Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Genetic Tests Still In Its Infancy Stage

The debate whether race is linked to intelligence is a primitive debate due to the fact that we do not have a genetic brain blueprint based on race. Without an actual brain blueprint based on genetics people will only base all arguments on flawed tests. Any type of test is flawed until we can understand the brain first. The brain size assumption is silly due to the fact that it has no scientific basis other then flawed tests. I mean we all know that the brain is a mechanical process and that size does not matter in terms of performance when it comes to size in most mechanical devices or processes. For instance the first hard drive was the size of two refrigerators, weighed a ton, and had a vast 5MB capacity.

At present time we have the memory pro duo which is the size of a thumb nail that has a 32GB theoretical maximum capacity. To make one GB with the first HDD technology it would take a lot of space, it would weigh 200 tons, and would not even come close to the pro duo's storage capacity. Einstein's brain was actually 10% smaller then the average brain. If brain size is the reason why people are intelligent then why was Einstein's brain smaller and more intelligent then the average brain? Size must not matter if brains can be smaller and more intelligent. Also, there is a man with half a brain. His name is Ahad Israfil and you can find him on the wiki.

This man with only half a brain obtained a college degree. Which many people from all races have failed to accomplish. (on a side note his entire right hemisphere was destroyed and the doctor said that his brain created its own right hemisphere from the left hemisphere on its own) You must also take into consideration that many people do not like tests. This could lead to people giving many false answers to end the test quickly. Also people may not be serious about the test, or their mind was elsewhere. That sort of thing. This being said, all tests, opinions or theories on race and intelligence are only based on logical opinion, not scientific fact. This article is based on speculations which are impossible to verify with modern technology. Which questions this persons motivation for making this article. Jon Oct. 17, 2006

The tendency to correlate brain size with mental abillities is an old one, and inperically obsulete. For example, brain sizes also differ somewhat between males and females.During the early 20th century, those differences were still often referred to in order to stamp females as mentally inferior, to suggests that this group is best suited with gender role stereotypical (officially unsophisticated) tasks, rather higher education in the sciences or even powerful professional positions. Thanks to actually scientific reserach, we know now that such differences in brain size do not result in any differences in IQ, because the larger brain does not necesarrily function better or faster than the smaller one. In fact, only specific neurological dammage that may result from birth trauma or other injuries that compromise crucial processing areas are severe enough to result in IQ differences.

The diffrences in IQ scores that are actually commonly observed between black and white individuals IQ scores are therefore by no means caused by differences in brain size. Instead it is well known that they are often a result of test bias. For example many test items that assess crystalized intelligence mostly ask for factual knowledge, wheresas designing a test with such factual knowledge items is prone to the bias of the test designer. After all, what a test designer of the dominating group may think is common factual knowledge may be only applicable for his group. A minority group member may not have had the opportunity to be exposed to the white man's items of factual knowledge. After all, IQ tests may be able to somewhat identify moderately to severely retarded , as well as highly gifted individuals in both groups. However, the scores that fall into the range between normal low, average and high IQ scores should be looked at carefully, as IQ testing in this score range appears to mostly assess the degree to which an individual is mainstream americanized, rather providing factual information of one's actual mental abillities. anothr factor that had been identified as having an impact on measurable intelligence is SES (socioecconomic status). Poverty and upbringing in an underpriviledged environment accounts significanly to lower IQ scores. Race and class are strongly correlated. Factors, such as Jim Crow Law and not being able to get a morgage loan prior to the 1970 strongly contributed a lack of black capital. African Americans are most severly marked by low SES. Consequently, the IQ scores of many black individuals may not only be confounded by the above mentioned biased framing of many test items, but also by low SES. Those are two of a number of strong factors that contribute to differences in IQ scores between both groups. Both factors (as well as all additional ones with empirical merit) are in essence sociological, whereas no genetic/biological explanation is on the market. Instead, just like with probably all related genetic race issues: the differences that exist among all individuals within both groups are larger than the differences that exist between both groups in general, which proves once more, that scientifically race does not exist. J.Canada

Brain Size Fallacy

- The main correlation with brain size in a species as homogeneous as modern humans is height/size, because of this the average black/white brain is certainly much larger than then the average Asian brain (not proportionally, but in absolute terms!).

Wrong, Asians have a larger absolute brainsize than Africans.
Please cite your sources.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- The methods Rushton uses to obtain brains are far from contemporary standards for neuroscience. A report of five black Civil War soldiers from 1865 is given the same weight as a 1934 study of over 300 dead Kenyans. - That is a 69 year difference, and the individuals are from different continents; this not to mention the shear age of the brains in question.

There's been more than enough research in this area.
And the research has been mostly inconclusive to determine whether any "racial" order exists for brain size.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- Rushton (1990a, 1990c, 1991) also misrepresents the evidence for racial differences in brain/body size ratio. For example, Herskovits's (1930) data suggest that there is no consistent Black/ White difference with respect to stature or crania.

That's a rather old study.
Then, please consider Beals et al., 1984 who studied over 10,000 skulls and found no racial ordering whatsoever.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- There is not one properly controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature (Douglas Wahlsten, Genetics of Brain Development and Behavior, at the University of Alberta) .

That's a rather conclusive statement. Till such a study is carried out we'll have to do with the current data however.

- The explanatory power of Rushton's model is effectively zero. (Douglas Wahlsten, University of Alberta)

Other people disagree.
And a whole lot of people agree.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- Weizmann et al. (1990) have documented numerous instances in which Rushton completely misrepresents work that he cites without giving the reader any sense of the problems recognized even by the original investigators or the cautions and reservations they express.

Such as?
The findings of Cavalli-Sforza on the genetics of race, the findings of Beals et al on skull measurements, and the r/K selection theory have all been misrepresented by Rushton, either accoding to their authors, or to other experts in these very subjects.

- Rushton and Bogaert cite as their main reference for data on genital size for all three races the work of an anonymous "French Army Surgeon."

Last time I checked this article isn't about penis size.

Rushton and Bogaert refer to the work by the simple citation, Untrodden Fields of Anthropology (2 vols.). Weizmann et al. checked the original source and found that the work, published in Paris in 1896, consisted largely of anecdotal, prurient descriptions of unusual (to the European) sexual practices, a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information, containing so many contradictory claims that it is likely it was compiled by more than one author. No methods of measuring genitalia are ever described, nor is there any recognition of the problems involved in measuring an organ that is specialized for dramatic changes in size. Rushton and Bogaert claim that though Arabs have larger penises than Europeans, most of the Arabs were part black; however, Weiz-mann et al. find no mention of racial mixture in the Arab sample cited in the French source.

