woefully suspicious of you and others to deny all alternative causes or ways of describing the exact same issue a fair presentation. One of my biggest points all along has been that this issue is not being presented using facts, just presumption inducing language and framing -- how is that scientific? The supposed "race" vs "IQ" correlation is just one among many ways of arranging the exact same data, it is not a fact, certainly not a fact in the scientific conclusion sense. zen master T 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a response to the above? zen master T 1 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

ZM, please rephrase or edit to remove the personal attacks and hypotheses about motivation. It's not right for you to phrase things in this way. For my part, I have apologized to you without reservation for losing sight of the WP:NPA policy. I will be happy to respond to a rancor-free version. --DAD 1 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

The article is written with a presumption that race is involved with intelligence, and it then seeks to determine the truth of that proposition. That has led to an article which is fundamentally skewed and which goes beyond simply reporting about the controversy in an NPOV manner. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

The article is written based on the repeated findings that races differ in cognitive ability. In fact, its first sentence indicates that the article is not even aimed at the findings, but at the controversy itself:

Race and intelligence refers to the controversy surrounding the findings of many studies that racial groups show differences in average cognitive ability test scores...

No "presumption that race is involved in intelligence" is made. Instead, the article begins from repeatedly published observations from multiple studies involving tens of thousands of individuals which show an IQ gap (see also the 'IQ gap in the US' section). In the second sentence, the article acknowledges questions of fairness and even the motives of the scientists who have generated the research. The article then surveys arguments from a wide array of fields (psychometrics, moral philosophy, politics, organizational behavior, cultural studies) which seek explanations for the observed IQ gap, many of which (e.g. nutrition, culture) do not involve biological race. Substantial material also describes why the findings should be disregarded or denounced (e.g., the comparison of Arthur Jensen's goals to Hitler's, and the repeated questioning of what good can come of such research). These observations directly contradict your assertions.

I sense repeated confusion between the statement "races differ in average measured cognitive ability" and "race causes differences in average measured cognitive ability". This inference simply does not follow and the article never says any such thing. --DAD 1 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I have trouble with assertions like "the article is written with a presumption that..." because a) I know my own contributions were not written with that presumption, b) I'm certain that no one knows what all the contributors variously were presuming, and c) the assertion is not supported with any evidence (quotations from the article, citations) which might enable productive discussion. Again: Cite your sources. Assertions do not help. The opinion (Willmcw's) that the article is skewed is perfectly reasonable, but to repair the supposed skew, we must have specific things to fix. ZM, I understand that your concern is different, and I support the point of view that P0M articulated above. --DAD 1 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Very well said, P0M. Continuing your productive example, here's my revision of your paragraph:

Even though some U.S. racial groups show differences in average measured cognitive ability, racial ancestry itself may not influence cognitive ability. Genetic factors produce some racial traits; genetic factors are believed to influence measured cognitive ability. However, these two types of factors may be entirely distinct. Furthermore, genetic factors may guide but never fully determine any individual's realized ability, because other factors (such as culture, status and upbringing) pertaining to individuals or groups also influence cognitive development.

I have strengthened some of your language to reflect what is known, and aimed for simplicity and directness. --DAD 1 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

Justifying use of "IQ test"

I've attempted to address the central problem with the use of the term "IQ" in this article, which is that IQ is too specialized. The AFQT, for example, which has been endlessly mined for cognitive ability data, is not recognized as an IQ test, yet it's g-loaded and is a valid measure of cognitive ability. Generally, no cognitive ability score can be turned into an IQ score without loss. In my experience, "cognitive ability" or "general mental ability" is preferentially used in the literature. To compromise, since some people have expressed an affinity for IQ despite its shortcomings, I've indicated that IQ will be used in a general way to encompass all cognitive ability measures. --DAD 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Right. --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

STOP IT

Look, you guys (especially Patrick this time), I've told you to avoid personal remarks before. And just as Zen-master had made a really good statement summing up his criticisms of the article, you went right back to talking about him. That is NOT ALLOWED.

Stop playing innocent, stop pretending it's all the other guy's fault. Get back to discussing the ARTICLE and how to improve it.

Start by apologizing (unconditionally!) to each other for your personal remarks. Not here, I've locked the page; I'll look for the diffs on the D/P/Z talk pages.

There's enough bickering and squabbling in the academic and political realms about this matter. I won't allow that to spill over into this discussion. Not as long as I have the power to squelch it.

Think about the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, Drummond and Patrick. Page unlocked. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Relativism instead of science

The new compromised intro succeeds in:

1. defining this area of intelligence research as having produced no actual findings, only debates "in and out of academic circles,"
2. tying the area of research to conceptions of Nazi crimes, eugenics, and slavery,
3. giving the solutions to racial profiling: equal opportunity and affirmative action programs.

