This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The existence of a meaningful correlation between race and intelligence depends on the acceptance of two assumptions, namely:[citation needed]
That "race" is a meaningful biological construct[citation needed]
That "intelligence" can be reduced to a unitary measurement[citation needed]
This is factually incorrect, thus the request for citations. The existence of race differences in any trait doesn't depend on a biological definition of race. Else the existence of all racial differences in every trait would be subject to the existence of a biological definition of race. The two are logically separate issues. Also, no one thinks intelligence is unitary -- everyone thinks its multidimensional. Most happen to think that there is a single factor with a disproportionate importance in intelligence differences between individuals. However, race differences in intelligence explicitly do not depend on any particular structure to mental abilities. Lastly, this kind of grand summary absolutely needs to be attributed and cited. NOR exists to keep editors from introducing mistakes like this. --Legalleft (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure what you mean by "factually incorrect". I refer you to our policy on verifyability, which clearly states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. The verifyability of this statement is not in doubt. Ashley Montagu, in his essay "The IQ Mythology" makes this very same point, this essay is printed in the most important book published on this subject, "Race and IQ", something anyone claiming any expertise in the field should know.
"I have stated, and I think the statement long overdue, that both the term "race" and the term "IQ" are delusive because in the one case the social conception of "race" was the deliberate invention of a slave-owning caste attempting to justify its conduct, and in the other case because "IQ" tests do not measure what they have generally been claimed to measure, namely, innate intelligence ... The statistical treatment of data in any investigation may be quite unexceptional, but when unexceptional statistical methods are applied to the analysis of unsound data to begin with, based on assumptions that are equally unsound, one can only end up with conclusions that are equally unsound. Such are the erroneous constructs of "race" and "IQ"."-Ashley Montagu, "The IQ Mythology"; Race and IQ. ISBN0-19-510220-7
You see, that wasn't so difficult was it? Alun (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my complaint as I intended it. The question is whether those two points are accurate summaries of what people believe to be true (not that they are given as statements of fact, rather than attributed opinion, so they should be noncontroversial). Not only do I not think they are an accurate summary of a general position, but I think they don't describe anything that anyone believes -- they are a bad summary. Perhaps there is some two-item list that is a good summary, but that list isn't it. My attempts to make this point so far haven't been understood, so let's try to focus on just what the problem is. --Legalleft (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't care what you "think", there are a plethora of cites that support these contentions, all from subject matter experts. Gould, Montagu and Graves all claim that an acceptance of "race" as a biological entity is a prerequisite for belief in "genetic" explanations for the differences. There are also numerous citations available regarding the validity of trying to reduce a complex trait like "intelligence" to a single meaningful statistic. There's nothing controversial here, this is just your usual tactic of rejecting every piece of evidence that does not support the racist ideology you want to promote. You claim that every piece of evidence that contradicts the racist pov is of little or no importance, or is marginal, but that's just crap, if the authors of the work cited claim it's important, then we say what they say and not what some pov-pushing editor wants to be true due to their own ideologically motivated fundamentalist beliefs in racist pseudoscience. Please desist from your pov-pushing, it's getting tiresome. Alun (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I consider your characterization of me as having a racist POV to be a personal attack.
2. No, the citations don't support the formulation written in the article. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying that you couldn't write those sentences in a different form somewhere in WP and that those citations could accompany them. I'm saying that the formulation doesn't reflect the reality of the debate. To pick a particular example, the dimensionality of intelligence plays no role in the race and intelligence debate. In another example, what the best definition of race is isn't a part of the debate. These formulations simply don't fit with this article. 3. The ideal solution is to find a formulation from a review article and use it instead. --Legalleft (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Legalleft,notwithstanding this heated exchange, AFAIK it would just stand to reason that if "race" isn't a biologically meaningful construct, one simply cannot assign meaningful biological differences (such as differing levels of intelligence, which is an indicator of brain function, therefore a biological/psychometric quantity) to what isn't a meaningful biological construct. Race needs to be a meaningful biological construct for "race and intelligence" to have any meaning, no? Or are you saying that "racial differences" exist regardless of the meaninfulness of race as a biological construct?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Logically, I can't see that being true at all. For race differences in intelligence to exist, there must exist both races and intelligence, but I can't see how race needs to be biological (except in the most meaningless sense of the term that anything about humans is biological). Consider an example of something about humans that isn't "biological" -- e.g. tenure or retirement or education or occupations -- those things don't have to be biological in order for them to a subject of research (about intelligence, or social science research or biological research). Why do races matter only if they are biological? The particular choice of wording is also poor. The larger problem with the text is the notion of assumptions -- science doesn't usually have assumptions, but it does operate in a background of "conclusions" which at tentatively accepted based on past study. An actual assumption which is debated might be that "race differences in [behavioral] traits are worth studying". could provide citations for that assumption. Looking for other purely logical requirements -- I think it is necessary for races to be genetically non-identical for it to be logically possible for a genetic explanation of group differences in intelligence. However, James Flynn et al. think there are race differences in intelligence and that they aren't genetic in origin, so he and others aren't logically committed to that position.
I don't disagree with the usefulness of crisp descriptions of various points of view in the lede, but he synthesis of them into a list of necessary assumptions just doesn't work -- on top of the fact that its an OR synthesis. I'm sure its possible to try to say the same thing in a way that doesn't generate false and SYN implications. Prose is probably the best weapon, rather than a list of "assumptions". --Legalleft (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we're making headway into explaining each other's position on this. Race and intelligence can interact only if they interact on a same given level. If IQ was a social construct, I would concede the point that race not being a valid biological construct (but rather a social construct) is of little importance. However, IQ is generally seen as a high-order (read complex) biological phenomenon. If race exists solely as a social construct, one has to explain how a social construct can influence a biological phenomenon. Now, if race was a valid biological construct, the interaction would also be more plausible. But for now, I'm not aware of any social construct determining a biological parameter. Hope this makes the point more clearly.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an interesting proposition, but I don't see that it has to be true for purely logical reasons, I think it's a novel proposition rather than be generally supported by the literature (but it may possibly be something that lots of people believe tacitly), and I think that most SES and cultural causal theories of group differences in intelligence specifically theorize that culture has feedback effects on the brain (which you might call biological), just as education has feedback effects on the brain. (The ecological studies where they cosmetically tweak animals and show that it affects their physiology owning to social feedback processes comes to mind.) So I return to the example of James Flynn -- I don't think Flynn would accept the proposition that race has to be biological for racial differences in IQ to exist. It sounds somewhat like the (mistaken) proposition that IQ measures "innate" intelligence and thus IQ differences are genetic (or the more common denial of the antecedent -- that because IQ measures developed intelligence that differences aren't genetic) -- the two concepts are logically separate. In the particular case of race, the groups being studied are specifically taken from self-identification, with all the cultural and social baggage that implies -- something that I think everyone in the debate recognizes as an enormous confounding factor. --Legalleft (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That was a round about way of saying something that could have been demonstrated more simply by a well chosen example -- BW differences in low birth weight exist. Low birth weight is biological in a strong sense. The observation of BW differences in LBW doesn't require that races be biologically meaningful. --Legalleft (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because in the case of LBW, BW differences are well understood to be a proxy for SES levels, which are a proxy for nutritional levels during pregnancy, which is a determining factor in LBW. No such causality link has been demonstrated for BW differences in IQ testing results, except through the SES/nutritional/maternal environment (read environmental throughout) route. The "hereditarian hypothesis" (most common name) is still invoking pretty much a black box system well intelligence is under the control of multiple genes, and we know few if any of them, but we'll nevertheless assume that somehow intelligence genes aren't evenly distributed on the very large scale (hundreds of millions of people) of racial groups. Admittedly, I'm caricaturizing here, but you get my meaning, surely. --Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
unindent
You are both missing the point. Legalleft is making a false claim that there is a synthesis in the article. But I have included reliable sources that explicitly state that for "race" differences to have any meaning then "races" need to have biological validity. Whether Legalleft thinks Flynn, would accept the proposition is totally irrelevant. Legalleft's musings on the beliefs of some researcher are neither here nor there. Indeed Legalleft is mischaracterising the debate, people like Flynn are not saying that there are "race" differences, they are saying there are socially-excluded groups and that it is the social exclusion of these groups that causes the difference and not the "race" of these groups. Because some of these excluded groups are called "races" it does not follow that Flynn is discussing "race" and intelligence, it follows that Flynn is discussing "social exclusion" and intelligence. In this context African-Americans are not performing poorly because of their "race" but because of their social exclusion. I can't accept what Legalleft is saying he's conflating the concept of "race" differences with "social" differences". We can use "race" as a measure of social exclusion, just as we can use SES as a measure of social exclusion, but that is not the same as claiming that it is "race" which is the cause of the difference. As far as I can see Legalleft's argument is nothing to do with any synthesis, but more a general lack of understanding about the difference between a social and biological constructs on his part.
Lieberman, Leonard; Alice Littlefield and Larry T. Reynolds. "The Debate over Race: Thirty Years and Two Centuries Later." in "Race and I.Q." (1975) Ashley Montague (ed.) ISBN0-19-510220-7. ""Those who study I.Q. scores of different groups do so with the assumption that there are homogeneous races, when in fact that is not the case. Populations being very similar to each other to begin with, and being interbred with eah other - and humans have interbred throughout their evolution - makes it impossible to explain differences in I.Q. scores largely on the basis of heredity".
^ a b Montagu, Ashley "The I.Q. Mythology" in "Race and I.Q." (1975) Ashley Montague (ed) ISBN0-19-510220-7: "I have stated, and I think the statement long overdue, that both the term "race" and the term "IQ" are delusive because in the one case the social conception of "race" was the deliberate invention of a slave-owning caste attempting to justify its conduct, and in the other case because "IQ" tests do not measure what they have generally been claimed to measure, namely, innate intelligence ... The statistical treatment of data in any investigation may be quite unexceptional, but when unexceptional statistical methods are applied to the analysis of unsound data to begin with, based on assumptions that are equally unsound, one can only end up with conclusions that are equally unsound. Such are the erroneous constructs of "race" and "IQ"."
^ a b Graves, Joseph, L. "The Race Myth: Why we Pretend Race Exists in America". (2004) Dutton, New York, New York. p174. "The Bell Curve's arguments are plausible only if one assumes that biologically defined races exist within our species and that they correspond to the socially defined American races, that IQ really does determine the majority of the differential in social stature in societies, and that IQ tests reliably measure all pertinent aspects of cognitive function and are unbiased.
^ Montague, Ashley. "Intelligence, IQ and Race" in "Race and I.Q." (1975) Ashley Montague (ed.) ISBN0-19-510220-7. "..IQ tests, whatever their proponents may claim, do not measure intelligence. The truth is that no one really knowswhat the structure of intelligence is, and thereforethere cannot be anything even approximating a quantitative measure of intelligence, this abstraction of abstractions, that IQ tests purport to quantify. What is quite clear, except to IQ testers, is that many conditions enter into the making of these capabilities we call intelligence, and that without taking these factors into consideration such tests are quite valueless in providing a measure of "intelligence"
^ Gould, Stephen Jay "Racist Arguments and I.Q.". Natural History Magazine May 1974: "The confusion of within- and between-group variation. Jensen draws a causal connectio between his two major assertions - that the within-group heritability of I.Q. is 0.8 for American whites, and that the mean difference in I.Q. between American blacks and whites is 15 points. He assumes that the black "deficit" is largely genetic in origin because I.Q. is so highly heritable. This is a non-sequitur of the worst possible kind - for there is no necessary relationship between heritability within group and differences in mean values of two separate groups"
^ Jensen, Arthur. (1969) "..all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed altogether, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis, which of course, does not exclude the influence of environment on its interaction with genetic factors.