Last time I checked this article isn't about penis size. There might be black admixture because of wealthy Arabs importing black slaves to take as an additional wife.

- Cranial size and number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compared favorably to those of Caucasoids. It is only by pooling their data with data for Negroids from countries notorious for famine and infant malnutrition that Rushton obtained an illusory support for his postulates.

Sources for both claims?
I believe it is mentioned, among other reviews, in Lieberman (2001) [1]

- Rushton's (1988, Table 1) use of brain and cranial size as indicators of intelligence in humans is statistically absurd.

Source? Besides, it's a well established fact that human intelligence is due to our large brains, so size matters to a certain degree.
But normal variance within the species is nearly two-fold (from about 1000 to nearly 2000 cc). Thus the effects of a "racial" difference of less than a hundred cc can legitimately be questioned.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rushton's Claims about brain size are heavily based on correlations with penis size; however this is not mentioned in the current article. As well, Rushon's model is not supported by any reputable Neuroscientists, Geneticists, or Anthropologists, in anyway.

Source? And I asume being 'reputable' means you don't involve yourself in race issues, like Rushton might have been a reputable scientist had he choosen a different career path.
Actually, it's Rushton's co-opting of the r/K selection hypothesis that mixes brain size and penis size. See Lieberman (2001) for a number of views from anthropologists, see Gray and Thompsons' "Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and Ethics" for the view of neuroscientists, and I would venture Cavalli-Sforza (don,t have a precise cite on this) for the view of geneticists.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to achieve less academically and perform poorly on conventional psychometric tests (See Flynn, 1991).

-Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates.

Other studies show different results.
Which just goes to prove the matter is debatable.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

- The measured amount of genetic variation in the entire human population is extremely small; genetically we are very similar. Indeed, 93% of all genetic variability occurs within Africa; the human groups with the greatest difference between them occur in Africa. Research has also found that the differences between chimpanzees and humans exceed 69%, whereas the widest range between any two groups of humans is less than 3%. All of this calls the concept of biological races into serious question.

Given the current knowledge about genetics claims like these are disputable. A 0.5% difference could in theory already express itself in a twice as large penis, or better brain.
Possible, however the odds are heavily against it, until a gene (or subset of genes) is found which is tied in a known way to intelligence and also shows a pattern of differential "racial" distribution. Such gene or set of genes has not been found, although some vague candidates have been proposed.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed between them; regional human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups in North America and elsewhere. Furthermore, what is considered black in America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population. (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992. Cohen, 2002).

I wouldn't call the differences in skin color superficial, unless you refer to the practical value, which is a value judgement which has little relevance to an encyclopedia.

Pardon the pun, but differences in skin color are litterally only skin-deep. This is quite superficial. ;).--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page needs to be changed (preferably to "IQ controversy"), and the portions including Rushton’s bogus craniometrical data should be removed!

I'd suggest providing better craniometrical data if you have a good source.
There you go: Beals, Kenneth L. , Courtland L. Smith, and Stephen M. Dodd. 1984. Brain size, cranial morphology, and time machines. Current Anthropology 25:301–15.--Ramdrake 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Racial brain size correlation: Incidental or Functional?

suggesting that the racial correlation was incidental rather than functional

as per the lengthy discussion we had previously on this topic, to say this is to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between clines and clusters and the scientific debate regarding them. the only and obvious meaning of this claim is "race doesn't exist, only clines", which is a POV in a debate which must remain encapsulated (described in the race article and merely linked to from this article with an appropriate summary/pointer) to be in compliance with NPOV. --Rikurzhen 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds no more POV than the assertion that "race does exist, and is scientifically useful" - surely you aren't suggesting that only one POV (that "race" is valid and useful) should be presented here, are you? --JereKrischel 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I too think the debate about race is (or should be) part and parcel of the debate about race and intelligence. After all, if one holds that "race" is biologically meaningless, the R&I debate becomes pointless (and that is but one of the objections critics have made). But my point in adding the blurb wasn't to state that race was meaningless (the statement is agnostic about this), but that based on the goodness of the correlation fit, many anthropologists have pointed out that skull size is in fact related to latitude, and that the correlation with race is an incidental prediction of Beals' findings. I want to make clear the difference between correlation with and without causation, difference which is all too often obscured in this discussion. And I really don't think this hasn't already been discussed at length here.--Ramdrake 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ram, this will not do. You are welcome to start Latitude of biogeographic ancestry and intelligence, Rushton has lots and lots of material for you. But latitude (in this context) is an explanation, and you cannot just sprinkle those into the discourse because you think that it's The True Reason. It's POV. There is simply no way we can have a fruitful collaboration if you bring up the "But race is the wrong way of thinking about this" all the time. You don't get to decide that. Take it up with the US census bureau. Suggest affirmative action by latitude. I care not—but please try to be a responsible editor. This article is about the correlation between race and intelligence. A very active field. I we write it really well we can even explain the various reasons for why races differ in intelligence. The causality latitude -> brain size -> intelligence may be one, and you are welcome to explain it really well. But it does belong under Explanations, not under Average gaps.... See the next section for an attempt to get out of this. Arbor 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over latitude explanation

Ram, in your own words, the latitude correlation is a contrasting explanation. That's where it belongs. The section you want to put it into is about Average gaps between races. That's not where it belongs. Arbor 13:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And I say it belongs side by side with the race-brain size dichotomy, as per WP:NPOV:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization

However, if you guys still disagree, would you be amenable to getting the opinion of the Mediation Cabal?--Ramdrake 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that is an enormous waste of resources. Wikipedia has better things to do than to discuss minute details of article structure that some editor is fighting for—we are not even discussion content here. By your own description, the latitude explanation is an explanation. You need an argument for why it shouldn't be presented in the section of the same name. A pretty good one, actually, because right now it sounds as if you want to select facts "or more subtly their organization" in a very specific way to establish a POV. Since that organization clearly breaks article structure you might as well attempt to give that explanation here, before the Mediation Cabal rushes in. The easiest exercise would be for you to complete the sentence "I think the latitude explanation should not be given under the explanation headline because...". Especially, you should address why that organization does not "radiate an implied stance". Because to me it sure sounds that way. Arbor 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is your organization which radiates an implied stance (the hereditarian stance). I believe there have been enough editors through here in the past few months that have raised the issue to demonstrate the point, but they were always argued to death and eventually lost interest. To answer your question:
I think the latitude correlation should not be given under the explanation headline because the authors who find this correlation present it as an alternative to the race-brain size explanation as a competing correlation. Thus, it should be mentioned side by side, and not later in the article, which would make it sound like a secondary -minor- explanation, which it isn't.
Again, if we can't find agreement, I suggest we put the question to the mediation cabal. I'm confident enough my reasons make sense. And in the end, if I'm ruled against, at least it will have been through a neutral, non-involved third party. At this point, I'm of the opinion it's quite possible neither you nor I can be neutral about this issue.--Ramdrake 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies Arbor, but I think you're incorrect on this one. Perhaps we should rename "Average gaps between races" into something like, "Average gaps between groups", and in sub-sections of that, have two sections, "Groups by race", "Groups by latitude", and make clear that the "Groups by latitude" explains that it is better correlated to brain size, and the "Groups by race" section explains the particular weakness of those corrleations. I'm starting to believe again that there is something more radical required here - the assumptions you want to start off with are in fact the very things attacked by environmentalists. Simply stating that these assumptions cannot be attacked seems to be the very core issue between the primary hereditarian and primary environmentalist POV.
Again, maybe if the articles were "Heritability of intelligence" and "Scientific validity of racial groups", we could have some sort of separation - but alas, the people having this argument don't abide by such separations. --JereKrischel 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Arbor, I'm with you. "Groups by latitude" cannot even begin to explain why there is a B-W gap within a state, or indeed in any colocated group (such as in a police department). Where is the statement, in a paper, that latitude explains a) the achievement gaps in the US or b) the patterns of IQ or achievement worldwide? I can find no support even for the statement that latitude affects IQ at all. That it affects brain size is irrelevant unless someone claims that latitude's effect on brain size also affects IQ (recalling that the brain-size--IQ correlation is around 0.4). --Algebraic 19:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't if you take as granted that the B-W IQ gap difference is genetic-hereditarian in origin. If you don't and you think that environmental factors (in the largest possible sense, including education, parental rearing, socio-economic status) are the main culprit for this gap, then the relationship from race to brain size or brain size to IQ becomes quite secondary. Latitude doesn't explain the B-W achievement gap. Environmental factors, I believe, explain nearly all of it, maybe all of it.--Ramdrake 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: section about "Related correlations"

It's not the best headline, but hear me out. If I understand Ramdrake, one problem when approaching this article is that "But race is not the right way of thinking about this". Above I laid out my understanding of why that is an irrelevant objection. (In short: Wikipedia editors don't get to decide that an entire research field is mistaken and therefore should (1) not be described at all or (2) described in a skewed/biased fashion.)

This being said, there are lots of hypotheses for what really causes the intelligence gap. Latitude of biogeographic ancestry is one. For reasons that I won't spell out in detail, this does not fit readily under the Genetic or Environmental headlines. (Is the latitude/brain size correlation genetic? Is it environmental? I could argue for both. By the way, that's why cultural was a better headline. Genetics and environment are not useful opposites. Genes are expressed in environments, one without the other is as meaningless as pens without paper.)

So. The section or subsection I envision would start by acknowledging the POV that while many accept the race/intelligence correlation, they assume that this correlation is merely an artefact of another correlation with more explanatory power. (I believe this is Ramdrake's POV.) I could think of a number of non-fringe explanations to put under such an umbrella, for example specific allele frequencies—the Lahn papers from last year had some striking frequency maps of specific genes(?) that varied with biogeographic ancestry, and this correlated with but did not agree with self-identified race. Another example would be latitude. I am sure there are more. We could explain this while making explicit that these explanations are merely correlated with self-identified race, and even scientific laymen could then see that this correlation would agree with the observed R–I gaps. If I judge Ramdrake correctly that seems to be a much less confrontational presentation and avoids a lot of the rhetoric that seems to make many of our American editors cringe. Who knows, maybe this would even avoid the language trap that Zenmaster fears we are falling in.

So, just for concreteness, I think we could have a section (maybe right before or after, or under Explanations) called Correlations other than race (or whatever, I'm not a good wordsmith) with subsections Specific genes and intelligence or Latitude and brain size. (To make sure I am clear: this section should not be a catch-all for each and every group difference in intelligence, like Sex and intelligence. Only those that could reasonably be used as proxies for race.) Arbor 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I'm talking about the race-brain size correlation (as opposed to the race-intelligence correlation). Second, we don't really need to launch into any gene frequency explanation for a latitude-brain size correlation: Beals explains very well that this seems to work to minimize heat loss by the head (which can be the major source of heat loss in cold climates) by making the head rounder, thus lowering the surface-to-volume ratio. A bigger head overall is just the byproduct of a rounder head, but I'm sure you already knew all of this. What I definitely object to is the bald statement that brain size correlates with race as if it means anything at all (many authors argue it is merely the byproduct of the functional correlation of head size to latitude). Going back to my explanation with cars, you would probably object that saying that "statistically red cars have a higher accident rate" (when it is fast cars that have a higher accident rate, and red cars just happen to be overrepresented among fast cars) is meaningless. Yes, it may be that red cars have a higher accident rate, but it means nothing for the color red (it certainly doesn't attract accidents :) ). Likewise, the finding of a correlation between race and brain size means nothing for race: racial origins have no real influence over head size; latitude of ancestral origins is the real explanation. However, I'm not even arguing that we should drop the race correlation in favor of the latitude correlation: I'm just insisting that they should be mentioned side by side (at the same point in the article), as any other representation will give the impression that whichever explanation is relegated to second place is just that: a secondary (minor) alternate explanation. I am of the opinion both POVs should be equally treated. The review by Lieberman on the subject [2] is actually very good in this respect.--Ramdrake 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Latitude is not a cause. It is a marker of some cause(s). The size and shape of the skull/brain is substantially genetically determined. (Only heritable variation is subject to evolution.) Latitude is a marker of climate (among other things), which was a force which drove adaptations that are today seen as racial variation (like skin color, skull features, etc.). Whether you prefer to describe these variations in terms of races or in terms of clines is unrelated to their existence or evolutionary-causal explanation. I've edited the text to remove this misunderstanding. --Rikurzhen 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few excerpts from Lieberman (2001)[3]:

Rushton (1990:786) takes cranial measurements from a study by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) without mentioning that study’s finding that while climate variables were strongly correlated with cranial variation, “race” and cranial variation had low correlations.

(Rushton)...ignores research showing that cranial size varies significantly with latitude, not with race.

Similarly, Rushton once again cites the endocranial volumes of Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) without acknowledging that they report a high correlation between cranial volume and latitude and a very low correlation with “race.”