I don't think this is what was meant to be the end result, and this article should probably focus on being a science article, subject to the same standards as other science articles. This probably means focusing primarily on describing the area of scientific research, and doing so without advocating views, such as defining the findings of the area as being tied to Nazi eugenics practices. If you want to differentiate this article from being a science article, it could be moved to "Race and intelligence controversy" instead. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 2 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Agreed (by the way, your current intro is great, Nectar.) I would also very much like to remove the politics and mudslinging from this article. (Especially, the accusations of Nazism are completely backwards. Nazism included the belief that white gentiles were superior to Jews. That is the complete opposite of what Race and intelligence research has found. So identifying the scientific findings with Nazism is extremely misleading and helps nobody.) This article should make people more informed about what is known, instead of fanning the flames by perpetuating the debate's most uninformed myths. That being said, I would not be adverse to starting Controversy about race and intelligence: an article different from the current one (which is about science), that instead tries to give an overview of whatever emotional positions are rampant in the debate, with no lower threshold of stupidity. That is similar to us already having Evolution (which is about science), but also Creation-evolution controversy (which is about opinions).

On a more general note, I am not too happy about the drastic changes in the introduction that some of us are making. Note that this article has passed a VfD with flying colours, and Peer Review was happy as well. That is as strong consensus that this article was very, very good as one can ever hope to get, and from a large sample of WP editors. If such feedback isn't enough to keep this article stable, then I can think to no other procedure in WP that should ever stabilise any article. We were working very hard to get this article into featured shape after the VfD and Peer Review comments, and starting "from scratch" about very fundamental decisions about what this article should be about seems to go against consensus. One cannot just ignore the feedback of a large and unbiased sample of WP editors, in order to cater to the opinions of a small and biased sample that have gravitated to this page. Otherwise, I (and everybody else) could throw each and every WP article into utter chaos. Wiki won't work that way. Arbor 2 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

Agreed. I also like the present intro (and liked the one which passed VfD as well). Let me add a hearty exhortation for a focus on the science/results (I'm not proud of my recent edit to the intro, as I was unduly restrained in reversing the tide of "controversy first, science second" and too willing to include inflammatory political associations). I find the current article structure confusing given this goal; the central scientific question, as posed in the Intro, is culture-vs-genetics, yet the vast majority of the actual content related to this question is on Race and intelligence (Culture-only_or_partially-genetic_explanation), while the present page has more content on public policy than on the culture/genes data. The central scientific results (beginning in Average intelligence gaps among races) aren't addressed until after a discussion of racial legal equality (in Race in the United States) and noting that "many [researchers] have been described as racists" (in Moral criticism). Something is out of joint. I understand that length considerations led to the relocation, and I have voiced support for the Wikipedia:Summary style proposal; would anyone care to explain why we should continue to relegate the key science to a separate page? --DAD 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

As you observe, the current article has become strangely skewed by the refactoring into subpage of material that was central to it (and hence lengthy). Would it help to introduce Controversy about race and intelligence research or Race and intelligence (controversy) or something like that? This would enable us to forshorten (and hence defocus) some of these issues, and may also provide a useful outlet for less sober points of view than those presented on the present page? Arbor 2 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

I see the problem. Let's continue this discussion below with respect to using Wikipedia:Summary style as a fix. --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

More tweaks to new intro, and bit about a neglected political POV

Man, I like the current into (as of 09:46, 2 July 2005)! I have tried to click through its evolution over the past many edits -- thanks to everybody who contributed. Stellar work. The only thing I would want to tweak is the following passage:

Because intelligence appears to be of great practical significance in modern society, some scholars claim that elucidating the source and meaning of the IQ gap is a pressing social concern. Others fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or shun the research as unethical.

Could we reword "fear" or "shun the research" to something more neutral? It paints the owners of this POV as hypocritical. Also, maybe one could motivate the POV of that group, just as the first sentence motivates the opposing POV. I have tried to write that second sentence myself, but my prose isn't good enough for that. Here are some attempts:

1. Others are concerned that these results can be misused, or raise epistemological questions about its validity. (Not good because of epistemological, but it's exactly what I want to say.)
2. Because of the history of this line of research, many are concerned that these results can be used to further a racist agenda.

One reason to be opposed to the second explanation is that it is not balanced. For examle, I happen to think that cognitive differences between groups is a very strong argument for social democracy, so the research presented here is my own basis for a left-wing/high taxes/high social security argument. (And a pretty strong one, I believe.) We are ignoring that POV by only mentioning the utility of these results to further a racist political agenda. To make this clear, I could agitate for including the following paragraph:

Because the findings in race and intelligence research undermine the fundamental tenets and moral underpinnings of communism (i.e., that all men are created equal), of free market capitalism (i.e., that every man is responsible for his own happiness, and that laziness is the only reason for poverty), and of nazism (i.e., that jews are inferior to white gentiles), voices on all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to this line of inquiry. Only social democrats have developed a moral underpinning (see Rawls) that is compatible with the fact that humans differ in cognitive abilities.

See? Apart from being deliberately facetious, this is actually my political POV; the reason I am not pushing for something like this is that I don't want the current article to become more political. I am a scientist, this is a scientific subject, and needs a scientific article. Not politics. (Maybe we want an article about Politics of race and intelligence; I'll be happy to contribute.)

The gist of this is that I am a bit concerned about stating only one valid political POV on this article. (Namely, that people who are against racism sometimes also are against research into cognitive differences between races.) I would prefer to remove the political motivations completely, and focus on epistemological questions. Arbor 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Rationale for recent changes

• There is no nothing approaching consensus on whether IQ is an objective measure of intelligence, so that is why I changed the title to Race and IQ. Though my other title criticisms as far as the issue errantly being framed only one way still apply (see above and in the archive).
• I cleaned up suspicious, repeated out of place emphasis in the "Background information" section. Can someone explain that, what use did it serve?
• I cleaned up the wording of the intro for the sake of clarity. The pro "correlation equals a conclusion" people can add to it or dispute my changes if they want. I am still trying to figure out what the correlation study authors have come up with, seems to me they have only, repeatedly, described a correlation, and have not, and don't seem to be working toward, trying to find an actual cause for the correlation (description of a correlation does not equal causation for that correlation).