^ Lewontin, Richard. "Race and Intelligence" (1970) Science and Public Affairs. "To understand the main genetical arguments of Jensen, we must dwell, as he does, on the concept of heritability ... To contrast a "strictly environmental hypothesis" with "a genetic hypothesis which ... does not exclude the influence of the environment" is to be guilty of the utmost triviality. If that is the only conclusion he means to come to, Jensen has wasted a great deal of space in the "Harvard Educational Review". But of course, like all cant, the special languageof the social scientist needs to be translated into common English. What Jensen is saying is: "It is pretty clear, although not absolutely proved, that most of the difference in I.Q. between blacks and whites is genetical." This at least is not a trivial conclusion. Indeed it may even be true. However, the evidence offered by Jensen is irrelevant ... Is it not then likely that the [black-white IQ] difference is genetic? No. It is neither likely nor unlikely. There is no evidence. The fundamental error of Jensen's argument is to confuse heritability of a character within a population with heritability of the difference between two populations. Indeed, between two populations, the concept of heritability of their difference is meaningless. This is because a variance based upon two measurements has only one degree of freedom and so cannot be partitioned into genetic and environmental components. The genetic basis of the difference between two populations bears no logical or empirical relation to the heritability within populationsand cannot be infered from it..."
^ Graves, Joseph, L. "The Race Myth: Why we Pretend Race Exists in America". (2004) Dutton, New York, New York. p. 177. "The heritability of intelligence is not really the issue when addressing the race and intelligence question, however. All it states is that genes contribute to intelligence differences between families, but we have always known that. To make the racial hypothesis work, one needs to demonstrate which genes are responsible for high intelligence, and what are their frequencies in various human populations. Furthermore, to really make the case, one needs to explain why human beings should have drastically different frequencies of genes contributing to or detracting from intelligence. So far no one has advanced a credible theory.
^ Gould, Stephen, J. "The Mismeasure of Man" (1996) W.W.Norton and Company, New York, New York. "The central fallacy in using the substantial heritability of within group IQ (among whites, for example) as an explanation for average differences between groups (whites vs. blacks, for example) is now well known and acknowledged by all, including Herrnstein and Murray..."
Leaglleft, I didn't say you had a racist pov. I said you were pushing a racist pov. The continual downplaying of anti-hereditarian point of view, while actively promoting the hereditarian pov is not neutral, on Wikipedia we call it pov-pushing. The hereditarian pov is a racist pov, indeed it is a white supremacist pov, and you are pushing this pov. There are numerous problems with the hereditarian pov which have been highlighted again and again by scientists. These include criticisms of using IQ as a measure of intelligence, criticisms of the use of non-biological categories such as "race" to make biological claims, criticisms of the claim that high heritability estimates are an indication that a trait is primarily under genetic control (a simple lie), criticism of the claim that high heritability in one group can tell us anything meaningful about between group differences, criticim of the claim that high heritability estimates for one group indicate that it is therefore high in all groups (ie the treatment of heritability as if it were a quality of the trait (intelligence) whereas in fact it is a quality of the population (in this case "white" Americans), criticism of the computation of heritability, which cannot be calculated for traits in which environment-gene interactions correlate, such as in complex human traits such as intelligence (they effectively include environment-gene interaction effects within the calculation for heritability) and criticism of claims by Jensen that a high heritability indicates that the trait therefore cannot be modified by changes in environment (the thrust of Jensen's 1969 Harvard Educational Review article), again a simple lie. These are all important observations that have been made extensively by many and varied experts in anthropology, genetics, statistics, psychology and biology. Because they are criticisms made by experts published in reliable sources, we can include them in the article. As Graves states, any one of these shows the deeply flawed methodology of the so called "hereditarian" hypothesis, taken together they utterly destroy it. Even though these criticisms are well known and from impeccable sources, you have sought consistently to remove, or downplay their inclusion in the article. Indeed the article is currently very biased in favour of the unsupported "hereditarian" hypothesis, with the criticisms I have outlined above receiving very little attention. Furthermore your claim that these issus are not part of the "debate" is just an attempt to frame the article so that it only conforms to those parts of the debate that you with to include in the article. These claims are part of the debate, and we have citation from reliable sources to prove it. When we have reliable sources that make these claims they represent de facto evidence that this is absolutely part of the debate. So essentially you are claiming that we should not include these criticisms because you personally do not believe they are part of the debate, I would point out to you that in fact these are parts of the debate that you personally have no knowledge of. The fact that you personally are unaware of this part of the "debate" is not, in fact, a good reason not to include these observations. Alun (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Says Alun: '...claims by Jensen that a high heritability indicates that the trait therefore cannot be modified by changes in environment (the thrust of Jensen's 1969 Harvard Educational Review article), again a simple lie.' That is indeed a simple lie. Jensen never said that. --Plusdown (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have about five reliable sources that say that this is exactly what Jensen said in his Harvard Educational Review paper, indeed I have provided the names of these papers and their authors to you in a different thread on this page. Like it or not a reliable source is a reliable source, the main criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, I can include this information and verify it, of course we cannot simply verify a contention from any old source, so we need to use sources that are reliable, hence the reliable sources guideline. But then as an experienced Wikipedia editor you should already know this. Remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - Wikipedia:VerifiabilityAlun (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure you have those sources. But we can also quote Jensen himself, saying, for example, 'I have also attempted over the years to dispel the common, but unwarranted, assumption that heritability necessarily implies the inevitability or immutability of human differences' (link below). And Jensen is surely a reliable source about what Jensen thinks. So, by all means include those lies about Jensen, and cite them properly to their reliable sources whose views -- I have never disputed this -- are important...but their caricatures should be contextualised against what he has really said. --Plusdown (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "Jensen thinks", my specific point was about his claims in his Harvard Educational Review article, what he may or may not have said at other times is of course relevant to the article, but my statement was about his Harvard Educational Review article. On the other hand you stated that he did not make these claims in theHarvard Educational Review article, whereas in actual fact this article claims specifically that "Compensatiory education has been tried and apparently it has failed", he then goes to claim that this is because the heritability of IQ is high, and that this means that IQ is primarily under genetic control, both of these claims are fallacies, heritability is a quality of the population (in this case in the "white" population it is claimed to be 80%) and not "intelligence", likewise a high heritability does not measure the contribution of genes to a trait, but the contribution of genes to the variance of a trait, therefore high heritability tells us nothing about the genetic contribution to intelligence. These are the fallacies of the HER article and these are what I was discussing, there are also numerous citations backing this claim up. Alun (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Debating the three bullet point items in isolation is not what I was getting at. It's what the sentence is claiming to summarize: The debate surrounding any meaningful link between race and intelligence centers on the acceptance of three assumptions. I suppose the confusion might stem from different interpretations of "any meaningful link between race and intelligence". As far as I can tell, that phrase simply means that race differences in intelligence are not artifacts of the data -- such as being simply the result of test bias. And it doesn't have anything to do with genetic versus environmental contributions -- when you're debating the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors you are already talking about "meaningful" differences. Thus, the three bullet points don't follow as a summary of assumptions to regarding race differences as meaningful. As far as I can tell, the only assumption there is that you must find intelligence meaningful and that you must be concerned about the existence of racial disparities, or as I described above: "race differences in [behavioral] traits are worth studying". --Legalleft (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So how about we change it to The debate surrounding race and intelligence centers on the acceptance of three assumptions then? That should address your concerns, no? Alun (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Turing the list into a paragraph and replacing the idea of "assumptions" with "debated topics" or something like that was what I was looking for. --Legalleft (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Moved around some text to provide an example of what i mean. A list seems redundant / more detail than necessary. Should focus on narrative summary. --Legalleft (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
One last thing -- even the text I moved is factually inaccurate. Describing the debate as being about "definitions" isn't accurate -- analytic philosophers debate definitions -- its about descriptions, measurements, theories, etc. --Legalleft (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my only problem with this edit is your treatment of the so called "race" controversy, there is no "race" controversy, the idea of typological races died a very quick death in the 1960s and is still well and truly dead. Furthermore there is a strong consensus in the biological and anthropological academic communities that the human species is of very recent origin, arose in Africa, and that we are therefore genetically very homogeneous. There is little or no controversy, the fact that Jensen et al. have used a social construct to make biological claims is a throwback to the mid 20th century when anthropologists still though of the world in "racial" terms, their use of these social categories to make biological claims has been roundly condemned by experts in anthropology and biology. Attempts to classify people based on genetic variation today are proving as futile as attempts to classify people based on physical variation a century ago. Let's have a think about how we can better word this. Alun (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Iterative improvements are great. Aside from your mischaracterization of Jensen, I agree with your general statement -- and so does Jensen -- races are not typological. Jensen (1998) chapter 12:
Wrong Conceptions of Race. The root of most wrong conceptions of race is the Platonic view of human races as distinct types, that is, discrete, mutually exclusive categories. According to this view, any observed variation among the members of a particular racial category merely represents individual deviations from the archetype, or ideal type, for that “race.” Since, according to this Platonic view of race, every person can be assigned to one or another racial category, it naturally follows that there is some definite number of races, each with its unique set of distinctive physical characteristics, such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. The traditional number has been three: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid, in part derived from the pre-Darwinian creationist view that “the races of mankind” could be traced back to the three sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
But there are biological differences between self-identified racial groups, and some of those differences have a known genetic etiology. --Legalleft (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are obviously biological differences between populations from different parts of the world. The concept of "race" is considered fallacious because it does not accurately measure how human variation is distributed. The only real problem with the "genetic hypothesis" is that there is actually no genetic evidence to support it. Of course that does not mean it is wrong, it just means that the evidence is only circumstantial, and even this circumstantial evidence is generally considered decidedly weak. I am reminded of the statement that Watson made, "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." Which is a reasonable statement, but no more or less reasonable than the converse ""there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have diverged." Just a thought. Alun (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is reminiscent of something which has long interest me about race...aside from the biological/anthropological work, one could write a very interesting philosophical analysis of the concept of 'race', from the point of view of a nominalist/universalist controversy. Not that I'm suggesting it for the article, since it would be a prime example of OR, as well as irrelevant (though if anyone knows if such a thing has been done, it could be an interesting addition to the 'Race (Classification of Humans)' article. Just a thought. (Since I'm something of a nominalist, it's probably why I have no problem talking about the classical 'races', since any word we care to use is simply a coarse-grained approximation to reality; and the coarse-grainedness of a word is often directly proportional to its utility but inversely proportional to its accuracy.)
And as for the fact that there is no genetic evidence to support the 'genetic hypothesis', that is possibly the most crucial, and damning, bit of criticism of it that there is; there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but since no-one has found 'intelligence genes', much less studied their distribution across population groups (I seem to recall reading about some study which used a 5-level iteration to analyse people's genetic makeup for possible intelligence genes, but which came back empty-handed), it is still very much a hypothesis. But that's why I always insist that the matter is fundamentally undecided...because the counter-evidence is just as circumstantial (i.e. it has not been proven that there is not a set of genes which together go to determining intelligence), even though there's a Hell of a lot of that, as well.
Which is why it's silly to get worked about the whole issue; getting worked up about people misrepresenting science to support political agendas is, of course, another matter entirely (and something we should not let creep into what should be a factual article, no matter where the person sits on the political spectrum or how noble their views).