It seems to me that the author of this review went to great pains to point out the distinction between a correlation by latitude and a correlation by race. As it is sourced and in the litterature, why should we in turn not report on the importance of the distinction?--Ramdrake 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
From edit summary: This section reports intelligence gaps by race, not anything else. Well, it does strike me that silencing alternate explanations for group differences is quite POV. Beals et al, and after him Lieberman (among others) have stated over and again that they see a climatic correlation, not a racial one, and have protested against Rushton's POV interpretation of their results, so I think the only NPOV attitude towards this is to mention the divergence of opinion for what it is, and not just sweep it under the carpet. Otherwise, we're just contriving the data into a specific POV.--Ramdrake 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also found in edit summary: a race or a latitude is never funcitonal except as a social constructs;not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the first time I see latitude referred to as a social construct. Last time I checked, it's an angular measurement. My point is, let's discuss this some more in talk rather than having these strange edit summaries.--Ramdrake 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you still appear to be very confused. Latitude is not a causally powerful force in itself (except as a social construct) but it is tightly correlated with causally powerful forces. Race is exactly the same. The explanation for why something (e.g. type of clothing worn) varies with latitude is not because of the latitude itself, but rather because of something else that varies by latitude (e.g. climate). Type of clothing worn also varies by continent/sub-continent region (i.e. race). Latitude is an example of a cline (one perpendicular to the equator). Clines and races are alternative ways of describing human biogeographic variation. In many cases, descriptions in terms of clines or races are interchangable. However, races describe groups that are detectable from the effects of many clines, and racial differences in physical (i.e. highly heritable) traits persist after migration. The only reason to contrast the description of brain size variation (in this article) in terms of latitude as compared to terms of race is as an argument against the validity of any racial classification. Such arguments have a (specific) place in this article, but they cannot spill into every sentence. Please set aside your personal feelings about Rushton and consider the quality of this article.

On a realted note, I notice Latitude#Latitude_and_wealth --Rikurzhen 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Latitude is a very strong porxy for climate, as several climate factors can be directly expressed as an angular distance from the equator (which is the definition of latitude). It turns out that according to Beals as well, brain size of populations can also be expressed as angular distance from the equator. I don't see that stating that there is a contrasting explanation of group differences in head size should be relegated to another section just because it implies that the validity of the race construct may not be as strong as one would wish. Again, that is contriving the data to arrive at a preordained conclusion. I'd much rather let the evidence speak for itself rather than spoon-feed conclusions to the reader.--Ramdrake 12:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Secondarily, Lieberman's use of the term "correlation" in this context is problematic. I leave it to you to investigate what underlying data/idea he's referring to. Comparing the "correlation" of brain size to race versus latitude is gibberish to me (a point biserial correlation requires a dichotomous nominal variable, but race is not dichotomous). Look for something called ANOVA, which is used to look for differences between multiple groups. Another possibility is one of the Kendall's tau coefficients, which are rank order statistics. --Rikurzhen 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, Rikurzhen, that the argument being made is that latitude is a better proxy for causally powerful forces than "race". That is to say, the correlation is much tighter with latitude than with social constructs such as race - latitude, regardless of its lack of perfect correlation to climate, is not a social construct, but an angular measurement. There exists no measure of "race" or scale upon which to measure it, AFAIK. --JereKrischel 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"The correlation is much tighter with latitude than with...race" Is it? What is the correlation between latitude and cranial variation? I can't find any numbers. Also, because cranial variation and IQ are correlated only about 0.4, latitude and cranial volume had better have a correlation of 0.8 or 0.9 to make any difference in IQ. What is needed for this article is a latitude--IQ correlation, and I'm unaware of any such result. --Algebraic 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this quote is what you're looking for:

Rushton (1990:786) takes cranial measurements from a study by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) without mentioning that study’s finding that while climate variables were strongly correlated with cranial variation, “race” and cranial variation had low correlations. The relationship between latitude and cranial size is an example of Bergmann’s principle that crania are more spherical in cold climates because mass increases relative to surface area to conserve core tem-peratures: “A slight increase in head size combined with a rounder cranium has a disproportionate effect upon volume” (Beals, Smith, and Dodd 1984:312).' -Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001, How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton by Leonard Lieberman