Comments? zen master T 30 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)

Zen, you cannot do this. We have debated the title at length over the last few weeks. The article has been through a VfD. There was nothing even approaching consensus for renaming, changing, or moving this article to Race and IQ. You are POV-pushing and violating WP etiquette. It is difficult to view this as an act of good faith, and I will revert you.

To reiterate the main reason to oppose the name change: the article is not only about IQ. It is also about SAT, g, brain size, and reaction time. Race and IQ is a misleading title. Arbor 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Huh? All the other correlations are even more dubious. "IQ" is less misleading as a title than an unscientifically conclusive correlation with "intelligence". How can certain "races" have good "reaction time" in sports yet not when it comes to intelligence? That does not make sense, this article is one giant racist propaganda machine. There is no consensus for what you are saying, the title and article should reflect where the lack of consensus begins which is exactly the changes I made. How do you explain the emphasis all over the history section? Can you please restore exactly the changes that you do consider "good"? If you don't explain the full revert then I will revert. zen master T 30 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zen, but you are breaking Wikiquette, not me. We have discussed this article at length here, and in the VfD. To make a substantial change (like moving the article's title and making it be only about IQ, not about other measures of intelligence) you need consensus among Wikipedia editors. You don't have that. Quite the contrary, actually. So you are out of line, from an administrative point of view. Lacking consensus for a major change, the status quo is to be maintained. That's how we do it here.

You are also wrong about your repeated allegations of us being unscientific. There is a scientific journal (peer-reviewed) called Intelligence. It is not called “Intelligence” (in quotes) not IQ nor Intelligence measures nor anything like that. It's called Intelligence. That is the term used by the scientific community to discuss the topics pertaining to this article. (Studies of Race and IQ are a subfield of this line of inquiry.) You may not like that. You may think it's misguided, racist, stupid, inflammatory, and whatnot. But it is strictly scientific. (Again, I urge you to have a look at Mainstream science on intelligence or the APA report.) So please stop labelling our endeavors as unscientific. Indeed, it would be welcome if you yourself increased the level of scientific reliability in your contributions. So far, you have posted web pages. Stop doing that, and refer us to peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict what is said in this article, preferably some that are not already mentioned here. Your scientific method so far has been google. The rest of the editors use peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.

As to your changes, some of them I quite liked and I will be happy to put them back (you write good prose, and some of the bumpier passages improved from your attention). But the majority were either heavily POV, or simply bad Wikipedia style. For example, you removed a lot of wikilinks and boldface on title terms. You also boldly removed a few paragraphs whose removal you must have assumed were controversial. You need to take these things up in talk first. Arbor 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Amen. ZM, build consensus. We're literally in the middle of discussing possible changes to the intro here; your etiquette violation is quite astonishing. Propose the changes here, and let's discuss. You will not be able to remake a relatively stable community-edited article in your own image overnight. Arbor's reaction is perfectly justified. --DAD 30 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)

If it is your own, personal POV that race and intelligence are unrelated then:

1. You are welcome to say so, here, on the talk page. We will all take note of your opinion.
2. You may not mention your opinion in the article, either as I Zen-master believe this or Wikipedia says so
3. You might be able to find a published source which sees the matter from the same POV. In which case, please make sure that this POV is in the article, properly sourced. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:08 (UTC)

But you may not change an article title to make it seem as if Wikipedia endorses or condemns a particular point of view. You said something like race and intelligince are unrelated and so you changed the title of the article to race and IQ. Is that correct? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:11 (UTC)

I am not saying what you claim. The issue isn't about my "POV" of thinking that "race" and "IQ" are "unrelated" as you misdirect, the issue is the non neutral and unscientific presentation of this subject. The problems with this article are beyond POV, only one way of describing the issue is being allowed, why? That does not follow the scientific method. If your or the article's goal is to prove some "races" are inherently less "intelligent" you have failed miserably given the fact that the language trickery and lack of scientific method employed by you and the article taints any conclusions or assumed conclusions. "Peer reviewed journals" doesn't mean much if "researchers" and people such as yourself ignore valid criticisms, especially when the criticisms are pointing out how the issue is unscientifically framed. zen master T 30 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)

That's not my goal at all. If you'll check out my contribs you'll see what I've been doing. The three main POVs are (1) race determines intelligence, (2) environment determines intelligence, (3) no one knows what determines intelligence. If you think I'm pushing one of these, I couldn't begin to think why. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Ed, I need to cut in here. That's simply not what the main POVs are. No paper I have ever seen on this topic even comes close to claiming (1). I understand that your description above is well-intentioned, but you are simply wrong. If you want to give a simplified explanation at all, there are 2 POVs: (1) this topic is a non-topic (e.g., because it's taboo, or a linguistic trick, or dangerous, or neither of the terms race or intelligence is meaningful) (2) the question is meaningful, and there is a corellation between race and intelligence. The first POV is seen in the public debate (for example, The Mismeasure of Man is the best-known exposition). The second POV is consensus in the scientific community (for example, see the APA report or Mainstream science on intelligence, both of which attempt to give laymen an overview of what "science thinks"). The 2nd POV can be subdivided into two: (2a) the correlation is caused entirely by environmental factors, and (2b) the correlation is not entirely caused by environmental factors. I hope this helps. To repeat: absolutely nobody in the scholarly debate would ever postulate the completely ridiculous idea that race determines intelligence. (But there may be a correlation.) Arbor 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)