Btw, Alun, I probably lost my cool a bit with you before, and said some unreasonable things; I mean no harm [1]. I took a bit of a break, and am back feeling somewhat more calm. --Plusdown (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I'm the same. Sometimes we all get too involved the argument and need to step back for a bit, I know I do sometimes :) Alun (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There hasn't even been a solid admixture study based on genotypes (the few based on phenotypes are meaningless). But there are a few replicated candidate genes with associations with IQ: CHRM2 and DTNBP1 iirc. Of course, nothing you can really make a call on re: race. --Legalleft (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Article topic not appropriate for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia's strength of egalitarian contribution, which is effective on most articles, may also be its greatest weakness on others.[2] This article is proving to be too divisive for the creation of an informative article with stable content. The non-egalitarian implications of this article stand in contrast to the principles Wikipedia is built on. Maybe Wikipedia is not the proper forum for this article. --Jagz (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
most of the problems seem to stem from people who have trouble accepting intelligence differences between races, not wikipedia's format itself. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a view from The Monitor (Uganda), written by Ugandan journalist Timothy Kalyegira.[3] Note the critical comment at the bottom of that webpage as well, perhaps written by an American. --Jagz (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a very interesting perspective (the article, that is, not the drivel posted underneath it) -- especially coming from an African. But why not include that article in the wiki article? After all, if we can have the NYT or Washington Post, then isn't it systemic bias to deny the same level of coverage to prominent papers from Africa? Though of course, the journalist in question is obviously an Uncle Tom, and hence his opinions are not worth considering. --Plusdown (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Couple of problems here: first off, Mr Kalyegira is a journalist, not a scientist, and his piece is very much an op-ed piece, therefore to be taken with a grain of salt. This is what I could find about him: Timothy Kalyegira, one of Uganda's most controversial journalists, has long set off my "crazy" radar. He's a vocal denier of the thousands of political murders perpetrated during Idi Amin's reign, for one. Even more strange: he's claimed for almost two years that he has access to a "seer" who predicts the future of African politics.[4]--Ramdrake (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. Your comment is a personal attack such as this:[6]. --Jagz (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a comment that was left on my Talk page in January. The article has been modified quite a bit since the comment was written.
"You are fighting a group of some the most effective blockers on wikipedia. The subject it really very emotive and goes to the heart of many peoples core belief systems. You are performing valiant work in the face of extreme personal attacks and I commend you. Try to ignore such attacks on your intelligence and competence and so on. The article as it stands is a shamble of POV and weasel words and fails to describe the debate in any coherant fashion, and this is by design... 22 January 2008 (UTC)"
Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does not censor material. The article is in your opinion unstable because people wish to censor information that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. Best, Metagraph 09:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mediation?
Sorry to butt in, but I'd like to request a show of hands of all those in favor of mediation, following the current discussion at ANI. Thanks folks!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept mediation.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ambivalent...I'll go along with it, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. --Plusdown (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
comment I dont consider myself actively involved as an editor of this page any more (there are a number of people actively engaged whose knowledge of the subject far outweighs mine). However, I am willing to be an official participant in mediation if my participation would seem necessary to the process considering my history - otherwise (if the number of active editors is such a large number that additional participants makes the process too unwieldy) I am willing to abide by the results of the mediation without being a participant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept. After some thinking, especially about what Jagz said, which I did think about, though did not take personally. Mediation is apt. Let's see if User:TimVickers is still prepared to mediate the discussion shall we? Alun (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept Though not often active here anymore, it is not from lack of interest or concern, and I do monitor the page. We started a mediation last year, which went nowhere. Then we tried some consensus building exercises when the page was protected, but only a few people showed any interest. Then all hell broke loose again when the page was reopened. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Perhaps it would be helpful to articulate just what exactly needs to be mediated? A couple sentences summarizing the issues, or a (short) list of bullet points. --Elonka 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, everyone interested should read through the article and note what they think is missing and should be included, and what they think is irrelevant but is included. Then try to consolidate this into a coherent discussion on the talk page about the relative merits of any contested info. If we do this and we get stuck, possinly then we should go to mediation? Certainly we need some specifics. Elonka herself has noted that there is little discussion of "race" as a concept in the article, though this form one of the arguments against the "genetic" hypothesis. Likewise I think there are whole sections about specific reports that themselves need only be used for verifiability. I also think we need to point out the historical malleability of "whiteness", for example the way that Jewish, Italian, Irish people were regarded as "genetically" inferior in their "intelligence" in the 1920s in the USA, but magically became "clever" when they gained acceptance into the socially dominant group in the USA. Alun (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My own problems with the article are relatively few, but rather deep:
Structurally, it is broken and is going to lead to further problems
It is riddled with weasel words, arguing with itself, unnecessarily disparaging in places/laudatory in others
The genetic explanation is misportrayed in many respects (I'll give details later if necessary)
If those three things could be addressed, I'd feel that some headway has been made. --Plusdown (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't necessarily have solutions for these:
Dilemma of being both concise and hitting the full range of POVs -- if the article is too long, no one will read it, making it worthless.
Lots of material is repeated in multiple places.
The public controversy distracts from the scholarly controversies.
The genetic explanation is misportrayed or otherwise left unexplained.
Misconceptions and other problems in original sources are translated through, making the article look inconsistent and badly written.
The article will probably have to get worse on the way to getting better.
Too much emphasis on Jensen and a total lack of historical perspective. This article is called "race and intelligence". Therefore it should not ignore past constructions. For example the article selectively mentions Francis Galton "Galton claimed from his field observations in Africa that the African people were significantly below Anglo-Saxons' position in the normal frequency distribution of general mental ability; these claims continue to spark controversy in academia today.[19]" but this ignores the fact that Galton and other Victorians did not consider the British working class, or the Irish as "white". It also glosses over the fact that in Britain in the nineteenth century "white" was synonymous with "middle class" and not "European", and that in the USA "white" did not include non-Anglo-Saxon people until after the Second World War. Indeed the whole historical context is exceedingly distorted, and this is eminently citble.
When we have some historical context, then we need to be more inclusive. For example Hans Eyseneck has written that his theory for the lack of ability on "intelligence" scores for African-Americans is due to "selection" for low IQ Africans during the enslavement process (ie that only stupid people got caught). He expands upon this theme by explaining that the average IQ for Africa-Americans is similar to that of Irish people, and explains that Irish people have a low IQ due to the emigration from Ireland of clever people. So Irish people are stupid due to the emigration of "clever genes", but African-Americans are stupid due to the emigration of only stupid genes from Africa during the enslavement process. These Eyesnesk theories are ignored int he article. But this is not an article about "modern theories".
A total lack of perspective regarding the social construction of "race".
No genetic analysis.
No real analysis of heritability, all attempts to explain that heritability has nothing to do with the genetic aeteology are consstently and comprehensively undermined.
An attempt by certain editors to frame the "debate" in their own terms, rather than the terms of the authorities cited. For example some editors seek to exclude edits by claiming that these do not "represent the debate", even though the authors of the articles cited explicitly state that the subject dealt with by the paper are directly relevant, and even central to the debate.[7]
I'd post more, but i fear that I have already breached my "quantum" for today. Pft. Alun (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Missing reference: Reynolds et al.
The first illustration cites "Reynolds et al. 1987", but I could not find the corresponding citation in the "References" section. The full list of authors is given in Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png as "Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987". I found an article that cited the same paper by googling the names. I added the reference, because I am 99% sure this is the right paper. However, I wonder if someone who is familiar with the literature in the field could just double check that this is the right reference? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Mediation?
Sorry to butt in, but I'd like to request a show of hands of all those in favor of mediation, following the current discussion at ANI. Thanks folks!--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept mediation.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ambivalent...I'll go along with it, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. --Plusdown (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
comment I dont consider myself actively involved as an editor of this page any more (there are a number of people actively engaged whose knowledge of the subject far outweighs mine). However, I am willing to be an official participant in mediation if my participation would seem necessary to the process considering my history - otherwise (if the number of active editors is such a large number that additional participants makes the process too unwieldy) I am willing to abide by the results of the mediation without being a participant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept. After some thinking, especially about what Jagz said, which I did think about, though did not take personally. Mediation is apt. Let's see if User:TimVickers is still prepared to mediate the discussion shall we? Alun (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Accept Though not often active here anymore, it is not from lack of interest or concern, and I do monitor the page. We started a mediation last year, which went nowhere. Then we tried some consensus building exercises when the page was protected, but only a few people showed any interest. Then all hell broke loose again when the page was reopened. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Perhaps it would be helpful to articulate just what exactly needs to be mediated? A couple sentences summarizing the issues, or a (short) list of bullet points. --Elonka 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, everyone interested should read through the article and note what they think is missing and should be included, and what they think is irrelevant but is included. Then try to consolidate this into a coherent discussion on the talk page about the relative merits of any contested info. If we do this and we get stuck, possinly then we should go to mediation? Certainly we need some specifics. Elonka herself has noted that there is little discussion of "race" as a concept in the article, though this form one of the arguments against the "genetic" hypothesis. Likewise I think there are whole sections about specific reports that themselves need only be used for verifiability. I also think we need to point out the historical malleability of "whiteness", for example the way that Jewish, Italian, Irish people were regarded as "genetically" inferior in their "intelligence" in the 1920s in the USA, but magically became "clever" when they gained acceptance into the socially dominant group in the USA. Alun (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My own problems with the article are relatively few, but rather deep:
Structurally, it is broken and is going to lead to further problems
It is riddled with weasel words, arguing with itself, unnecessarily disparaging in places/laudatory in others
The genetic explanation is misportrayed in many respects (I'll give details later if necessary)
If those three things could be addressed, I'd feel that some headway has been made. --Plusdown (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't necessarily have solutions for these:
Dilemma of being both concise and hitting the full range of POVs -- if the article is too long, no one will read it, making it worthless.
Lots of material is repeated in multiple places.
The public controversy distracts from the scholarly controversies.
The genetic explanation is misportrayed or otherwise left unexplained.
Misconceptions and other problems in original sources are translated through, making the article look inconsistent and badly written.
The article will probably have to get worse on the way to getting better.
Too much emphasis on Jensen and a total lack of historical perspective. This article is called "race and intelligence". Therefore it should not ignore past constructions. For example the article selectively mentions Francis Galton "Galton claimed from his field observations in Africa that the African people were significantly below Anglo-Saxons' position in the normal frequency distribution of general mental ability; these claims continue to spark controversy in academia today.[19]" but this ignores the fact that Galton and other Victorians did not consider the British working class, or the Irish as "white". It also glosses over the fact that in Britain in the nineteenth century "white" was synonymous with "middle class" and not "European", and that in the USA "white" did not include non-Anglo-Saxon people until after the Second World War. Indeed the whole historical context is exceedingly distorted, and this is eminently citble.
When we have some historical context, then we need to be more inclusive. For example Hans Eyseneck has written that his theory for the lack of ability on "intelligence" scores for African-Americans is due to "selection" for low IQ Africans during the enslavement process (ie that only stupid people got caught). He expands upon this theme by explaining that the average IQ for Africa-Americans is similar to that of Irish people, and explains that Irish people have a low IQ due to the emigration from Ireland of clever people. So Irish people are stupid due to the emigration of "clever genes", but African-Americans are stupid due to the emigration of only stupid genes from Africa during the enslavement process. These Eyesnesk theories are ignored int he article. But this is not an article about "modern theories".
A total lack of perspective regarding the social construction of "race".
No genetic analysis.
No real analysis of heritability, all attempts to explain that heritability has nothing to do with the genetic aeteology are consstently and comprehensively undermined.