Ramdrake has posted a link somewhere to this already, I believe. --JereKrischel 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've read Lieberman's article. My question stands: what are the correlations? What does "strongly correlated" actually mean? --Algebraic 07:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the numbers are all mentioned in Lieberman's review: the correlation of cranial size to latitude is about 0.6 whereas the "correlation" with race (not sure how the number is statistically derived) is in the range of 0.2-0.4. The authors do not attribute any values to a climate-IQ correlation as the brain size-IQ correlation is low enough that the compounding of the two makes for an insignificant correlation. However, since the correlation of race to brain size is even lower, the compound correlation of race to brain size to IQ is even less significant.--Ramdrake 12:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all I can find is a phrase that says, "Several of their (Beals, Smith and Dodd) climatological-cranial correlations reach 0.60" (p.77). The same article reports that some IQ-cranial correlations reach 0.69 (p.78). So the Lieberman article's numerical evidence does not support the claim at issue. What am I missing? --Algebraic 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering that neither Beals et al nor Lieberman make any claim of connection between latitude and IQ, that phrase (and several others like it) is all you will get. Please explain specifically what it is you're looking for correlation-wise. The claim at issue is that while some researchers claim racial differences in skull size (taken as a proxy for brain size), others find a correlation between latitude and skull size which is purported to be a better fit (that point being less important). There is no discussion at this point relating any of this to IQ, at least not in the matter under dispute. The issue here is not about the IQ-brain size correlation, so it shouldn't be compared to it. It is comparing the race-brain size relationship with the latitude-brain size correlation. Hope this explanation helps.:)--Ramdrake 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But if there's no claimed link to IQ in the Lieberman article, then what's it doing on the R&I page? That brain size correlates with latitude is irrelevant to a section on "Average gaps among races: Brain size, employment tests, and school achievement"; that brain size's correlation with latitude explains its correlation with IQ is original research unless a citation can be provided. By your admission above, neither Beals et al. nor Lieberman represent such a citation. What is the justification for including this stuff on latitude? --Algebraic 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That is because the hereditarian stance claims to make a link from race to brain size and from brain size to IQ. The environmentalist stance claim such a link is at best tenuous, at worst inexistant. As this article is supposed to be about the controversy of how to best explain race group differences in tests that are purported to accurately measure intelligence, and not supposed to be the apology of the hereditarian stance, pointing out that group variations in brain size can be ascribed to ancestral latitude at least as well if not better than to race, it is an argument that goes towards demonstrating the weakness of the genetic link between race and intelligence, if such a thing exists.--Ramdrake 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, you have demonstrated a serious misunderstanding. If brain size varies by latitude because of evolutionary adpatation to thermoregulation because of climate differences by latitude, then the brain size differences observed would be due to genetic differences. Natural selection works on additive heritable variation. Thus, you can see that the race versus latitude distinction is not a genetic versus environmental distinction. It is a cluster versus cline distinction (which are genetic phenomena). --Rikurzhen 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Rikurzhen, I was opposing the overall hereditarian stance to the environmental stance. I am not saying that the variation of brain size versus latitude isn't a genetic adaptation (it obviously is), just that the variation of brain size versus latitude gets in the way of the three-way relationship from race to brain size and from brain size to IQ that the hereditarian stance wants people to believe.--Ramdrake 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to spell it out in case it's not clear. It is not the case that race=genetics vs latitude=environment. Genetics and/or environment is an explanation for race and/or latitude. Now, you appear to be committing to the view that the hereditarians deny that brain size varies by latitude or that such a correlation is a problem for their view. This seems strange since, as Arbor has tried to point out, this is in fact an integral part of the evolutionary/hereditarian explanations made by Lynn and Rushton. This was the reason for adding the T&A (2006) text below -- it documents that the Rushton and Lynn characterize their view in terms of race or latitude with equinimity. Now, the only reason that race is contrasted to latitude by Beals (and I assume by Lieberman too) is for cluster versus clines reasons. The cluster versus cline debate is not what this article is about, and from what I can tell is wholly irrelevant to the debate about genetics versus environment. --Rikurzhen 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rikurzhen, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean - isn't the cluster versus cline issue integral to the validity of social constructs like "race" in regards to measuring anything? And isn't it perfectly reasonable to note that although R&L consider latitude == race, that others find a distinction there that alters the conclusions put forth? Again, we've stepped into the "genetics vs. environment" misconception - nobody is saying that because latitude correlates to brain size there is no genetic influence on that, only that latitude in this case has a higher correlation with genetics than "race", and therefore it is misleading to say that brain size varies with "race", without mentioning that it more closely conforms to the proxy for genetics of latitude. --JereKrischel 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) Ramdrake was trying to make such a claim, but he can back off of it if he wants: I was opposing the overall hereditarian stance to the environmental stance. (2) We already have a section that discusses in direct terms in with an appropriate summary section the background controversy over the validiity of racial classification. This is a textbook NPOV "making necessary assumptions" case. If we discuss this controversy in any seciton other than the appointed one, then a single sentence in that section will not do. Instead we would need a balanced (NPOV) presentation, which would require pointing out that while some people who the opinion that's being presented, many others hold a constrating opinion. But this isn't the article on race, so this is not the appropriate place for such material, the exact reason the "making necessary assumptions" rule was made. --Rikurzhen 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Actually, the point JK made was much closer to my original feelings about the issue. I would too venture that the problem goes way deeper than you seem to think: I would dare say that what you call a "necessary assumption" (the existence and validity of race) is rather no more and no less than a POV fork, especially in the light that a 1999 survey of expert opinion amon anthropologists revealed that three-quarters of them rejected the notion of race as a useful construct. If we are to make a NPOV article out of this, concurrent theories need to be aired on par with each other.--Ramdrake 16:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) The study is unpublished. It has no associated primary literature reference where it would have been peer reviewed. Thus, it is an unpublished observation, but a published opinion. (2) Both sides are described in the appropriate section. This possibility is anticipated and handeled by the WP:NPOV "making necessary assumptions" rule. This is not the article on race and thus this article is not the place to expand a discussion of the validity of racial classficiation. The clinching reason is that the "race validity" argument does not play a major role in the literature on this subject. For example, the APA report states only that racial/ethnic groups (which they thereafter call "groups") are well defined as social entities and thus studiable as such. Along those lines, you will note that the cline/cluster debate takes place in the context of anthropology and genetics, and has produced heated controversy in those fields (as documented in our section on race). However, the substance of those debates does not challenge the notion that race is at least a socially defined grouping which can be studied. (Thus the existence of cultural explanations for race differences.) Finally, the goal of spreading the debate about the biological/anthropological validity of racial classification throughout this article is a prima facie case of POV pushing. If allowed, it would require every paragraph to be ammended with claim and counterclaim about the validity or not of disucssing race. That would be untenable. --Rikurzhen 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) The study is mentioned in Lieberman (2001). Failing that, a previous (published) study dating from 1985 gives similar results, with just a maller majority. (2) The point remains, saying that brain size varies by race without saying that other researchers find it varies by climate, and those same researchers do not equate the first as a proxy of the second (or vice versa), is incomplete and misleading no matter what your objections. The point deserves to be made concurrently, which is not to say this will happen in every section. On this one, you are jumping the gun. And correct, an edit war is ugly, but it *does* take two to tango. This is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.--Ramdrake 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I repeat my offer, as we seem to be getting nowhere: how about calling in the Mediation Cabal? For my part, I can promise I will abide by their ruling, whatever it is.--Ramdrake 19:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
JK: I think, Rikurzhen, that the argument being made is that latitude is a better proxy for causally powerful forces than "race". I think we all understand that. The point is that that observation (false or wrong, agreed upon or not) does not belong where Ramdrake wants to put it. (Also, I retract the suggestion I made in the opening paragraph. It was a half-baked attempt at compromise and doesn't really work when you begin thinking it through.) Arbor 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to focus once more on my agreement with Ramdrake on this - the central issue, as I see it, is that if we are to assert that certain assumptions regarding the validity of race are off limits to direct, in-line challenge, we immediately inherently slant the article in a POV direction. Although it is unfortunate that the two sides arguing this in public don't actually organize their attacks and defenses well, I don't think we should second guess them. If it is being asserted by hereditarian racialists that brain size correlates with race, and brain size correlates with IQ, therefore race correlates with IQ, it certainly should be shown that hereditarian non-racialists, who believe that brain size correlates with latitude, and brian size correlates with IQ, therefore latitude correlates with IQ, should be described. Again, the straw-man arguments of both sides (hereditarians insisting that environmentalists are 100% environmental, and environmentalists insisting that hereditarians are 100% genetic), really completely miss the point - at its core, can the social construct of race be used in a validly scientific way. The research Ramdrake is quoting makes a strong case that it cannot be used this way, and the higher correlation with latditue found is a direct demonstration of that.
I guess I'd like to ask, if not put in the same section as the discussion on brain size, where should it go? I'm not willing to accept that it should simply be removed completely from the article, or relegated to a sub-section that would minimize its importance. If there is some prominent way of putting it elsewhere in the article, I'm open to suggestions, but so far, it seems most logical to put it where the faulty race/brain size correlation is being discussed. --JereKrischel 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It belongs to Explanations. Since Ram changed Cultural to Environmental, it's no longer clear into which subsection it should go—the artificial dichotomy between genetic and environmental that this split enforces does not makes sense (because genes are expressed in environments, environments control natural selection, etc. Two sides of the same coin). This warrants thinking about. It would be nice to have a subsection called biogeographic ancestry that could include some examples, like geographic distribution of (say) the genes Bruce Lahn has considered, or latitude–brain size. We could even have maps, which would make this material attractive. Arbor 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you feel it belongs in Explanations, could we move 'both race-brain size and latitude-brain size relationships totally to Explanations and remove them altogether from where they are currently located? My point is only that they should be side by side or in any case be given equal prominence, and as JK pointed out, I think that's quite reasonable.--Ramdrake 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No, not here. I started a Group differences subsection on the Intelligence quotient article some time back. There, indeed the correlations by race and by latitude should be presented side by side. This particular article, on the other hand, is specifically about the correlation by race. I cannot see any argument why an article should not give primary consideration about its own topic. That being said, nobody is arguing against the mentioning the by latitude correlation (and many others), so I am not sure we have any actionable disagreement. Arbor 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like you to realize that the way you set up the article, with the pre-requisite assumptions the way they are (that race is a useful biological construct and that it corresponds to the social construct of race, and that intelligence is summable to a unitary, scalar quantity), you are setting up the race-hereditarian hypothesis as a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if you forbid the introduction on a par of any finding that may challenge this hypothesis. I think it is unfair and misleading to set the boundary conditions so that it must lead to the predicate you want, when part of the scientific community challenges those very assumptions. As I see it, it seems more and more clear to me that there are three possible poles to this debate, with of course a nearly infinite number of nunances in between:
  1. The race-hereditarian position which predicates that IQ is (at least in part) genetically-defined and that racial differences are among of the determining factor for intelligence (as measured by g).
  2. The genetic-non-racial hypothesis which predicates that IQ is (also at least in part) genetically defined, but that racial differences play at best a minor role in determining intelligence.
  3. The-environmental-cultural hypothesis which predicates that IQ is for the most part culturally or environmentally defined (education, parental rearing, SES) and that any role of the genetic backgroud of the individual is minor.