On the IQ vs. other measures point, what's your (ZM) citation for "dubious" correlations between other measures? In particular, I'm thinking of g, where work on Spearman's hypothesis has quite reliably shown a positive correlation between g loading of a test and the degree of black-white score disparity. This work is treated (and cited) on Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation). This work is crucial as g is the most widely accepted measure of cognitive ability (see the APA report) and would be discounted by the title "Race and IQ". Moreover, "...[the ability to deal with cognitive complexity] coincides well with lay perceptions of intelligence. The g factor is especially important in just the kind of behaviors that people usually associate with 'smarts'..." "The g factor is also the one attribute that best distinguishes among persons considered gifted, average or retarded." (Gottfredson 1998). To summarize the dominant scholarly view, g measures what people seem to mean by intelligence, and measures it well.

Finally, given your preoccupation with language abuses, please don't use "dubious" to describe correlations. Do you mean "statistically insignificant"? If so, please re-read the literature. Do you mean "small"? If so, please provide examples (preferably from the literature) to help the reader calibrate. Do you mean "unreliable"? Then report the conflicting results. --DAD 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

The fact that correlation "researchers" have repeatedly focused on just one way of looking at the issue taints the analysis and all inferred conclusions and is therefore dubious. G theory seems like a way of further misdirecting the issue. The controversy begins before interpreting the difference. Are IQ tests an objective measure of intelligence? Why only focus on one bit of data warehouse type information about the test taker? Why isn't nutrition/environment given a scientific chance at being presented neutrally? zen master T 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Correlation between race and "IQ"

I found this after only a few seconds of googling:

The research on IQ and race by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve) and others have not found any significant correlations between race and intelligence. They have found correlations between race and IQ, which has been used to support the notion that some races are inferior to others. [3]

Is this what you're referring to, Zen-master? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

I think most of the editors here know the skepdic passage by heart. I am personally a member of the Skeptic society, and find the entry completely unacceptable. It was, however, among the first things I learned about the subject, so it has been very influential. Afterwards, I started to read less biased accounts, actually examining the data, and had to change my mind. So please read at least the "reader comments" section after the skepdic entry; to see that this is a hotly debated issue even among skeptics, and this entry is subject to a lot of scorn. Also, one of the editors of the Skeptic society's magazine (Frank Miele) has written at length about this subject, including a very good and lengthy interview with Jensen in book form. I repeat that google really isn't the most powerful form of scientific inquiry known to mankind, and if you want to read up about the subject (which I would heartily invite you to), start with Rushton and Jensen (2005), which you can download. There you can find a very comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed, scholarly works that establish a correlation between Race and XYZ for lots of XYZ other than IQ, all related to whatever fuzzy concept of intelligence one might subscribe to. (Of course, instead of going to Rushton and Jensen, you could also just trust your own Wikipedia editors and read the current article instead. It's less convincing, because we aim for NPOV, but it's very well referenced.) Arbor 30 June 2005 15:36 (UTC)

I'll go a bit further. The statement you have found by Googling is false; see above and, in particular, the Spearman's hypothesis work on race and g referenced in Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation). Another poster child for why we need primary sources, not Web opinions. --DAD 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

I didn't say the statement was true. But I mention it because it seems to resonate with a repeated comment by ZM.

Nor did I imply that you believed the statement. Only saying that it's demonstrably false. As such, given that several of us continue to agitate for primary sources, it adds little. We have N references from websites supporting ZM, but precious few primary research articles. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a considerable controversy over the correlation between skin color or race, and scores on IQ tests. So I have started a new article on race and IQ.

I hope Wikipedia's series of articles on human intelligence will cover the broad scope of academic and social views.

No argument here. I hope that the reader will not be confused as to which is which. As a population geneticist, I'm (obviously) appalled at the degree to which unsubstantiated claims and ludicrous mudslinging (e.g. the quote comparing Jensen's [supposed, unstated] goals to those of Hitler), counterfactual statements (e.g. "The research...has found no significant correlation between race and intelligence"), and outright falsehoods (e.g., that the APA denounced The Bell Curve as fraudulent) are mixed together with data from top journals. My view is that there should be a clear distinction between the science, the academic criticism, and the lay debate, which bears almost no relation to the expert debate. --DAD 30 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)

And I'd still like to hear from Z. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

What is wrong with NPOV intro?

The citations on this talk page prove the methods and results of intelligence research studies are very much in dispute, why won't some users allow acknowledgement of this in the intro? Also, why does the second paragraph repeatedly mention "racial categorization" or "genetics" while describing the environmental possibility? What specifically is wrong with this suggested intro: [4] zen master T 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Zen master, please read the Mainstream science on intelligence statement to verify the statements made in the article. Most of this article was written by professional scientists working in related fields.