An attempt by certain editors to frame the "debate" in their own terms, rather than the terms of the authorities cited. For example some editors seek to exclude edits by claiming that these do not "represent the debate", even though the authors of the articles cited explicitly state that the subject dealt with by the paper are directly relevant, and even central to the debate.[8]
I'd post more, but i fear that I have already breached my "quantum" for today. Pft. Alun (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Missing reference: Reynolds et al.
The first illustration cites "Reynolds et al. 1987", but I could not find the corresponding citation in the "References" section. The full list of authors is given in Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png as "Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987". I found an article that cited the same paper by googling the names. I added the reference, because I am 99% sure this is the right paper. However, I wonder if someone who is familiar with the literature in the field could just double check that this is the right reference? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Some problems
1The minnesota transracial adoption study used black children who were adopted later than the white children. I do not know where to find this information but it's worth mentioning. Then there's the fact that children adopted later have lower iqs.
2I also wonder why the article has removed the criticism of the jensen report from 2003. They were here a while ago but now I can't find them. I have seen them added here but they were removed for sounding "weird" or "irrevelant" without any discussion.
3The article assumes that the only views are wholly environmental or mostly genetic. This is just plain wrong. Most scientists don't believe this sort of bull. I remember a table showing gradual increase towards genetic influence but was also removed.
4Are the iqs of middle easterners used to measure the iqs of whites? What about southeast asians and pacific islanders when discussing asians
and finally 5The article is too dam long.YVNP (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to help edit the page? Brusegadi (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Snyderman and Rothman study
We should remove this section. The article is too long and this "study" is a study of media rather than a work of science on the subject. It was not well received, and is not notable enough to be included in this article. I think the same is true for the section on "'Mainstream Science on Intelligence' editorial" --at the time it caused a small stir, but looking back on it now that some time has passed it seems pretty unimportant. Let's remove both of these sections. futurebird (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I tagged it as off topic some time ago. Several of these sections should not exist in my opinion. For example the "mainstream" statement could well be used as a source to support a contention in the article, but I don't really see why it deserves a section all of its own. I tend to think the same about the AAA statement and the APA report. I don't think that ever single publication that discusses this subject deserves a section of its own, rather publications should be used to support claims made in the article. Alun (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Strange focus
This article stresses the white black gap in IQ scores. Is that not suspicious. It could equally stress the Asian White gap in favour of Asians, right? Am I the only one to see these things. The man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.62.211 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's out of place - the white-black difference has generally been the most socially and historically significant one.Feichangdao (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason for that focus is because the majority of this research is done in america where race relations are mostly between blacks and whites. The scientist themselves admit they have little interest in this outside of the black-white difference because it simply doesn't matter to them. This is why the iq of middle easterners is not studied nearly as much as the iq of black americans for example.YVNP (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
What I find interesting about the focus on black-white differences in the USA is that conceptions of both races are ridiculous. If race exists as a biological concept, neither white nor black could be considered races, especially in the context of the USA. Both groups have been interbreeding for centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.138.69 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What I find weird is the fact they stress how much it may be true in the case of Black-White differences, or they imply as if it was common sense among people in general; whereas for Asian-White differences, they put a lot more doubt in the question whether it is true or not. It is to be expected as the article is written by a White majority. Sorry, English is not my native language. It is my third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.239.166 (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
hope you find this useful. Btw, I suggest trimming this article ruthlessly. It is far too long, and a great deal of it should be under a History of type heading, being out-of-date info and views. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
An example of sanity! You are going to start confusing people, my canine friend! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What, on this article? No no, sanity is simply an oddity here - like a butterfly in a shopping mall. One looks, then carries on. It changes nothing. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I must admit it is a very handsome butterfly. Perhaps this particular puppy will stick around and employ that killer instinct strategically and constructively to help improve an article that, I assure you, is in need of fresh ideas and editorial skills. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but those who edit it to be truly NPOV will no doubt be accused of ... well ... something. Probably many things. Sanity ist verboten hier! :-/ •Jim62sch•dissera! 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Measurements
? and/or the causes of any differences that appear in the measurements. Height and weight? Head circumference? Dick size? Utter piffle. •Jim62sch•dissera! 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
According to one of Rushton's sources, size of genitals matters. ;-/ --Ramdrake (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Took out an edit "identifying intelligence genes"
After looking at the source, the source is a blog (violating WP:RS), and the calculations seem to be homemade (violating WP:NOR). We'd need a reliable source stating that this is a significant viewpoint in order to reintroduce this edit, if such can be found (I'll admit I'm skeptical). --Ramdrake (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable sources identifying genes that appear to be linked to intelligence. For example, the DTNBP1 [1] and CHRM2 [2] genes. Racial variation in these genes can be demonstrated using the HapMap dataset. Solarserf (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The sources identify genes which appear to be linked to intelligence, mostly in patients with mental illnesses. The HapMap is another thing. Putting the two together to say that they suggest that genes controlling intelligence are racially distributed is pure original research. As such, it is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, unless you find a reliable source that makes the point (such as a scholar in a peer-reviewed journal).--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, the WP:SYNTH section of the above-referenced policy. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that now. You're both absolutely right. I'm new to Wikipedia. Solarserf (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Race & Intelligence = Controversial?
I have added back the epithet controversial to qualify the field, as both sides of the debate acknowledge the controversy (please see refs), therefore the controversiality of the field of study should be uncontroversial. :).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
the iq of the children tested
This is suspicious to me because it seems to avoid mentioning the iq of adults. I remember reading from Rushton himself that the iq difference between the races was due to growing at different rates. Black children grow up the fastest and end up with the lowest scores while asians are the opposite. If this is true why can't we say that poor white children grow up faster than wealthy black children and end up with lower iq scores as adults?YVNP (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, because nobody in the scientific literature has made that claim. It isn't for Wikipedia editors to start new theories.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, they say that if your IQ decrease as you age, it is due to a genetic factor.
Black children grow up the fastest
So they get to fifteen in ten years or something? Is it like "dog years" or something? What are these people on? Takes special drugs to come up with this nonsense, what has Rushton been smoking for the last several decades, for sure it's not pot or he wouldn't be so obsessed that he's got a small todger (in the end that's what it's about surely, the guy's got a small one, so he's compensating by saying "well at least I've got a big brain," well he's even delude on that score methinks). Oh no, I said nonsense, I suppose I'll get slapped down for that by someone "managing" this article. Alun (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't he saying black africans were uncivilized?
YVNP (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)I don't know if this notable but is Jared Diamond's theory claiming that the Africans and Native Americans were uncivilized? He does dismiss genetic explanations but does he agree they never contribute d to the world?
Presumably you are referring to the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond certainly doesn't claim that these groups "never contributed to the world". Since they are part of the world, how could this be the case? As for being "civilized" or "uncivilized", I think he pretty much avoids those terms as they imply value judgments he wishes to avoid. Moreover, the book has little to do with this article's subject, namely "race and intelligence". About the only mention of the subject of intelligence in GG&S is a brief aside suggesting that native New Guineans may be more intelligent than Westerners. (Although I admire Diamond, this passage is pretty dumb with its weak, speculative evidence.) You seem to be putting words in Diamond's mouth that don't fit very well. CAVincent (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
IQ Map
I think the article would benefit from the inclusion of the following map of national IQs. I see it was discussed previously on these talk pages, but it looks like a consensus was not reached.
This map would be good too. I know there is controversy regarding the methodology used to arrive at the IQ figures shown on the maps. The article debates this controversy, and the map would serve to clarify the debate. The map's caption could state that the methodology has been heavily criticised. Solarserf (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is about "race" and "intelligence" it is not about IQ variation between different states. I assume when you say "national" you are referring to states and not nations? Alun (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, Alun. Of course, racial demographics vary tremendously between states. Maybe there would be a case for having a separate article on possible variations in intelligence between states? Solarserf (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There are already articles on the books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality. Considering this particular research subject is being investigated by at most two researchers, I'd say it would not be worth an article separate from the books.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Race and ethnicity are highly correlated with geography and national boundaries so I see no merit in the claim that a map of the distribution of IQ is irrelevant. The reader will be aware that a certain population is numerically dominant in sub-Saharan Africa, another in China, and another in Europe. The map is a striking presentation of the principle uncontroversial empirical finding: Africa low IQ, East Asia high IQ. Qemist (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the IQ curves graphic at the beginning of the article already conveys this notion. Second, this particular analysis (IQ by nation) is being championed by one or two researchers, and its methodology has been widely discredited. Thirdly, this is about Race and Intelligence. IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality, both articles on Wikipedia, already deal with the subject. Lastly, to make the jump IQ vs nation to IQ vs Race is basically original research. There are other places where this picture might be appropriate; here isn't one of them.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how computing average IQ by nation can be discredited any more than can computing average income by nation. You measure something and partition the data into bins, then calculate. If that specific graph has been discredited (bad data/bad calculations), fine, delete it if you can make that case. So far you haven't. But that's not the reason you originally gave for deleting the graphic. That was not relevant to "Race" and intelligence. If you think that a graphic of IQ levels by nation is inappropriate in an article about Race and IQ, presumably you object to a graph of gene distributions by nation in an article about Race and genetics. I think you should delete that one too if you are sincere. What about the display of Caste-like minorities by nation? Qemist (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The data is mostly discredited on the basis of sampling errors (more details at IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality). Lynn's research is also fringe science. I don't need to make the case: it's been made before by the people who've criticized the two works above.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any defence of your original deletion comment here. You've moved from claiming the graphic was inappropriate because it grouped the results at the national level to saying the particular graphic is bad. Qemist (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
