Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Bias

I have concerns that this whole article is biased in terms of research in the United states.100110100 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But it has a whole section about the "global perspective". I am all for an even less American perspective, but formally I cannot see any reasonable evaluation by which this article deserves the tag you put on it. (Unless we use special standards for this article, or course.) I will remove the tag. Arbor 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible to make the article less American? [I agree that the article is too 'American'.]100110100 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose? Certainly the article can be made less American by adding more international content, which would be great. I agree with Arbor; the article is less "American" than, say, microprocessor. While much of the research in the field has been done in the US, large swaths of the article are devoted to non-US studies, peoples, and researchers. The article seems clear in its treatment of where the results are from and what they mean globally. --Algebraic 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis on brain size

One criticism I saw of Rushton's first bit of research onto the MRI thing is that it didn't show the correlation of brain size and IQ within races. It could be said, basically, that a black of average intelligence is going to have a smaller brain than a white of average IQ, who in turn will have a smaller brain than an asian of average IQ, yet they would still have pretty much the same intellectual ability. No really, do racialists honestly think a white from Dark Ages Europe, which was close to the disparity of sub-saharn africa would have the same IQ as a white of today, along with the same behavior and social attitudes? Besides, even Rushton admitted that IQ is 50:50 when it comes to environment and genetics.

Alright, I'll add more. The comparisons on brain size and neuron numbers among races is meaningless because it doesn't compare people of the same IQ within races. I understand the 40-50% correlation of brain size and IQ, but it still says nothing when it comes to comparing people of different races with the same IQ. Much of the comparison comes from comparing, oh say Asians with an IQ of 106 to whites of an IQ of several points lower to sub-saharn africans of up 20 points lower. And honestly, Africans are NOT mentally retarded.

If such a test were done using MRI comparisons it might very well close the debate on race and intelligence.

Title should be 'Race and IQ'

The title has a POV that intelligence = IQ, while the article itself mainly talks about IQ. Is there an actual area of intelligence research called 'Race and Intelligence'? If so we need a citation, such as a University course or something similar. PermanentE 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This article also mixes the biological concept of clines and the social construct of race. The point is, it has several POV failings. But to answer your question, I would say it is likely you'll find the phrase with such researchers as J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, etc. Please feel free to edit boldly.--Ramdrake 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) controlling for age the r for brain size and IQ is ~.4, not ~.33 (which doesn't control for age) see for example Gray and Thompson 2004. (2) the titles of many books and articles from many POVs includes the words "race" and "intelligence", but not "IQ". it's inappropriate to attribute all ideas you don't like to herediatarians, especially without reading the constructive (rather than critical) work of environmentalists. (3) there are no clines among the immigrant populations of the U.S. et. al.; clines are destroyed by immigration, whereas race is not (that requires interbreeding). (4) i probably won't be around to respond to further comments. i can only strongly suggest that kind of understanding of a subject that one can gain from reading a college text on anthropology or psychology (or the abstract of a paper) is not sufficient for heavy duty editing on this kind of specialized topic. more indepth study/reading is required. without such background, the multi-authorship review articles (see the external links section) are the only real safe harbor for editors. --Rikurzhen 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See the links to archives at the very top of this page. Arbor 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Help adding info