The second paragraph explains it is about "the question of whether group differences in average intelligence are caused only by environmental factors [...] or whether there is also a genetic component."

An example of what is undesireable in the suggested intro is that it attempts to replace the definition of "school achievement, reaction time, and brain size" from the definition "related variables," to the definition "data," which obfuscates that there is a relationship between school achievement etc. and intelligence.--Nectarflowed ^T 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

The second paragraph mentioned racial categorization because the area of research compares racial groups, in order to attempt to identify the many causes that act differently on racial groups. --Nectarflowed ^T 2 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

The second paragraph (and the entire article) was not constructed with NPOV in mind and is very unclear on its own. Why don't you want to state it simply as "environment and/or genetics is the cause"? If environmental factors are the cause then it would be wrong to classify the issue as a "racial disparity"? zen master T 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

If environmental factors are the cause, there is still a racial IQ disparity, just as there is a socioeconomic IQ disparity. The disparity, even if not deriving from genetic racial factors, refers to a difference in average IQ. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

If there is a socioeconomic disparity, as you say here on the talk page, why can't the issue ever be described that way inside the article? "Race" and "IQ" are just two among numerous pairs of descriptive terms that can describe the exact same data correlation, "wealth" and "nutrition" are another. zen master T 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Because this topic compares the intelligence of races. Saying the disparity is racial doesn't mean the cause is intrinsic to the races, as opposed to extrinsic (environmental), it only means the end result is a disparity between races. Why compare races in the first place is another question. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

"...it would be wrong to classify the issue as...": "The issue" has no clear antecedent (cf. P0M's comment on "virtual blanks"), so it's not clear what issue is meant. Kindly state what "the issue" refers to. It would be very helpful to have a single sentence starting with "The issue is..." I think much tooth-gnashing above can be attributed to not knowing exactly what each contributor believes the issue is. For my own part, the issue is understanding the degree and source of racial IQ disparities. --DAD 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

The issue is abstract, until a scientific cause or group of causes is determined with consensus only describing it one way or using one set of terms is misleading. Becase there is disagreement and because there is no scientific consensus the issue is best described as a "data correlation" with multiple sets of descriptive terms. Why does someone keep creating a new talk page section below and immediately after ones that I create, seems like another method of misdirecting away from a real discussion of the core issues? zen master T 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. You feel that to pose the question, "Why is there racial disparity in mean IQ?" is misleading? And that no question can be posed until a consensus cause is determined? --DAD ^T 2 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

That question can be posed as long as it is one of many/all questions/scientific hypotheses since there are many ways of thinking about this issue or pairs of descriptive terms that describe the exact same data correlation. If a graph of "race" vs "IQ" data shows the same curve as a graph of "wealth" vs "nutrition" data then isn't the correlation abstract and doesn't that prove there is more than one way of looking at the issue? Just because an entire industry exists around looking at data only one way doesn't mean it is scientific or neutral to do so, nor does it mean you can ignore a lack of consensus in the wider community. zen master T 2 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Okay. Your first sentence equates two concepts (through '/'): a question, and a scientific hypothesis. In science, these are distinct: a question poses the problem to be solved, and a hypothesis proposes a solution. The question does not presuppose any hypothesis. Does that make sense? --DAD ^T 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

When the issue is exclusively framed in terms of "race" it does hint that as the cause. "Wealth" vs "nutrition" is a just as valid way of looking at and describing the exact same issue. zen master T 3 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

So in your view, asking what causes racial IQ disparities implies that race does, thus disqualifying the question from consideration on its own, independent of the hypotheses under consideration. Do I have that right? --DAD ^T 3 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)

More or less yes. Describing the issue exclusively in terms of "race" is, best case, needlessly ambiguous given the fact that intelligence "researchers" argue that race is the cause. Worst case, repetition is intentionally used to exploit the language confusion to trick the mind into assuming "race" is the cause unscientifically. For the sake of both clarity and the scientific method, description of an issue must be disassociated from possible explanations at a language usage level. Conclusions should be based on facts, not on presumption inducing language or method of presentation. zen master T

Okay. I understand your point of view. Thanks for your patience. --DAD ^T 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Following our conversation, ZM, I have tried to find journal-published citations for your point of view in peer-reviewed literature. I have failed. As you know, it is crucial that the view you are expressing not simply be your own POV: to the extent that your own POV reflects a seemingly logical but novel argument, it is original research, and to the extent that your POV is only yours or is shared by only a few people, it does not belong on WP (see WP:NPOV, the third point from Jimbo in the What is the neutral point of view? section).

Kindly provide citation support for the view that "asking what causes racial IQ disparities implies that race does, thus disqualifying the question from consideration on its own, independent of the hypotheses under consideration" (since you have agreed that the quoted sentence more or less reflects your view). I humbly request that you differentiate between Web sources and primary literature, though both are welcome. Given the sensitivity of the discussion, it would be particularly helpful if you would provide direct quotes of relevant source material. Best regards, --DAD ^T 3 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Most criticisms of the movement are fundamental to the way "intelligence researchers" may be abusing science by using presumption inducing language, see the citations listed above or see scientific racism or see [5]. Though I have never advocated the exclusion of considering "race" vs "IQ", but that does not mean it gets to have its very own article (would be non neutral to ignore the other ways of looking at the issue). zen master T 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Bear with me; I've now re-scrutinized your primary references. Summary: I disagree that they substantiate your positions that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research, that racial disparity in IQ cannot be treated as a standalone subject no matter what hypotheses are advanced, and that these positions reflect anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs. Moreover, most of these references do not meet WP standards. Here are the references:

• "The New Racist Onslaught: Intellectual tricks can always fool those receptive to racism" [6]. This is a review or commentary.