National IQs Based on the Results of Intelligence Tests[3]According to definition: Race is A large group of people distinguished from others on the basis of a common heritage. On this basis the map is relevant to the arcticle as countries are inhabited by people with common heritage :-) Secondly, all the criticism doesn't apply to this particular map, because all countries without results of the tests are shown as 'no data'. Richard Lynn is only the source of the data. Thirdly the colors of this particular map are neutral so it is unable to receive a well-taken controversy. And at last the map is important enough as the graph shows only difference between races. But the map shows the geographical distribution of them as well. Let's vote. I am for it.Emilfaro (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Local consensus cannot supersede Wikipedia policy. Showing a map of IQ by country and then wanting to include it in the article on Race and intelligence and then using a third source to say that both are "large groups of people" is absolutely original research, and against policy. Also, while we can have a debate about it, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so just votes don't count. Even more, if your map departs from that of Lynn's, it is actually another case of original research, as it is a compilation which isn't found in literature. Please review Wikipedia policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Using the definition of a word is not original research. If nation meets the definition of race, then a nation is a race. Qemist (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, using the definition of a word to say that "race" is similar enough to nation that what is pertinent to one is pertinent to the other is OR. If someone in the literature has made the point, fine. But otherwise, no. Please review WP:NOR.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing to vote on. Until you provide reiliables sources that indicate for example, that the current population of "The United States of America is a Race," this map is totally irrelevant to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be following the debate. I've already pointed out that there are multiple other displays in this and other race-related articles that aggregate data at the national level. Do you want them all removed? When you indent a talk contribution it is conventional to indent to the level of the comment you are replying to, plus one. See WP:TP#IndentationQemist (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, dictionaries are literature about how words are used. If a dictionary says that one word is a synonym of another then it is saying that you can use it in place of the other. For example, Highest mountains of Tasmania lists not only mountains, but also bluffs, mounts, peaks, crags, and a knob. According to your reasoning, this is OR unless a specific publication is cited that states that what is pertinent to mountains is pertinent to bluffs etc. I don't think that nations and races are synonymous, but your argument is specious and your tone condescending. Qemist (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There are several logical fallacies in this reasoning. Firstly it is irrelevant to say that just because some articles are inaccurate then it's OK for this article to be inaccurate. Your citing of the article Highest mountains of Tasmania is a case in point. Indeed those listed that are not mountains should be removed, or the article should be renamed something like Highest peaks in Tasmania. Secondly Emilfaro's use of the definition of a "race" is misleading, this appears to be redefining "race" to mean the same thing like "the population of a state". The conclusion that "countries are inhabited by people with a common heritage" is clearly incorrect and seems to be the opinion of Emilfaro, well I come from the United Kingdom, and there are many people there who would take great exception to this claim, there are Welsh people and Scottish people and English people and Irish people and Indian people and Bangladeshi people and African-Caribbean people and Pakistani people, indeed more people from such a diverse set of heritages that I could not possibly list even a small fraction of them off the top of my head. The population of any state is heterogeneous and that's just a fact. The data provided by Lynn are based on very dubious assumptions, and use tests conducted on often small sets of people which are extrapolated to the population of the state. But these data clearly do not represent any attempt to differentiate between so called "races" and Lynn doesn't make this claim. It is considered a synthesis on Wikipedia to make claims for sources that those sources themselves do not make. If Richard Lynn had made the claim that the data presented in the map represent "racial" differences, then you could cite the original source. But Lynn does not make this claim as far as I know, we cannot make claims here for Lynn's data that Lynn himself does not make. Alternatively you can go and try to find a reliable source that makes use of Lynn's list of "IQ" population averages by state and specifically claims that this list is relevant to the debate about "race" and IQ. Otherwise this is a synthesis which represents OR. Nothing trumps our core policies and you need specific sources that link these specific data with the debate over "race" and IQ. As our no original research policy explicitly states Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Which is exactly what I have asked you to do. Cheers. Alun (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Our policies and guidelines are frequently contradictory. For example, the Manual of Style recommends editors provide conversions of measurements between imperial and metric units, yet surely to take one source (the original measurement) and another (the conversion table) to arrive at a conclusion in neither (the converted measurement) is a synthesis. Fortunately WP:IAR provides an exemption from all rules, if necessary. Whether Lynn's map merits inclusion, I don't know. I object to the high handed way in which it was removed. Qemist (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no contradiction here, converting between different units is not a synthesis, we are merely converting an observation from one unit to another unit, if we were measuring mass for example, the mass would remain the same, only expressed in different units. No one would claim that this was a synthesis or that it was original research. There is no contradiction here and your analogy is not accurate. If you were to demonstrate that some reliable source is claiming that the terms "race" and "population of a state" are different measurements of the same entity, then your observation would have some merit, but you have not provided a source that claims this. Like it or not both kg and lb are measuring the same property of a given quantity of substance, it's mass, and there are reliable sources that will support this observation. Please see Wikipedia:These are not original research where it clearly states that Any simple mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. The same applies to measurements of distance pressure etc. On the other hand thee is no reliable source that will state that the "population of a state" is the same thing as a "race". Please provide sources. Alun (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said that our core policies couldn't be superseded by any other guideline? Now you say that WP:SYNTH is superseded by an essay. There is no reason for me to provide any references to support the proposition that "race" and "population of a state" are different measurements of the same entity, because I never made that assertion. I criticised some dubious logic in Ramdrake's reply to Emilfaro's suggestion that nations satisfied a definition of race. In fact the word race has commonly been used to refer to the people of a nation since at least the 19th century, as any good dictionary will confirm (eg The Italian race exists, it is alive, robust, pure, Carlo Cecchelli, or, A more sacred place for the British race does not exist in the world, Winston Churchill). I don't, however, approve of that usage in this article. You should read previous entries in the discussion before putting words in another editor's mouth. Qemist (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have indicated anywhere that WP:SYNTH is superseded by any essay. WP:SYNTH is part of one of our core policies, it is a section of the no original research policy. The essay I link to is a general discussion of what our core policies mean and why we have them, as such I thought it was relevant, it is not a policy or guideline, but provides information about these core policies. What I did say was that for the map to have any relevance in the article it must have been placed in the context of "race" and intelligence by a reliable source. So I'm simply asking for clear evidence that some reliable source has used these data in the context of the debate about "race" and intelligence. If none is forthcoming then the map remains irrelevant and should not be included in the article. The word "race" does sometimes have the obscure meaning of "nation" or even "family" or "tribe", but this obscure meaning does not apply to this article. We're not here to discuss the etymology of the word, "race" in the sense of taxonomy has a specific meaning, it means subspecies, or at least a sub-set of a population with an identifiably distinct phenotype, this article is about the academic research relating to "race" and intelligence, none of which has ever used the archaic meaning of the word "race". If you don't want to find sources that link Lynn's data with "race" and intelligence discussions, then that's fine, I have no problem with that, but this discussion is about whether the map should or should not be included in the article, and if you don't want to discuss that issue then other issues are irrelevant. Alun (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a specific problem with a user's conduct, as you imply when you say "I object to the high handed way in which it was removed," then I suggest that you state specifically what it is that you object to, was there a personal attack in the edit summary perhaps? On the other hand you need to remember that unsourced information should not be included in Wikipedia and can be removed at any time, Jimmy Wales is quoted on the verifiability policy page as saying There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. The removal of poorly sources or unsourced original research is not only a perfectly acceptable thing to do, it is the right thing to do. Alun (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It is courteous to make an entry in the talk page before removing material. Ramdrake did not do so. The map was not unsourced, random or speculative, and the removal was not justified by its being pseudo-information. The stated reason was that it was not relevant. That does not warrant removal without discussion. Qemist (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in the ettiquette behaviour guideline to say that removal of material from articles needs to be preceded by a talk page discussion, or that it is considered discourteous to do so. Certainly my experience on Wikipedia is that material is both added to, and removed from, articles routinely without discussion on the talk page. Ramdrake was quite right to remove it, we are encouraged to be bold, Ramdrake clearly thought that the map was irrelevant. It is beholden on you to assume that Ramdrake was acting in good faith when he removed the map. Unless he made a specific personal attack when he removed the map, which he clearly did not,[9] then I fail to see any problem with it's removal. Likewise the map is clearly not relevant to an article discussion "race" because the map makes no reference to "race". The source of the map may be apparent, but it's relevance has not been established, except by a very convoluted and profoundly flawed synthesis by Emilfaro. Unless there is a reliable source that specifically links these data to "race" then I don't see it's relevance to the article either. Alun (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One final point about our WP:Core content policies, i.e. verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. These are or core policies, no other policy or guideline can supersede these, not even a consensus by editors of an article can supersede these policies. The relevant quote is: These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. therefore the WP:IAR policy cannot be used to ignore our three core content policies. I strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with these policies, they are fundamental to good editing and you'll find that it makes editing a lot easier when you understand these policies well. Cheers. Alun (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One last point is that this was started by Emilfaro's placing this map not specifically in this article, but in nearly a dozen articles ranging from Intelligence Quotient to Social intelligence to High IQ society (about organizations such as MENSA and the likes). I removed this very table from everywhere where I thought it wasn't relevant, with a short edit summary about why it wasn't relevant. When this removal was challenged, I explained in more detail for this article the reasons why it shouldn't be included, which Alun re-explained at length. This wasn't a random rampage of deleting a relevant table from this article, but rather selectivele reverting what could unfortunately best be described as "spamming".--Ramdrake (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I can live without this map on this page and on the other pages. But what you actually do is you destroy knowledge. Emilfaro (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so melodramatic. Where has "knowledge" been "destroyed". The information still exists, it had not "ceased to exist", it is just not applicable to this article. Besides if you read the essay "The Tainted Sources of the Bell Curve" you will find a devastating critique of Lynn's so called "research methods." Indeed the best way to describe how he came up with "IQ" data from Africa is to say that he "made it up". He used data collected by the Apartheid regime that had been deliberately collected in order to support apartheid, English language tests deliberately given to people who did not speak good English etc. Lynn must be the only person in the world who would consider these data, collected by an overtly racist regime, to be remotely accurate in measuring "intelligence". Further Lynn took data from tests that were not "IQ" tests, and from which it is impossible to determine the IQ of the testee, and pretended that he could reasonably apply a fair "IQ" score. Lynn's data are not only irrelevant to this article, they are biased and distorted and often misrepresent the conclusions of the original researcher who collected the data. Lynn is far from a reliable source for these sorts of data. I might go so far as to say that the destruction of "knowledge" is done by those who spread the pseudoscientific gibberish of the likes of Lynn. These data do have a place in Wikipedia, their place is in the article about scientific racism where they can be portrayed for what they are, lies. Alun (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Some data is always better than no data. Putting this map is the Lynn's article is putting it in a place, where no one is going to see it. If you brought your data for Africa from some other source, I would think otherwise. But what you do, you remove the only data that is there. Emilfaro (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No "some data" are not always better than none. Data must be shown to be relevant to the article in question. These data are demonstrably irrelevant. Why on earth should I care if no one sees these data? Wikipedia is not a propogandist organisation for publishing Richard Lynn's racist lies, claiming that no one would see these data if they are only available on Lynn's article is not a valid reason for their inclusion here. I am sorry if my answers are too long for you to cope with. Alun (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder, why do you keep calling the map irrelevant? This map shows the geographical distribution of Intelligence quotient among different peoples, nations, races — whatever you call them — of the United Nations. If we go and apply your logic everywhere, we have to remove a map of Gross domestic product distribution from the page describing the Gross domestic product. Go on, take a look, there are four of them on the page. Emilfaro (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the differences in IQ results between different racial groups. Now, many countries in the world (most, I woudl dare say) have people belonging to different racial groups. In this context, it isn't useful to regroup data by country, because you end up muddying the differences which exist beween racial groups. There is a definite difference between a nation, a people and a race. You seem to treat them as if they were synonyms.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
True, Ramdrake. But if you examine the GDP concept for instance. You will notice, that is doesn't describe the success of every industry (or business) in a particular territory. Which is the same with the Average IQ, that doesn't describe every minority (or person). GDP is not perfect (or according to Alun flawed), but it is used.Emilfaro (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
And specially for you, I thought we are speaking the same language at the moment — ethnic group synonyms — race, nation, tribe, line, people.Emilfaro (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, you should care, because Wikipediaattempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language. If you name Richard Lynn a racist, your point of view does seem to be not neutral by itself. Emilfaro (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Alun is entitled to his opinion. Let's say that Lynn's work is demonstrably viewed as fringe by many in the scientfici community--Ramdrake (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
That's why I am not talking about Lynn's interpretation of the data or his logical reasoning. What I do — I offer to use the data, which is sourced.Emilfaro (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This map shows the geographical distribution of Intelligence quotient among different peoples, nations, races. NO it doesn't, it shows so called IQ differences between peoples from different states, the population of a state is not the same as a "race" and it is not the same as a "people" The substantive problems with this map are:
The map shows IQ data by state, this article is about "race", this in itself makes the map irrelevant.
Sourcing data on Wikipedia is not enough. Many sources are no considered Reliable. I am sceptical of the reliability of these data. Just because a source exists does not make it reliable. I can find numerous sources on the internet that state that Intelligent design is an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of humans, but these sources do not have any scientific validity, and if I tried to include them in the Evolution article they would be rightly removed immediately. Even when a source is considered reliable it does not necessarily make it's contents relevant to any given article (see above point).