I think the following information that should be in the article to reduce it's (extreme) POV. - The American Anthropological Association's statement against this topic, http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm - This study that shows that poverty account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites, http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/news/iqgap.html - The study mentioned here with similar conclusions, http://www.racesci.org/in_media/iq_class.htm PermanentE 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the linked material, or the current article? One of the studies you link to says "In study after study, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic input to IQ," Plomin said. "This doesn't contradict that, but it leads to an interesting possibility that although it's true for the [middle- and upper-class] populations that have been studied . . . it's not going to mean much if you're in an impoverished environment.". Read it again: "overwhelming". I am not sure you would want us to adjust the current article in that direction. That everybody agrees there is a substantial environmental contribution I hope is clear from the article. Arbor 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, if you read the entire article, you will see it finds little or no genetic cause for IQ differences among lower classes, which is exactly where the B-W IQ difference is taking place. It seems to find a high genetic correlation at the opposite end, where there are a lot more Whites, which is compatible with the studies suggesting high heritability of IQ among Whites.--Ramdrake 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the B-W IQ difference occurs at all levels of socioeconomic status. It may even increase; e.g. see the quote from Jensen here which begins, "The BW- IQ gap increases with socio-economic status (SES)...". From where are you pulling your data that the gap takes place "exactly" among lower classes? --Algebraic 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very simple: at least in the United States (where most of these studies take place) African-Americans are overrepresented in lower socio-economic levels of society, exactly where the study finds little or no genetic cause for IQ differences.Actually, I probably should have said that the gap takes place "mostly" in the lower SE classes than "exactly". My boo.--Ramdrake 11:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The gap exists at all levels. See section 3. In any case, your argument (apart from being utterly false and falsifiable by looking at a figure) is original research. It would be more productive if you found an external source that made the point for you. Arbor 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Studies show the gap exists at all levels, but they do show the size of the gap isn't the same at all levels, which is very different. I was just commenting on the fact that the gap is found to be least genetic at the low end of the SES, where the Blacks are overrepresented, that's all. Not trying to make an argument out of this one.--Ramdrake 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are we miscommunicating? The linked article is concordant with the mainstream POV that people like Rik and Nectar (and myself) so desperately try to ground this article in. For example, it assumes as fact that the is a significant intelligence gap between races, that the question is important, and that there is a genetic contribution, the size of which we are agnostic about. That is exactly what Hernstein–Murray or Jensen or Rushton are vilified for. I would love it if we were able to use language like "overwhelming evidence" for the genetic contribution, instead of "highly disputed", which is why I was surprised the resources was submitted for "POV balancing". The only POV it balances is the POV "intelligence is 100% genetically determined" which (1) is nonsense and (2) nobody holds and (3) certainly is not expressed in this article. Indeed, it is self-evident to any person with a passing understanding of biology that the environment determines gene expression, so that issues like the one raised in the article are exactly what the "partly genetic" side wants to be able to debate. Arbor 09:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, I think the argument is really over the how partly-genetic IQ is, and whether or not "race" is a good proxy for such genetic differences. The "mainstream" scientific POV regarding partial-genetic influence on intelligence does not seem to include either an acceptance of "race" as a useful grouping, and the Jensen/Rushton/etc POV does not seem to be "size agnostic" at all.

That being said, I think that just as Jensen counter argues against the strawman of 100% "cultural", we should only expect others to use the same tactic as him and argue against the strawman of 100% genetic. How do we choose between the presentation of Jensen's logical fallacies, and other's logical fallacies? It is a vexing question to be sure, but it is in fact the argument that these people are having with each other. --JereKrischel 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I just did some archiving based on Ramdrake´s recommendations. I want Arboror or Rikurzhen(i.e. other participants in the discussion) to choose what else can be archived right now... Iam just being cautious and do not want to archive material essential to current discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that Arbor restored some material I archived. No complaint from me - this talk page should include what is necessary to serve those active in working on the article. However, the talk page is still too long, so I again ask Arbor or Rikhurzhen Or Jere to choose something else (substantive) to archive. Surely, SOME material here can now be summarized and archived. Or surely, you are all caable of resolving one of the issues on the table with a mutually agreed on compromise, edit the article itself, and archive the discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Stereotype Threat

Searching Stereotype Threat directs the user to this article. Furthermore, stereotype threat is not appropiately discussed in this article, mentioned only favorably, and with little space. An article on Stereotype Threat alone is necessary.

Agreed. I have some info at the Claude Steele article on the topic, but it clearly needs its own article. Not all stereotype threat situations involve race. The concept also applies to recent debates about female math and science ability. Jokestress 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Stereotype threat hither a few days ago. Previously, it pointed to Stereotype, which contained absolutely no information, not even the term. The current article at least includes the term, and has a footnote including a reference to Steele and Aronson. Better than before, but not enough, especially because the term currently would be expected to create quite a few hits because of an upcoming Science paper [1]. That one is about R&I, so the redirect for that would be fine. A good place to cover this topic in more detail would be Race and intelligence (Explanations). Jokestress' point about women and maths remains unaddressed by this, of course. (Says I who just reads a bunch of papers about just that topic for a course I'm involved in.) Arbor 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[From the person who wrote the initial need for ST article] It's a matter of style then, as to whether to put it in that conglomerate of Intelligence related bits, or to put it in its own article. I personally favor having a separate article, to allow for better treatment. As for critical references, see (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/09/stereotype-fret.php , http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002620.html and http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf the first link leads to the others). I assume that discussions of ST of the popular variety, eg Time, will not be considered in supporting or attacking ST. I don't know how to redirect and such; otherwise I would have created the ST entry.