I can find no statement in this source to substantiate the position that inquiring about racial IQ disparity a) presupposes a cause, or b) is untenable no matter what hypotheses are advanced. It uses The Mismeasure of Man almost exclusively as the basis for its argument. This reference is an article in Z Magazine, a non-peer-reviewed magazine which is openly radical [7]:

While we do our best to reach as wide an audience as possible, we think we a lot more people could use our radical message of activism and alternatives. [emphasis mine]

I conclude that this reference does not support your specific position, and that the reference itself does not reflect either a scientific or a mainstream viewpoint. Speaking candidly, the reference appears to be a pure screed, with accusations of racism appearing every few sentences for its entire length. It is intensely inflammatory and in no way meets WP standards for NPOV.

• "Resurrecting Racism: The current attack on black people using phony science" [8]. This article claims, "The antidote to racist pseudoscience is...science".

The article explicitly recognizes the priority of scientific findings. The general thrust of the article is that 1) races do not exist, and 2) IQ is a fraud. Despite its claim to address pseudoscience with science, the article does not expose controversy in the scientific community; instead, it is almost entirely Gil-White's arguments. The only quoted passage is that "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of...'race'"; this is an unsubstantiated claim about the motivations of researchers which, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of scientific findings.

The source of the article is, like the previous reference, a non-peer-reviewed online magazine with an activist bent:

Emperor's Clothes is unusual. Our "mission purpose" is the exposure of lies, especially media lies, but also the lies of would-be leaders, including those who claim to be opposing Establishment policies. We tell the truth as we see it even when telling the truth contradicts preconceptions, even the preconceptions of our readers or ourselves. In this age of super-conformity we refuse to subject our views to political correctness as defined by *any* camp.

I conclude that the reference provides rhetorical support for the claim that IQ is a fraud and that race is, too. However, the reference does not even approximate scientific criticism (peer review, exposed analytical techniques). It is far beneath WP standards for a reference.

• "A Review of the Bell Curve: Bad Science Makes for Bad Conclusions" [9]. This is a book review of a non-scientific work.

The review raises questions about The Bell Curve either through argument or by referencing other works. Again, it clearly does not reflect mainstream science (and shows dubious editorial control):

For over 15 fourchy years, Go Inside Magazine has served as your premier, unbiased, independent, international, resource for information: We Are Everywhere, We Are Jederman. We refuse all advertising. None of us are paid. We are owned by no one. We are purposefully as plain text as possible to support the widest range of readers. If you need blunt, insightful and ringing commentary on the world at large, then you need to Go Inside or get left behind![10]

• "Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race" [11]. This is a critique of media coverage of The Bell Curve.

The review has almost nothing to add to the scholarly debate; significant space, for example, explores the Pioneer Fund and its funding of various researchers. In particular, I can find no support for the claim that racial disparity in IQ can only be treated in the context of all other IQ disparities.

Overall, despite the context in which they were provided, these references provide little or no support for the POVs being advanced (that racial disparity in IQ cannot be addressed as a standalone question, no matter what hypotheses are considered; that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research; and that these positions are anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs -- or simply your views alone).

Moreover, these references offer no new material to the scientific debate. They are never peer-reviewed and make no claim to be works of science, even as they recruit various scientific findings to their cause. Most often, these references act as tertiary sources which quote secondary sources (The Bell Curve, The Mismeasure of Man). They show no evidence of awareness of the scientific debate's current state as reflected in scientific journals.

Finally, these references are virulently POV and openly embrace their non-mainstream status as their self-descriptions show. Wikipedia can do much better. Look to the reference list in the actual article for an alternative.

Editorially speaking, the posts containing and referring to these online-magazine sources reflect a deep confusion between 1) controversy within mainstream science and 2) controversy surrounding mainstream science. The controversy within science is notably mild, such as Dolan's critique of Jensen's use of correlated vectors. The controversy surrounding the science is notably shrill and has little to say about the state of the art (see all your above references).

ZM, kindly provide some better references than book reviews, screeds and opinion pieces. Best, --DAD ^T 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether "race" vs "IQ" can be a standalone question, the issue is whether to do so would be neutral and scientific. Being unscientifically selective in how an issue is framed taints any implied conclusions zen master T 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I'm simply saying that your posts fail to provide any support for that view. Let's be really clear -- this is your POV:

Being unscientifically selective in how an issue is framed taints any implied conclusions and the method of presentation can not then be considered neutral.

Seems logical. What a great new idea! But you have not provided any support for this original notion. Meanwhile, scientific papers continue to specifically address race/IQ disparity in just the way you claim is unscientific. For example, here is the first sentence of the abstract of Cochran et al. 2005:

We develop the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence.