This appears to be a map made by you as shown by your User page User:Emilfaro. I note that you have made several maps for the global distribution by state of several data sets for a multiplicity of characteristics. It is apparent that you are determined to include these maps on as many different pages as you can, and that you have already been blocked for edit warring over the inclusion of your Global Map of Male Circumcision Prevalence at Country Level map, where you have also used some quite agressive language in your edit summaries.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] I suggest you read our tendentious editing essay. It's clear that you are very proud of your work, and I can understand your eagerness to include your work in articles. But don't lose sight of the fact that the data still need to be relavant to the article in which they are included.
I don't have a problem with your map, I am sure it has some relevance in some articles, for example the IQ and the wealth of nations article, and possibly the Richard Lynn article. But it is not relevant to this article. The data were not collected by "race", they were collected by state, this makes them irrelevant. None of your posts here have changed that basic fact, nor will they. It is a synthesis to claim that "race" is a synonym for "population of a state" as you have claimed here and we do not include synthesis in Wikipedia, it is considered original research. You state here that I can live without this map on this page and on the other pages., so why do you keep making the same irrelevant arguments? Here you claim that if one states that Lynn is a racist then one's point of view is not neutral, but that's irrelevant, neutrality applies to articles and not to talk pages. Besides I can find plenty of reliable sorces that state this. Besides neutrality does not mean giving all points of view equal space in an article, neutrality means giving points of view relative space equivalent to their status in the academic community. Lynn is a fringe scientists promoting a fringe point of view, as such he deserves the sort of minimal space that we give to all fringe points of view. I repeat, IQ by "state" is not the same as IQ by "race", or else you are claiming that African-Americans are the same "race" as European-Americans, and that's contradicts the point of view of the main pushers of this ideology, namely Jensen, Rushton and Lynn himself. Alun (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The wrong assumption you make is that I claim something, while I do not in this case. My only claim so far was that you destroy knowledge and have a point of view, which is not neutral. But I claim nothing about the subject.
Sources: It is your right to be sceptical about any source. Will it make you happy if I source this reference table and this reference list? If you look at these and my map you see no synthesis.
Race: Once again, there are many points of view, what is it. But there are as well those, who believe that Race and Nation is the same. So, in a sense, there is an American Race. This claim I source by encyclopedia Encarta. And if you believe, that this is wrong, your point of view does seem to be not neutral.
Me: And thank you for such an attention for my person, but it is a bit clumsy to make a fanatic of my work of me :-) I am not. I am a fanatic of the freedom of speech. And was banned engaging in an edit war doing reverts, which I don't do now. That problem was solved in a discussion. Emilfaro (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
My only claim so far was that you destroy knowledge. Well that's just nonsense. How does one "destroy knowledge"? Does this information cease to exist just because it is not in this Wikipedia article? No it does not, it is still freely available to those who want to find it, and therefore it has not been "destroyed". I asked you before not to be so melodramatic.
Synthesis. Again you have completely missed the point. I didn't say that your use of the sources is a WP:SYN. I said that application of those source to "race" is a WP:SYN.
there are as well those, who believe that Race and Nation is the same. It depends what you mean by nation. In this case it is not applicable to "race" and intelligence, because those who have written on this do not define "race" as a nation. Unless you can show that those who have written on "race" and intelligence use the term "race" to mean the same as "population of a state" then your source is irrelevant. Indeed the main discussion in the academic community regarding "race" and intelligence has been between academics in North America, and in that context it is nearly always a discussion of the so called differences in intelligence between African-Americans, European-Americans and sometimes east-Asian-Americans. Unless you are disputing just about every source used in the article then I don't think you have any sort of case. The main discussion is about whether genetic differences between these groups can account for any of the differences observed in test scores, or whether the differences are entirely environmental. Nearly all groups studied are actually resident in the USA. As such your map has absolutely no bearing on the main discussion in this field whatsoever. Alun (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing you do here — is questioning the obvious. How does one destroy knowledge? If you burn one book, there is still this information somewhere, and those who need can find it. But you still destroy knowledge.
And it is you, who misses the point. I do not do any synthesis. To do synthesis, you have to say A and B thus C. I say different — X is Y. No synthesis here.
I can live without the map on the page... But can you? It's a rhetorical question — you don't have to answer that :-) Bye Emilfaro (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
"APA" :
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J. et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J. et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.
I fail to see how Ashkenazim Jews can be considered as a group even worth mentioning, since large groups such as Asian and White comprise many such groups. Think of Jiang-su and Zhe Jiang, who nearly have monopoly of the top researchers in all scientific fields, both in China mainland and ROC. Sorry, English is not my first language.
The distinctiveness of the group rather than its size is what makes it interesting. If you have references supporting the superior academic ability of people from Jiang-su and Zhejiang, you could add them to the article. Qemist (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
By Jew do they mean any people with Jewish descent or rather part of the Jewish community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.61.183 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they are a group worth mentioning, they're not even a race per se. Take for instance the Manchu, they were IMO the most successful group in China historically, except contrarily to the Jews they have been largely assimilated with the Han, they are no different from the Jews, except we don't have IQ data on them.
Um, the very fact that one group assimilated and the other didn't refutes your claim of no difference, without even addressing any other issues. And I would be careful with your wording that Jews as group are not worth mentioning. I hope you mean "not worth mentioning in the context of this article" as opposed to "not worth mentioning, period".
That said, I am moderately inclined to agree that mention of Ashkenazi IQ should be removed. The "citation" (currently #45) is merely a link to the article on Ashkenazi intelligence, which surely is not a proper citation. And from reading that article, its talk page and the links therein, it seems like the claim is pretty problematic. The studies supporting it are mostly of extremely small sample bases (several less than 100 individuals), and it appears to me that they take no account at all of environmental factors and that those asserting this claim are mostly the very same Bell Curve/Pioneer Fund writers trying to establish genetic roots of intelligence. Perhaps even more to the point, this article is allegedly about "Race and intelligence" and the idea that Jews constitute a race is extremely problematic for reasons I presume I don't need to go into. CAVincent (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. "Race" is not a precisely defined concept and I think the article should take it broadly rather than in an americocentric white/black/hispanic/other way. Quite likely chinese, african, or indian people would have different ideas about what are valid racial categories. Any identifiable ethnic group or largely isolated breeding population should be open for consideration. Qemist (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you understood me clearly. What I was trying to say is that the Manchu were genetically assimilated by the Han Chinese. By the way, the Jews are like a very small minority of people and perhaps more intelligent than the average within a race and not a race per se who migrated to Europe, it would be like comparing a group of Tungid elites who migrated to a certain region and refused to assimilate genetically therein with the local population. It simply doesn't make sense to include Jews in this article. There should be an article for them exclusively and not be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.251.199 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Qemist hasshown exactly why the concept behind this article is absolute shit. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to see a scientific paper that identifies the Jews as a race. Moreover, someone needs to cite sources pertaining to their IQ scores. Their sample must be a lot smaller than those we have of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Whites. The Jews outscoring White has perhaps much to do with the fact that they have fewer individuals to sample to begin with, among which few are of lower socio-economic classes rather than a genetic trait that differentiates them from other Whites.
The problem with Ashkenazi Jews' IQ is the sampling method; in fact, it is difficult to judge who is Ashkenazim or not as the line between who is Ashkenazim or not based on genetic or ancestral criteria has blurred considerably over time. If a research singles out individuals because they do not identify themselves as Jews or they do not belong to the Jewish community for example, the result of that research can be quite inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.169.111 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The Jews are Caucasians, I think in most studies Jews' IQ scores are not singled out when trying to assess the average Caucasian IQ score. Associating IQ scores with ethnicities is flawed because it does not take into account that a larger group is less susceptible to have a high IQ score. Take for example individuals with very high IQ scores of a large ethnic group that comprises many socio-economic classes when they marry individuals of another and smaller ethnic group that has a considerably higher average IQ score, if the latter group assimilate itself with the former although marrying people of higher IQ scores, then comparisons with an ethnicity that comprise of few individuals that has been largely endogamous and large ethnic group of people who were extremely exogamous is unfair. By the way, Ashkenazim is an ethnic group and not a race. We should remove them from the article.
Race doesn't support your contention that there is an accepted distinction between races and ethnic groups. In fact that article states that race is often regarded as interchangeable with population or ethnicity these days. I'm not sure I follow your example (if the smaller group is endogamous why were they marrying people with very high IQ scores of another larger ethnic group?), nor do I see its relevance to Ashkenazim. Complaining of unfairness suggests you think this topic is some sort of sporting contest between races. That's inappropriate in wikipedia. Qemist (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If we include Jews, we must include every ethnicity, that is, about a thousand of them across the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.22.230 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the page should only refer to ones for which there is satisfactory reference material that bears on the topic and is sufficiently noteworthy. There are more than a million species of insect, but Insects is not obliged to discuss each of them. Qemist (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Satisfactory reference material? Then we should take Jews out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.236.130 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Jews are not any different from Caucasians cranio-facially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.137.168 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with including ethnic groups within this article is that the criteria of identifying ethnic groups do not involve exclusively genetic factors, which is the case for the other groups in question in this article contrarily. The Ashkenazim are descendants of the Khazar and only differentiate from them from non-biological factors mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.136.78 (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be like considering wealthy Indians who immigrated to the United States and consider them as a new ethnic group. It doesn't make any sense to include them in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.237.185 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Most Jews are treated as White by affirmative action policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.236.98 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
blood lead levels
What is the relevance of the graph of different levels of blacks, Hispanics, and whites? The caption states that blood lead levels MAY affect intelligence. First, what is the source of this assertion, and why does this POSSIBLE (and unsourced) factor, over countless KNOWN factors, deserve a separate graph, whose relevance can't be concluded from the caption? The graph is misleading and unsubstantiated---it should be removed in its current state. Kemet 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Joseph L. Graves has a section in one of his book (can't remember which one off hand, but I have it at home), which discusses the fallacy of the "genetic" explanation for the so called "IQ" gap. In this chapter he gives quite a lot of data that show that African-Americans do live in much more polluted environments, especially they tend to live near sites that are toxic and are much more likely to live in lead polluted environments. I'll try to remember to dig it out when I have time. I think the point is that living in a toxic environment may cause irreversible developmental damage to individuals, but will cause a decrease in average cognitive ability to an exposed population as a whole relative to other, unexposed populations, because many members of the population will be affected by neurological damage, even if some may not be affected. There is no may about the toxicity of lead, it is a well known and established fact that lead adversely affects brain development, Lead poisoning, lead may cause neural damage in an individual in the same way smoking may cause lung disease, lead is toxic. Alun (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
do any blacks believe in the genetic arguement?
Have there been any black supporters of Rushton and the other scientist like him?YVNP (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the article? Alun (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know but for some reason I though tso. nevermind :)YVNP (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That is very relevant, because if the only people supporting such arguments are racialists and white nationalists and their ilk, it speaks volumes about the consensus for such a position. If they have a lot of supporters and very few detractors, then maybe the detractors are the problem. If they have very very few supporters, with almost all of which are people within their own social circles (using themselves as a source for that matter), then it's not out of the question that they themselves are the problem. Such a scenario is very possible and should not be given any more special credence than anyone else. Rock8591 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)
This is a long article with no conclusion. "Are blacks smarter than whites" - as we are not all clones and therefore "equal" in capability; some blacks are smarter than whites but some whites are smarter than blacks. It is a dumb question to ask, from personal experience we can all draw our own conclusions and in general come to an accurate conclusion which works for us given our social geography - in doing so we can predict the behaviour of other people we come in contact with but we are still making wild guesses based on one factor - skin colour. I do not see skin colour as a reliable indicator at all.
- The more factors you take in to account, the more accurate a generalisation will be.
- Given enough defined factors we can guess how smart a person is.