I hope this 3-way vision will remove the strawmen that equate a hereditarian view of IQ with racialization, or that surmises that if you don't buy the racial view of IQ differences, you must think it is 100% environmentally-defined. I believe one can feel that IQ is indeed genetically determined in a significant part without thinking it is racially determined as well. Conversely, I think it is very possible to hold that the B-W IQ gap is for the most part envrionmental-cultural while still thinking genetic factors are significantly in play on individual differences.--Ramdrake 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Like I said previously, there are all sorts of gradations that stand between any two or even conceivably all three poles of this debate. The way I see this article is laid out, it forces an outcome that favors the race-hereditarian position, which I honestly believe is misleading. Whatever we do, I think this needs to be addressed, and if it means we must revisit the very structure of the article, well so be it.--Ramdrake 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, (1) your comments are becomming completley disconnected from the literature (i.e. sources on which WP is to be based). You are arguing for a very novel position (treating race as a causal factor, trying to the cluster/cline debate, etc), and at the same time (2) ignoring the need for good structure in an article. The only way this article will maintain readability is to keep individual topics (usually debates with various degrees of scholarly agreement) encapulated in their appropriate sections. You are confusing important distinctions; I assume because they are not clear to you. This article is of the highest level of technical sophistication, and cannot be managed by intuition. I have no time to try to sort out the mess you're suggesting. --Rikurzhen 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen you seem under some unwarranted assumptions: (1)that the only "good" structure for this article is the one it currently has and (2)that your view of the literature is the correct one. I found, while researching this topic, that whereas PF fundees have published a large number of papers on the subject, their studies, data and conclusions are often redundant, as if the same untruths repeated often enough could become truth. If you take a view of how the opponents of the likes of Rushton and Lynn easily debunk their data and their arguments, I repectfully submit one could arrive at the conclusion that the consensus view in the literature is in all likelihood not on the race-hereditarian side of the debate. So, no, I don't consider myself "disconnected" from the literature, but I find in all likelihood you adhere too closely to just one side of the debate. And, please, please try to stop talking down to me as if I didn't understand what I'm saying. While I may be rusty in some aspects, (my statistical science knowledge is 20 years behind me) I'm doing doing my best to speak in a clear, layman-level language, free of the obfuscation that I see too often in your responses. I don't think you should take that to mean that I know nothing of science.--Ramdrake 17:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