Apparently, the reviewers and editors of the Journal of Biosocial Science do not subscribe to your highly original idea of what is "scientific". Rushton and Skuy (2004) begin their abstract:

We test the hypothesis that the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices has the same construct validity in African university students as it does in non-African students...

The International Journal of Selection and Assessment also clearly does not subscribe to your unique and special idea of what is "scientific". Hausdorf et al. (2003) study "adverse impact", the finding that minorities score lower on valid cognitive tests used for job selection. They write,

This study assessed two cognitive ability tests (one with verbal, numeric and spatial subtests - the General Aptitude Test Battery and the other predominantly spatial - the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices) as selection tools for police constable applicants with a specific focus on adverse impact. [emphasis mine]

It appears that Applied Human Resources Management Research does not agree with your novel conception of what is "scientific". In fact, I can't find any actual scientist who shares your fascinating new belief. The burden is upon you to produce them: WP:NOR --DAD ^T 4 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

The citations are reputable and numerous, there is even an entire scientific racism article which is very relevant here. It doesn't take a scientist to see that politically motivated "researchers" are using unsound methods. Scientists still have to present the issue using the scientific method. How do you justify the presumption inducing language and method of presentation for the subject? zen master T 4 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Saying your sources are reputable don't make it so, ZM. Peer-review would help! Accusing the researchers of political motivations is a serious charge; I'm sure you can back it up for each one, since of course a blanket statement is beneath you. Please read up on scientific method and indicate what tenet is being violated. Also, kindly provide some evidence, other than your own perspicuity (of course), that the language used in the quotes I just gave is 'presumption-inducing'. Seems like another great new idea! --DAD ^T 4 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Controversial science topics

As Rikurzhen and Arbor and maybe others have pointed out, there are precedents on Wikipedia for dealing with controversial science topics.

Note that the intro of Evolution doesn't refer to it as a "controversial theory," even though only 12% of the US population actually believes in it [I haven't seen stats for other countries]. Evolution doesn't link to eugenics, even though eugenicists drew heavily from it.

Note that at Stem cells, embryonic stem cell research is always spoken of first as an area of science. --Nectarflowed ^T 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Do we need arbitration?

Zen-master, let your questions be answered on the talk page. An edit-war is a counter-productive way to further your argument and may make people less interested in what you have to say. It may also lead to you being the subject of an arbitration comittee. Just talk about your concerns here. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Oops, Zen-master and I each reverted 4 times today. My apologies. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

I accept arbitration or mediation though I wonder just how many sock puppets and like minded errant language/presentation POV pushers exist on Wikipedia. Conclusions should be based on facts, not on presumption inducing language. zen master T 3 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Was that a fifth reversion after you were already warned?--Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Anybody else is free to revert, though I won't, as I already have multiple times today.

The request for arbitration is viewable here. I've never had to do an RFA before, but I think I've done everything right. --Nectarflowed ^T 3 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

A new view?

Hi, a new observer here. It's possible that I'm going to rehash some previous discussion, but I'm going to take that risk, because this article remains fundamentally, deeply flawed.

The vast majority of content and citations in this article discuss the subject from a psychological viewpoint. Here, "intelligence" is described in the terminology preferred by that field; IQ, g, and the like. The problem is, psychology does not have a monopoly on these issues. Even staying within the academy, other fields and literatures including - but not limited to - anthropology, sociology, philosophy, education and history have had much to say about ideas of intelligence and race. These concerns are briefly mentioned in the "background information" section, but only in passing, but then are followed by the critical paragraph:

The debates described in the following article assume that cognitive ability tests measure some interesting aspect of intelligence, and that some interesting information may be gained by studying racial group differences. For a critique of these assumptions, please see the previously mentioned articles.

Here, we're barely one screenfull into a long article about a complex, contentious issue, and we've already cast away fundamental questions about its entire framework by briefly mentioning them and then relegating them to linked articles. Potential questions about the entire epistemology used by the studies described later in the article are separated out, and shortchanged in terms of the overall volume of content as well.

In fact, though, the game really was up even sooner. As others have noted, that graph at the top of the article makes the argument before we even start reading. Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity, couched in the quantitative language of science.

All this is related to a broader issue; Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. While I have respect for both the scientific method and for peer review, and have experience with both, they are not guarantees of truth, only two useful indicators of credibility. Almost any contemporary historian or philosopher of science will tell you the myriad ways that science has established itself as an arbiter of the one true answer, from framing the debate, to shutting out voices from outside of science. I'm afraid I've seen examples of both on this talk page.

Finally, a concrete suggestion. I'd suggest that those who are most closely involved here aggressively seek out input from far more people. I see that there was an RFC a while back - that's good, but it was a while ago and things are still contentious. Do we think it's okay to rewrite the synopsis on that page, make it snappy and fun, and move it to the top of the list? It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, Talk:Race and similar requesting comments from interested people as well. I'm not going to do either of these things right now, as I haven't been here long, but maybe someone else will? Further, if some new folks turn up, maybe those who have been butting heads would like to take a break for a bit? CDC (talk) 4 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Re:"Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity..."

Thanks for the interesting feedback, Cdc. The correlation itself between racial groups and performance on cognitive tests isn't controversial in the field. The language used in the article is specific and doesn't denote presumption of genetic contribution to the correlation.

Re:"It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, Talk:Race and similar requesting comments from interested people as well."