- Factors will include wealth, job description and so forth.
the article is talking about african immigrants in america. This is a very flawed arguement because african immigrants are in very small numbers(620,000), consist mostly of upper class africans, and often aren;t even black(south africans or angolans for example)YVNP (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the 2006 American Community Survey, 1.6 million African immigrants make up 4% of the African American population (twice the 2000 percentage) and have college degrees at 115% to 220% the rate of white Americans---overall, 27% of Americans are college educated, compared to 42% of African immigrants according to the same source. Since there is a positive correlation between I.Q. and college completion, they would be expected to have I.Q.s that are well above the white American average (college-educated whites collectively also have significantly higher I.Q's than the non-college-educated white population). Of course this affluent African group can't be any more illustrative of "black" intelligence than well-educated European immigrants who come to the United States illustrate "white" intelligence, assuming that both blackness and whiteness can be objectively defined, and further assuming that intelligence can be accurately measured by an I.Q.---there is no consensus on this last point. Kemet 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That still says nothing. 1 million is still fairly small. I'd like to see a source for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ashkenazi IQ
Most research samples comprise less than 150 individuals and I doubt Lynn's estimates are valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.249.85 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I modified the United States section: Ashkenazi Jews are estimated to have a higher IQ than White. The purported high IQ of the Jews however has never been systematically reviewed and is not even mentioned in recent textbooks on intelligence, such as those of Brody (1992) and Mackintosh (1998). The most extensive study by Backman (1972) places Ashkenazi Jews' IQ at 107.8. The existing research literature on Ashkenazi intelligence is lacking and inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.249.85 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, are you aware that you will be taken more seriously if you get a user account and at the very least signed your posts? CAVincent (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
fringe
Alun wrote:
"far too much and far too pov"
if POV means not NPOV, i challenge you to identify text which isn't presented neutrally (i.e. not favoring a side but neutrally stating other people's opinions). then lets improve that text.
"fringe theories shoud not have so much space"
per NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.
a view that is mentioned in almost every discussion of the topic should be described fairly and in proportion to the attention it receives. consider: is the 'lead hypothesis', the 'aave hypothesis', or the 'caste-like minority hypothesis' more commonly discussed? obviously not. the two main hypotheses are some kind of flynn-effect or GxE-interaction (cultural) theory and some kind of additive genetic theory.
"the addition was entirely promoting a singe point of view"
a view that was not previously missing from the article
"provide arguments against as well, or it's pov-pushing"
the "4.3 Environmental impacts" section does just that, but if there are specific points that should be added or changed, i encourage further targeted development. demanding perfection in every edit seems inappropriate. --Legalleft (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
i challenge you to identify text which isn't presented neutrally
It is not the presentation that lacked neutrality, it was the repeated addition of material supporting a single point of view, i.e. that of the so called "genetic hypothesis" without any balancing of this with evidence against this hypothesis. That is a breach of neutrality. When an editor constantly adds huge volumes of information that gives only a single point of view, we call it WP:POV pushing.
a view that is mentioned in almost every discussion of the topic should be described fairly and in proportion
I agree, you not only did not do this, you went out of your way to give massive over-representation to a so called "theory" that most academics consider to have been disposed with several decades ago, indeed it was ridiculous how much "evidence" you provided to the "genetic hypothesis" (+8000 characters) without adding a single piece of evidence against the "hypothesis". The "genetic hypothesis" has plenty of coverage in the article, you are needlessly adding so called evidence to support a "hypothesis" already covered in the article and not adding value to the article at all. This is not a "review paper" in support of Jensen, Rushton and other scientific racists.
a view that was not previously missing from the article
I don't understand your point. What I said was that the text you added "was entirely promoting a single point of view", the operative words being "entirely promoting", that lacks neutrality. If your addition had contained a fair criticism of the so called "genetic hypothesis" then I could not have written that you were editing against our WP:NPOV policy, but because it was a >+8000 edit pushing a single point of view, then it was not neutral.
the "4.3 Environmental impacts" section does just that
No. The section you mention is for discussing environmental effects on "race" and intelligence, both providing evidence for and against environmental impact. The "genetic hypothesis" section is for discussing the so called "genetic hypothesis", both arguments for and against. As such it should be an account of how the academic community has covered this issue and give summaries of the evidence in support and against the "hypothesis". It should not be a long diatribe in favour of this tiny minority pov, indeed I think you're lucky that this academically vacuous point of view gets a mention at all. But you are trying to usurp the content of the article to promote a single pov, indeed I'd say you are trying to make this article a cheerleader for the ideas of Jensen, Rushton et al. We don't accept this behaviour on Wikipedia, we call it pov-pushing, and it's frowned upon. Alun (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
When an editor constantly adds huge volumes of information that gives only a single point of view, we call it WP:POV pushing.
Removing large amounts of material that describe a underrepresented POV is POV pushing.
Not under-represented. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you not only did not do this, you went out of your way to give massive over-representation to a so called "theory" that most academics consider to have been disposed with several decades ago, indeed it was ridiculous how much "evidence" you provided to the "genetic hypothesis" (+8000 characters) without adding a single piece of evidence against the "hypothesis". The "genetic hypothesis" has plenty of coverage in the article, you are needlessly adding so called evidence to support a "hypothesis" already covered in the article and not adding value to the article at all. This is not a "review paper" in support of Jensen, Rushton and other scientific racists.
You're judgment about the popularity of the view among experts doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Snyderman and Rothman survey suggested that it was the modal view among the group they tested. The Gottfreson statement suggested that it is a common view ca 1994. Moreover, the massive amount of material written about it pro and con demands that its strengths and weakness be described. I leave it to you to suggest improvements to what I wrote that don't simply entail excluding the POV.
Actually Legalleft it is you that have misrepresented science here. You have systematically tried to claim that only a certain sub-set of psychologists constitute "experts" in this field. That is not the case, anthropologists, population geneticists, neurologists, and molecular biologists are also experts in this field, and there is little support for this "theory" amongst those groups. I note that those who support this "genetic" theory tend not poll those who disagree with them anyway, so you have a self-selecting poll, well done. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. What I said was that the text you added "was entirely promoting a single point of view", the operative words being "entirely promoting", that lacks neutrality. If your addition had contained a fair criticism of the so called "genetic hypothesis" then I could not have written that you were editing against our WP:NPOV policy, but because it was a >+8000 edit pushing a single point of view, then it was not neutral.
My edit was describing a number of different arguments that have been debated in the literature regarding that hypothesis. Contrast the few sentences spent on each point to the sections dedicate to various environmental arguments.
That is as may be, but all of the so called "arguments" are from a single point of view, and that's pov-pushing. They do not add anything particularly new to the article, only more verbage that it can quite frankly do without. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, consider the various parts of what I added. (a) I moved a block of text describing the relationship between h^2 and BGH into a table. (b) I added a table showing the breakdown of effects on IQ of race, social class, and family. (c) I added detail on attempts to find Factor X effects. I added that categories of indirect evidence that Rushton, Jensen, et al think are supportive of their views. How can you understand the genetic hypohthesis without these points?
Quite easily I should think. The genetic hypothesis is easy to understand without any of the "points" you added. All you need to say is, "some psychologists believe that at least some of the gap is attributable to genetic differences between "white" and "black" people". There, I did it without making the points you made. Besides what you wrote is my exact problem when you say "I added that categories of indirect evidence that Rushton, Jensen, et al think are supportive of their views." and not "I discussed the indirect evidence, giving both points of view, that Jensen and Rushton believe support heir hypothesis". Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No. The section you mention is for discussing environmental effects on "race" and intelligence, both providing evidence for and against environmental impact. The "genetic hypothesis" section is for discussing the so called "genetic hypothesis", both arguments for and against. As such it should be an account of how the academic community has covered this issue and give summaries of the evidence in support and against the "hypothesis". It should not be a long diatribe in favour of this tiny minority pov, indeed I think you're lucky that this academically vacuous point of view gets a mention at all. But you are trying to usurp the content of the article to promote a single pov, indeed I'd say you are trying to make this article a cheerleader for the ideas of Jensen, Rushton et al. We don't accept this behaviour on Wikipedia, we call it pov-pushing, and it's frowned upon.
My goal is to make the article balanced and neutral. It currently is not.
At least we share that goal, though I suggest you spend more time reading criticisms of people like Jensen and Rushton from reliable sources, because currently you seem to be citing sources that all support the same pov, and that's not balanced and neutral. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
We__ (who?) do not accept an unfair and unbalanced presentation of facts. On that much I agree. But I hold that your assessment is factually incorrect. You have decided that one view is right and one view is wrong, "scientific racism", and "fringe". You can write NPOV text which makes those claims (which I believe the article already covers) but you cannot decide that the view doesn't warrant description.
We the community, we have rules about neutrality, an editor can be banned for pov-pushing. I don't care if you "hold" my "assessment factually incorrect". Your opinion of my assessment is of no relevance to this discussion or the article. Indeed Wikipedia is not about "facts". I haven't decided anything, I've read several papers and books about this subject, and quite frankly that all say the same thing, that the so called "genetic hypothesis" has been disproven over and again and that it's a throwback to the 19th century when people believed in daft concepts like "race". Besides where did I say any view doesn't "warrant description"? What I said is that on Wikipedia we do not give prominence to minority points of view, even when there are equal competing points of view we do not give prominence to one over the other. This is about prominence and nothing more. Undue weight is a big problem with many controversial articles. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, reverting rather than re-editing specifically what you object to makes it impossible to achieve any forward progress. If you think that a long block of text describing one view is inappropriate, then edit it to intersperse it with counterarguments. Consider writing for the enemy [20] and writing about morally offensive views [21]. --Legalleft (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the problem is not -editing, the problem is the huge length of the section you added. I suggest that you have a think about how you can include the same content in about a third as much space, I'd accept that. Too much verbiage gives the impression that this is the dominant train of thought in science regarding the so called "difference", and quite frankly it's not. Alun (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Legalleft, ou mention the Snyderman and Rothman study, as well as the Mainstream on intelligence manifesto, the first which has been criticized as a push poll and cannot be said to be representative, the second wnhich has relatively few (50 or so) signatories, while ignoring the much more representative Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, which is endorsed by the entire APA (100k+ members strong). You also say that your view is underrepresented; if that is so, it should be easy enough to find a tertiary source (not published by one of the proponents of the view) which reviews it favorably. Strong evidence has been presented on this talk page that this view is indeed held by a tiny but vocal and prolific minority, and isn't endorsed by the majority of academics in the field.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's very logical and I AGF, but I think you are incorrect. S&R was characterized as a push poll by a Wikipedia editor (User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters) a long way back on this talk page, not by any published criticism. The 50 signatures on MSoI indicate agreement. Membership in the APA doesn't indicate agreement with the IKU statement, else you're imply that Jensen et al agree with it. Only authorship indicates agreement. These are all tertiary sources of the most relevant kind, but the next most balanced tertiary sources I know of are the reviews by Brody; Hunt and Carlson; and the book by Lohein (or even the books by Jensen and Flynn describing one another are very good). All give mixed reviews of all of the major theories and say the issue isn't resolved, but that's their opinions -- others clearly hold strong opinions one way or the other. I don't see how a survey showing ~50% approval among 500+ or 50 signatures can be considered a tiny and unimportant minority in a field this size, but even if it were a tiny minority, the amount of scholarly time spent discussing these theories indicates that it needs to be described even if the aim is to show how the majority you claim decided they were wrong. That can't be done without describing the arguments they object to. --Legalleft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Even these cannot be said to represent a scientific consensus. The problem is that these only represent the views of a few psychologists, they do not represent the views of the wider psychological community, and are way off track with the wider academic community. For example where's the evidence that anthropologists, molecular biologists, neuroscientists, population geneticists support this? Legalleft claims that a small sub-set of psychologists speaks for the entire academic community, I don't accept that. Alun (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I really can't speak knowingly to that other than to say that: (1) The issue is race differences in intelligence test scores, so typically only experts in intelligence testing were part of the primary research. (2) I don't know what the views in these other fields are, but whatever they are, they don't mean that there isn't a prominent debate among psychologists. If anthropologist disagree with (some) psychologists, then those are facts to report, not a basis for not reporting what psychologists think. I suppose I'd add that I'd be delighted to see additional material reporting views from other disciplines. --Legalleft (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
(1) So you don't think that experts in say population genetics might be important? Given that supporters of the so called "genetic hypothesis" claim to use the techniques of population genetics to support their contention? And of course there's the evidence of molecular biology that 20% of "white" Americans have 2-20% African ancestry, and that African-Americans have significant European ancestry, some African Americans have no detectable African ancestry whatsoever. What about anthropologists? They are the experts on "race" and "intelligence" is only one side of the coin. Indeed there is a great deal of evidence that is simply ignored in favour of including only the views of a few psychologists. Again I refer to Montagu's book "Race and IQ", there are numerous essays there by psychologists, anthropologists and population geneticists, it's also the most comprehensive analysis of this field aimed at a general audience. Sadly it gets ignored in this article in favour of the sensationalist claims of a few psychologists.