... of science—no such claim is implied. I am a working scientist myself. But not in this field. I don't know a cline from a progressive matrix. So I usually shut the fuck up about this topic and leave the technicalities to those who actually know as much about this as I know about my work. You should do the same. As for structure, there is nowhere the current structure of this article differs from other published surveys, indeed, it started out by following on of them. You on the other hand are pushing a POV ("Ramdrake theory" is a great word for it) that does not inform any of the major surveys of this area that I know. Even I (who is very clever) would need to invest a good part of my life to reach the same level of technical knowledge as a Real population geneticist or cognitive scientist to evaluate primary sources or introduce original viewpoints. If your main motivation for editing this article is (1) that you don't trust Rikurzhen and Nectar or (2) your scientific intuition or sense of decency is violated then you need to leave this page. You are extremely obstructive. WP only works if we (1) trust each other, and (2) engage ourselves in topics where our competence dominates our level of emotional investment. That being said, what this page lacks is a sterling presentation of the skeptical POV on race and intelligence research. Do that if you are comfortable with it, it's pretty accessible. But that endeavor is not the same as influencing the presentation of all the other POVs. Arbor 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, as a trained neuroscientist, I find it hard to believe that brain size differences are empirically correlated with race (empirically in the scientific sense: as in it is something observed as a statistical dependency) and that most of the neurobiological explanations to relate one to the other is simply: well, a cubic inch of cerebral matter contains hundreds of millions of neurons. First of all, that really depends where your cubic inch of cerebral matter is located (neuron density is drastically different in gray matter than in white matter), and even in gray cortical matter, it is dependent on which part of the cortex you're looking at. Then, there would need to be functional studies to flesh out the neurobiological process that gives rise to the racial differences (which parts of the brain function differently according to race - a very few studies exist, but we're far from anything that looks like an answer). Rather the relationship of brain size to intelligence (and the same goes for the relationship from race to brain size) is treated no differently than a "black-box theory": something happens in there, but we don't know what; we just know input and output. So, indeed' I'll take heed of your suggestion and start working on a new section (which doesn't mean I'll stop being active on the rest), namely what neurobiology has to say about the relationship of race to intelligence (which, from what I've read so far, is light-years away from what psychometrician may think of this relationship). We'll see where this leads us.--Ramdrake 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
"I find it hard to believe"...Wikipedia does not care about your difficulties in apprehending published results, like this one from Ho et al.. Wikipedia cares about the other studies you know about that contradict these published findings, if any. Your personal musings about how brain size can't have anything to do with IQ are also irrelevant; stop it, and start finding the good studies that say there's no relationship between brain size and IQ. Or read the literature that says different, like this study from Wilke et al.. I'm delighted you're a trained neuroscientist. In this forum, I hope you will develop a certain distaste for your own views and a healthy regard for the literature. Many of us have developed both. --Algebraic 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
While your suggestions are welcome and to the point (as this whole thing began when I started doing my own research to find other sources relevant to this article), I would also like to respectfully remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are a bit borderline on both counts. I also found out that the literature on the subject is much wider and diverse than this article lets on. But in any case, thank you also for the wake-up call.--Ramdrake 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move away from the personal attacks of who has what grasp of what particular detailed area of science, and suggest that we all have something to bring to the table, as a group of intelligent humans, who even if lacking in specific understanding have more than ample capacity to rectify any misunderstandings. In particular, even someone with a complete lack of formal science training brings an important POV - the man on the street. Having specialized knowledge in any field is a blessing, but if you cannot explain it in an encyclopedia such that the man on the street can understand it, you should probably be writing for a specialist journal rather than Wikipedia. Our common objective has to be a fair and neutral presentation of the subject, sympathetic to both sides, especially in an area of incredible controversey as this one. Rikurzhen, nothing is so technically sophisticated as to be beyond the grasp of our fellow editors here. Algebraic, Ramdrake has provided citations to studies that say that the relationship between IQ and "race" is a weak one compared to IQ and latitude, which is what the whole discussion here is about. Arbor, Ramdrake has been civil and has been working for genuine consensus and compromise. We can all work together to make this article better than it is today, and if the default POV is going to be preservation of the status quo at all costs, I suggest that it is that attitude which is obstructive and distrustful.

Let's focus on the question at hand - Ramdrake and I both want prominent mention of the lesser correlation of brain size to "race" than brain size to "latitude" in the same area of the text where brain size to race correlations are discussed. This is not an unreasonable request, and Ramdrake has provided sufficient citation to make his case. If there is a dispute here, it is an organizational one, and I'd like to hear other options for the inclusion of his important citations. So we have as some possible outcomes:

  • Keep the in-line citation in the same section as the current brain size/race comments;
  • Remove the brain size/race comments, and remove the criticism of it;
  • Move the brain size/race comments and Ramdrake's inline citation to another more appropriate section;
  • Move the in-line citation to another prominent area.

Why don't we focus on what compromise we can come to, rather than talking about the merits of the science? All we're asking for here is level treatment of a significant criticism to the pro-racialist hereditarian POV. We cannot just claim that the article itself precludes such criticism, because such criticism is essential to the anti-racialist hereditarian and anti-racialist environmentalist POV, and should be mentioned. Surely everyone can agree that it is important to give voice to both sides in NPOV - let's argue about exact wording, organizational placement, rather than focusing on proving the pro-racialist or anti-racialist position, please. --JereKrischel 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