I think the last thing we need in order to continue work on this article is the involvement of people who don't have expertise or substantial experience in intelligence research. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

This article covers an existing massive body of knowledge centered on results in psychometrics. Without those results, there is no article, and thus it is proper that the center of gravity is the science. It is quite clear from the literature, both inside and outside psychometrics, that the main players, the main results, and the main criticisms are well-known; hence an encyclopedia entry is warranted. I'm highly skeptical that some major contribution has been missed, though certainly I welcome important additions. I agree with Nectar that contributions from those with little experience in the field (who, in my experience, tend to discount firmly supported science and embrace vituperative controversy) are not what is needed.

The epistemological problems you mention seem to refer to race and intelligence, not their specific conjunction. While I respect the claim that science has established itself as an arbiter of truth (though I would say, instead, that people searching for a useful, successful method to explain the world have tried virtually everything and science has left the alternatives in the dust), the implication that non-scientific criticisms of science should be allowed to selectively target subjects which are found to be distasteful does not follow. In other words, a justification for "Why this subject?" seems in order. I'd feel better if some other, less-contentious subject had received the non-science treatment first, so that we could all evaluate what value, if any, such a treatment would add here.

Finally, you haven't actually suggested anything concrete. It would help, rather than making normative statements, to simply say what you'd like to add, and we can discuss it. --DAD ^T 4 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

CDC, thanks for your input. As you anticipated, we have been through similar debates many times, so forgive us if your response may a bit more curt than you well-intentioned suggestions deserve. We all appreciate the attention of rational and skeptical editors, so please do stick around and help. Please note that we have been through a very long debate with user Zenmaster during the last few weeks, see archives 8 and 9 without much result. This was right after we had received valuable input from VfD and Peer Review, when many of us were busy applying some final spit and polish to this article. We are very much following the good suggestions from the normal WP processes about how this article could be further improved. As an example, the picture you see illustrating the article (with the overlapping bell curves) was a result of those suggestions. It is slightly frustrating to, after following WP suggestions and improve the article according to Peer Review suggestions, to have the result questioned anew by new editors. I am saying this not so much to denigrate your suggestion, as to explain our somewhat exhausted response. Please take this the right way. We are trying to turn this into an exemplary WP article. (I came here because verifiability is an important topic for me, and this article was the best WP article I have ever seen in that respect. It's a model of accountability, which is why I obsess over footnotes and references so much. I hope other articles can become as useful. As you can see from the VfD comments, a lot of other WP editors agree, and we ought to take that as very strong evidence for keeping this article stable. Otherwise I cannot see how WP should ever work.)

As to your suggestion of aggressively hunting opposing views, you are right, and I have tried. Especially, I have tried to contact each and every editor who expressed criticisms about this page on VfD, typically by leaving messages on their talk pages. Some of them were good enough to help us. If you read Archive 9, you will find heroic attempt by half a dozen editors to understand the concerns of Zenmaster and turn them into contributions. But it's hard. Rest assured that the dozen or so editors on this page have more than enough things they disagree about. But since the debate here has reached an extremely high level of accountability (by requiring primary sources, not opinionated web pages), this may all seem like science-cruft to the outsider. If you want to help, why not dig out the reference for the Catholic/Protestant IQ gap of 15 that it perpetuating the Internet? (Read the section of missing references above)? That would improve the article a lot, by giving strong credence to the "environment only" POV.

One more comment: this is not a "psychology only" article. We cover issues from social sciences, genetics, biology, nutrition, medicine, neuroscience, environmental studies, education, etc. And there are bits about history of science, theory of science, politics, moral philosophy. That being said, I am becoming increasingly convinced that we need Controversy about race and intelligence research, to give more focus to the latter topics instead of the hard sciences. (This is similar to what WP does on evolution: one article for the science, another for the controversy about studying this question in the first place.) If you are up to it, you can start it right now. Otherwise I promise to do that myself as soon as this article is fit to be submitted to featured article.

I hope you can help, either there or here. And I hope you stick around and keep a keen eye on this page. Arbor 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Re Arbor: "I am becoming increasingly convinced that we need Controversy about race and intelligence research."

Debates by non-scientists in this area are a nightmare of myths and misconceptions. I think starting a non-science article on this topic is an invitation for the airing of such misconceptions. Why would we need it when this article already deals with the established facts? The two articles that were recently spun off of the debates here, IQ test controversy and Race and IQ, were just opportunities for editors to, as well-intentioned as they were, bypass the rigor enforced on this page.--Nectarflowed ^T 4 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

I disagree, Nectar. There is notably a vast controversy that merits an encyclopedia article. My only concern is that, similar to Evolution, that the science can be described accurately in its own space and under the main heading, and that scientific and non-scientific controversies not be allowed to cross-contaminate. Right now everything is blended together, making it impossible to tell which is which, and it serves the reader poorly. --DAD ^T 4 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

I would suggest that Race and intelligence (History) might be a good frame in which to discuss the controversy... because (1) we currently have a history section in this article, which could be main-article/branced for futher detail; (2) SJ Gould's descriptions of the controversy from the 1981 book MMoM is largely historical; (3) The public opinion is directly linked with the history of these ideas; and (4) I don't know enough about the history of this topic and I think it would be really cool to have more info on it ;). --Rikurzhen July 4, 2005 20:16 (UTC)