(2) That's an odd thing to say, because when I added a discussion of what population geneticists think about heritability, cited from population genetic papers, you did your level best to remove my edit because it flatly contradicted the genetic hypothesis. I think you even claimed that "behaviour" genetics shouldn't be included. Alun (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't respond to vague claims from memory like that, but I certainly encourage appropriate additions of relevant material where its missing. But moreover, do you populations geneticists who study human demographic history, or behavior geneticsits who study individual differences? We have plenty of behavior genetics in the article, and most of the people being cited (e.g. Jensen) publish primary research in behavior genetics. Whereas the only mention of population genetics (AFAIK) was removed by your revert. --Legalleft (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
rather than accusing me of various bad things, please edit the text to improve it to your satisfaction. i'll put it here because you refuse to edit it in the article. --Legalleft (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
edit this
File:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.pngSocioeconomic status (SES) varies both between and within populations, but Black-White differences in IQ persist among the children of parents matched for SES, and the gap is largest among the children of wealthiest and best educated parents.[4]
The primary theoretical argument in favor of a genetic contribution to the Black-White (B-W) difference in average IQ was made popular by Arthur Jensen and later by James Flynn and others. The argument states that the constraints on an environmental explanation for group differences are so strong as to make it unlikely that the B-W gap is due entirely to environmental factors and thus that genetic factors must also be involved. According to Jensen[5] and Flynn[6], the very high within-group heritability of IQ (within both white and black populations) presents a problem for environmental explanations of group differences in IQ. They consider two general classes of environmental factors: common environmental factors and X-factors. Common environmental factors vary within and between populations. X-factors vary between populations, but do not vary substantially within populations. They first consider common environmental factors. To account for a 1 SD B-W IQ gap only in terms of common environmental factors would require very large environmental differences. For example, if the within-group heritability of IQ is 80%, then a B-W IQ difference of 2.24 SD in common environmental factors is required. For a heritability of 40%, a difference of 1.29 SD is required.
Magnitude of the environmental disparity required to cause a 1 SD B-W IQ gap at various levels of within-group heritability[7]
Within-Group Heritability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Required environmental difference
1
1.05
1.12
1.19
1.29
1.41
1.58
1.82
2.24
3.16
impossible
Jensen and Flynn agree that it is an empirical question whether common environmental factors that influence IQ differ between whites and blacks to such an extent, and both agree that most commonly suggested environmental factors do not. Jensen believes that empirical evidence supports the view that the B-W IQ gap is caused by both common environmental factors and genetic factors. Flynn disagrees and believes that empirical evidence supports the view that the B-W IQ gap is caused by yet unrecognized environmental factors. Socioeconomic factors are commonly cited as plausible common environmental factors to explain the B-W IQ gap. Several lines of evidence are used to argue against this. First, IQ differences are larger between racial groups than between income groups.[8] Second, the children of whites from the lowest income bracket have higher IQs than the children of blacks from the highest income bracket.[9][10] Third, ethnicity is the single most powerful demographic predictor of academic achievement.[11] Finally, transracial adoption studies control for all aspects of the home environment that differ between blacks and whites (such as parenting, income, nutrition, neighborhood).
Analysis of variance and average IQ differences in an equal-sized random sample of black and white children in California schools[12]
Source
% of Variance
Average IQ Difference
Between races (within social classes)
14
12
Between social classes (within races)
8
6
Interaction of race and social class
8
Between families (within race and social class)
26
9
Within families (siblings)
39
11
Measurement error
5
4
Total
100
17
The alternative to common environmental factors is to hypothesize that X-factors account for the B-W IQ gap. A frequently-cited example from Lewontin describes the effect of a hypothetical X-factor. Imagine that the height of "ordinary genetically varied corn" is 100% heritable when grown in a uniform environment. Further imagine that two populations of corn are grown: one in a normal nutrient environment and the other in a deficient nutrient environment. Consequently, the average height of the corn grown in the deficient nutrient environment is less than the average height of the corn grown in the normal environment. In such a scenario, the within-group heritability of height is 100% in both populations, but the substantial difference between group are due entirely to environmental factors. The quality of the nutrient is an "X-factor" in the language of Jensen and Flynn. With respect to the B-W IQ gap, Jensen suggests that effects associated with racism (both overt and institutionalized racism) might be X-factors. Flynn believes that attributing the B-W gap to the effects of racism is incorrect, because the most plausible ways in which discrimination could affect IQ are themselves common environmental factors. These may include psychological effects such as stereotype threat; biological effects such as poor nutrition, health care and living close to toxic environments; and educational effects such as a lack of good schools. Instead, Flynn and his colleague William Dickens have developed more complicated models to explain the black-white gap in terms of environmental factors. One initial motivation of the Dickens-Flynn theory was Flynn's observation that IQ test scores have been rising over time in countries around the world – termed the Flynn effect. Flynn and others believe an explanation for the Flynn effect may elucidate the cause of the B-W gap. Jensen and others disagree. Structural equation models have been used to test for the existence of factor X effects (those which are affect individuals of a particular racial ethnic group uniquely) that are acting on IQ. These studies failed to find evidence for such effects.[13][14] Also, peers have little effect on developed intelligence.[15]
Rushton and Jensen describe 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model" (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural). In their article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", published in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Rushton and Jensen say that the totality of the evidence supports the a hereditarian model of Black-White group differences.[16][17] In addition to arguing that common envirnomental factors are not strong enough to account for the Black-White gap, and arguing that no X-factors have yet been identified, Rushton and Jensen argue that a number of lines of evidence are contradictory to many culture-only hypotheses. According to Rushton and Jensen, the Black-White differences in IQ are strongest among the children of parents with the highest socioeconomic levels, and thus who have the greatest social advantages. Jensen argues that this pattern extends to siblings, such that for example, when black and white sibling pairs are found in which one member of each pair had an IQ of 120, the other sibling had and IQ of 113 for whites whereas the other sibling has an IQ of 99 for blacks. According to Jensen this is an anomaly for the culture-only theory but is explained by genetic theory through regression to the mean.[18][19][20] Rushton and Jensen argue that culture-only explanations such as stereotype threat, caste-like minorities and race stigma do not explain the low IQ of black Africans south of the Sahara or in the Caribbean, where blacks are in the majority. They also argue that the high IQs of East Asians and Jews discredit claims that discrimination alone explains the lower IQs of Black. They also cite the example of the Inuit, who live above the Arctic Circle and have higher average IQs than do either American or Jamaican Blacks even though the socioeconomic conditions of the Inuit are extremely poor, provide another counter example.[21][22][23] They also argue that several properties of Black-White IQ differences are most consistent with a genetic cause, such as the finding that the size of the Black-White IQ gap on individual tests is largest on tests with the least ostensive cultural content, which are also the tests that are the strongest measures of the g factor and the tests with the highest measured within-group heritability. Rushton and Jensen conclude that "Mean Black-White-East Asian differences [are] not fully explained by any model [examined], not by a 100% culture-only model, by a 100% genetic-only model, or, with precision, even by the 50% genetic-50% environmental model." They suggest that the hereditarian model of "50% genes-50% environment may need to be revised, perhaps to 80% genes-20% environment" and that the culture-only model fails as stated, but hypothesizing a "large Gene X Environment interaction might make it viable."[24][25]
Rushton is noted for the theory presented in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior, which argues that racial differences (Asian-White-Black) on a variety of traits, including intelligence and brain size, have a common evolutionary history related to the effect of local environmental differences on natural selection. Jensen argues that the genetic component of within-group difference in IQ is likely associated with a large number of genes. Because allelic variants of many genes occur in different frequencies in different populations, he argues, some of the genes associated with IQ are likely to occur at different frequencies in different populations. For this reason alone, according to Jensen, we can know that even if genetic factors do not contribute to the average differences between populations, different populations are unlikely to be genetically uniform with respect to genes related to IQ. Jensen further argues that it is not implausible that the genetic differences between groups add up to cause some of the observed differences in average IQ between groups.
Other evidence, such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, certain racial admixture studies, behavior genetic modeling of group differences, "life-history" traits, and evolutionary explanations have also been proposed to indicate a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps and explain how these arose.[26]. According to Nathan Brody, chronometric measures of intelligence provide the best available evidence for a genetic contribution to the Black-White differences in intelligence. These are simple tasks that anyone can perform in seconds. Individual differences in performance on these tasks are correlated with IQ, and this correlation is mediated by genetic effects.[27][28] Black-White differences are found in chronometric measures of simple and choice reaction times.[29] According to Jensen, this implies that the poorer performance of black research subjects on these tasks are caused by genetic differences that affect intelligence.[30][31]
^D.C. Rowe, A.T. Vazsonyi and D.J. Flannery, No more than skin deep: ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process, Psychol Rev 101 (1994), pp. 396–413.
^D.C. Rowe and H.H. Cleveland, Academic achievement in Blacks and Whites: are the developmental processes similar?, Intelligence 23 (1996), pp. 205–228.
^.S. Gilson, C.B. Hunt and D.C. Rowe, The friends of siblings: a test of social homogamy vs. peer selection and influence, Marriage Fam Rev 33 (2001), pp. 205–224.
^Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. New York: Free Press.
^Jensen, A. R. The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 357–360
^Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). pp. 263-268
^Berry, J. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 207–222.
^MacArthur, R. S. (1968). Some differential abilities of northern Canadian native youth. International Journal of Psychology, 3, 43–51.
^Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.
^Brody, N. (2007). Heritability and the nomological network of g. In M.J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrity of the mind: Domain general vs. domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 427–448). New York: Psychology Press.
^Posthuma, D., de Gues, E.J.C., & Boomsma, D.I. (2003). Genetic contributions to anatomical, behavioral, and neurobiological indices of cognition. In R. Plomin, J.C. DeFries, I.W. Craig, & P. McGuffin (Eds.), Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era (pp. 141–166). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
^Jensen, A.R. (1993). Spearman's hypothesis tested with chronometric information processing tasks. Intelligence, 17, 47–77.
^Jensen, A.R. (1993). Spearman's hypothesis tested with chronometric information processing tasks. Intelligence, 17, 47–77.
^A.R. Jensen, The g factor: the science of mental ability, Praeger, New York (1998)