JK, how do we avoid appending "BTW, race is not real" to every sentence in this article? I am with Rik on necessary assumptions. I'm happy to have a section up front that says, with proper citations, "Some researchers deny the validity of race as a classification and IQ as a measure of cognitive ability." I'm not a fan of this breakdown into a "racialist" position and an "anti-racialist" position. I don't know what the claims of a hypothetical "anti-racialist hereditarian" would be (color me fascinated) but I'm certain that this article must not be polarized by labels. Let's (as you say) argue about exact wording, yes? I have not yet seen the citation that makes the statement that latitude explains the race--IQ relationship. I reject the claim that because latitude and IQ are (supposedly) higher than the race--IQ correlation, that must have anything at all to do with the article. How is the race--IQ correlation defined? What is it, numerically? And who in the literature says that latitude explains any part of the IQ gap between races? --Algebraic 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A very good question, Algebraic. I think that any time an assertion is made regarding a "racial" correlation that is contested, it deserves to be brought up. I think the problem comes when, in a given section, a specific pro-racialist point is made, with data to back it up. As soon as you have an assertion like that, it seems important to give room to the anti-racialist POV. If a section simply rests on the assumptions given in the beginning of the article, rather than trying to prove them with citations, then it seems to me to be scott free. So I guess the answer to the question of when do we stop appending "race is not real", is when we stop trying to prove the so-called assumptions of the article, "race is real". I think that if we are to place assumptions in the beginning, we shouldn't spend time trying to justify those assumptions, without opening those justifications to appropriate criticism.
As for an "anti-racialist hereditarian", such a person would be anyone who believes in the heritability of IQ, but asserts that using the social construct of "race" to serve as a general proxy for groups is misguided and poor science, primarily because of the lack of distinct racial prototypes (i.e., show me the penultimate "white" person, "black" person, "asian" person, so that I can judge people based on their distance from the three).
The statement Ramdrake has made is a criticism of the race-brain size assertion being made, not a race-IQ versus latitude-IQ. You're moving a step too far. The pro-racialist hereditarian assertion that is being made in the article is, "race correlates to brain size, brain size correlates to IQ, therefore race correlates to IQ". The contrary POV is asserting an attack only on the first link in the chain - which invalidates the conclusion of race-->IQ.
Again, I would assert that if we're already stating the assumption that "race is real", then we shouldn't be banging the drum, "race correlates to this, race correlates to that", without allowing appropriate criticism side by side. It seems unfair to state something in the assumptions, then spend copious amounts of time defending the assumptions, without giving a fair shake to criticism of those assumptions. --JereKrischel 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No citations huh? Your (prima facie OR) argument is confusing basic ideas, such as the difference between a merely "social" and a "biological" concept of race. I can't read the literature for you--no time--and you seem to refuse to take my word on it anyway. Read the APA report and see how much space they dedicate to this debate. Then start your background reading with race. Here's a key quotation from a recent paper on human population genetic structure:
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: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. 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.
p.s. How can I be sure Lieberman's argument is about the cline/cluster debate? Read Lieberman's other papers. Lieberman is an anthropologist, not a psychologist. He's interested in the human past and human evolution, not the functioning of the contemporary human brain. --Rikurzhen 06:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, Rikurzhen, you're trying to have a debate over which side is right, and we should be having a discussion about how to make the article better. Let's say, for example, I'm 100% right, and you're 100% wrong. Stack the deck in such a way that makes me more informed, educated and knowledgeable about the topic than you. Say I won the Nobel Prize for Race Research or something...just for a moment. Now, should all of that be reason enough to completely eliminate your POV from the article? Should we all, once convinced of my factual righteousness, be ready to bow down to my assertions and tailor the article to press my points home?
I think that we should all be able to agree that if we're trying to build a better, NPOV article, we should be willing to sympathetically illustrate all sides of this debate, be it pro-racialist hereditarians, anti-racialist hereditarians, or anti-racialist environmentalists. In regards to building specific citations to "prove" the necessary assumptions we lay out in the article, I think that if we're not willing to let those necessary assumptions be enough for the pro-racialist side, we shouldn't expect them to be enough for the anti-racialist side. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that we should keep the article fully cited, but include, wherever necessary, the counter POV which may attack the "necessary assumptions" that are being promoted or bolstered.
I don't think we need to always say "race isn't real" at every turn, but certainly at any turn where someone is explicitly trying to say "race is real". Can you suggest a better algorithm for us to proceed on, Rikurzhen? --JereKrischel 08:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
JK, the only algorithm for success is to be well acquiainted with the literature. Because of his turing up in the news, I've been reading some of Larry Sanger's essays about Wikipedia recently, and that appears to be his ever-constant refrain: reasearch is the key to NPOV (along with skills of rhetoric). I don't know if I have the rhetorical skills, but I've done my share of the research. And thus I have to agree with Sanger that knowing the literature facilities the kind of nuance of presentation (thus rhetoric) that's required for NPOV. Further, you won't find my POV in the article (not specifically), but you will find my best attempts to present the major (i.e. majority and substiantial minority) POVs sympathetically. When I insist that your claims are not supported by literature, I mean the schoarly literature. I hope you understand that I leave open the POV represented by (for example) the material from Skeptic magainze that Arbor has provided to Ramdrake. Secondarly, I am certain that only a topical treatment will succeed. I believe this is what we have, as it was based on the structure of the APA report. (I mean that literally. I wrote the main structure of the article into it in 2004 based solely on my reading of the APA report.) Things not to do: mixing data with explanations, mixing various levels of explanation, mixing scholarly and non-scholarly views, and of course mixing intuition and extrapolation with attributable opinion that is known to be widely held and where the form of presentation is clear from a consensus of review articles.
The topic of "partly genetic" versus "culture only" has returned with your tagging the sub-article. This has been discussed at length in the not-too-distant past. "Partly genetic" and "culture only" predates Rushton and Jensen's review, and can be traced (in secondary soures) at least to the Snyderman and Rothman surveys (no doubt earlier because they found this to be a natural question to ask). Despite Lulu's strong personal feeling (but not supported by citations), there is no case for believing the the Snyderman and Rothman survey question on this topic is flawed. Moreover, if you read the various responses to the 2005 PPPL review by Rushton and Jensen, including Flynn's, you will find that many of these contemporary commentators speciifcally reject evidence for any genetic contribution to the gap. Thus, the overwhelming bulk of secondary sources treat the question as having two major sets into which hypotheses can be divided based on their treatment of genetic explanations. --Rikurzhen 07:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a critical difference between being well acquainted with the literature, and being well acquainted with the literature that supports a given POV. You certainly have shown an intimate knowledge of the pro-racialist literature and studies, and I greatly respect your addition of that information to the article. However, your assertion that literature referenced by Wikipedia must be "scholarly", by your judgement seems to be part of the issue here - certainly the claim can be made that Jensen and Rushton's views on race are not "scholarly", or at best very poor scholarship (for example, Lieberman's attacks regarding their suspect interpretation of data), but we cannot deny they represent a POV that deserves treatment here.
Regarding mixing data with explanations, mixing verious levels of explanations, etc, unfortunately, the debate being held by the experts does exactly that - certainly I can see how folk like Rushton and pro-racialists mix data when they are shown to have derived IQ from tests that don't map to IQ, and certainly the B-W-EA explanation of world history mixes things on wildly varying levels. I have no doubt that we all can see the mixup that constantly occurs as pro-racialist hereditarians only attack the 100% environmental viewpoint, and anti-racialist environmentalists attack only the 100% hereditarian viewpoint. In any case, I cannot believe that your less than universal sample of studies, and opinions, should constitute the only POVs to be presented here (especially regarding culture-only vs. genetic - a great number of commentators on the subject do not doubt the heritability of IQ, but simply the usefulness of "race" as a grouping). Even the Snyderman and Rothman surveys don't nearly seem to say what I believe is implied in the article at times.
Back on topic though - I submit to you, Rikurzhen, that the Lieberman criticism of the brain-size/race correlation as being a poor proxy compared to brain-size/latitude, is from a scholarly work, is well cited, represents a widespread POV (see the numerous replies and comments in Ramdrake's link of his text), and is only as "mixed" as the original text regarding the citation of brain size to race is. It deserves prominent mention, and it seems the most logical place to mention it is side by side with the argument it asserts is fallacious. I'm not sure how you see it in terms of your algorithm, but it seems to me to fit into the criteria you've presented so far. --JereKrischel 08:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Simple terms: the Leiberman POV is about the cline/cluster question. Brining it up in other contexts is a grave mistake. The way this is an error has been discussed at length. Unforuntely, most of the discussion has been driven by misunderstanding of what the researchers are actually arguing and where the literature does and does not go on this topic. In short, it is wholly inappropriate to drop Leiberman's opinion about the value of "race" into the middle of a discussion on brain size differences in this article.
On knowing the literature: you have to understand what the cline/cluster question is and how it has and has not intersected with the R&I research in order to write about it. Thus far, no one has demonstrated the willingness to do the hard work of reading up on this topic. --Rikurzhen 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Simple answer: I submit that Lieberman's challenge goes way beyond the cline/cluster debate, and addresses the very validity of the race construct as a proxy for group differences. Here is just another quote I found while researching the subject, from "Intelligence, Race and Genetics" by Sternberg et al.:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

As far as I can fathom, the question of racial classification not only intersects R&I research, but wholly preempts it (and renders it a non-sequitur) depending on one's interpretation of the meaning of race.--Ramdrake 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The cline/cluster debate is identical to the question of whether racial groups can be used to describe human variation. I'm in disbelief that this discussion is still stunted by defintions. --Rikurzhen 02:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_38&oldid=935632807"