Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Group differences, Intelligence

this section, is primarily about IQ, and IQ is discussed positively. For NPOV, it would be useful to include some the criticisms of IQ. Gould referred to IQ as a "statistical artifact" and referred to the evidence for "g" as "statistical hocus pocus". One of the main criticisms of IQ is that while possessing an ordinal scale property it lacks an interval scale, such that one IQ point has no absolute meaning. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, we’ve already resolved that the article should take the same position as the APA. Since the APA does not regard Gould’s criticism of IQ as valid, neither should the article.

We spent a while reaching our conclusion about this issue during the mediation. Let’s not waste time by rehashing that whole discussion again. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to WP:MNA on most of that in order to not let this article get bogged down. Short and informative pointers to the core articles on that are fine. We have a section called "Debate assumptions" to make the shared assumptions clear. --DJ (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is correct. The general principle at Wikipedia is to add views. No one is arguing that Rushton or Lynn's views should be removed from the article, only that gould be included. And this does not require dropping the APA statement. Captain Occam's reasoning is ludicrous; we never reached such an agreement, and it would violate WP policy. Psychologists are clearly a major stakeholder in these discussions which is why I always supported including the APA statemnt. But anthropologists are also stakeholders and I have aregued for included the statement of the AAPA. Gould wrote an entire book on it, and he was one of the greatest and most respected evolutionary biologists of the post-war period. This dos not mean everyone agreed with him, but remember, NPOV demands that we include even those views we disagree with. Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new? Of course we add Gould. We just do it in a way that complies with NPOV. Just as we make clear that jensen's views are Jensen's views, we make clear that Gould's views are Gould's views. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gould's criticisms of g and factor analysis are appropriate in articles on IQ or general intelligence factor but they don't seem to be needed here per WP:MNA. The reason is that the key debate isn't between those that believe that factor analysis is valid and those that don't, but among people who all agree that factor analysis is valid or otherwise don't care about the validity of factor analysis. Likewise, the truism that IQ is ordinal scale but not ratio scale is great detail for IQ but not directly relevant to the level of discussion in this article. Some material from the former "outline" section might help here. --DJ (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you DJ, if IQ was not discussed at all in the article, but seeing that it is discussed positively only, some criticism would be necessary for balance. Gould's arguments about IQ appeared in The Mismeasure of Man, so they were made in the context of the race/IQ debate, so they are not necessarily tangential to this topic. There are still some problems with IQ, like an IQ of 70 being considered the threshold for mental retardation, when whole populations are alleged to have an IQ of 70 or below even though they are clearly not mentally retarded. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the fact is that lynn actually believes that these people are retarded, especially the so-called bushmen:

"Mackintosh expresses astonishment that Lynn infers elsewhere that Kalahari bushmen, with an average measured IQ of 54, should be regarded as mentally retarded; and that an 8 year old European child with the equivalent mental age would have no problems surviving in the same desert environment."[1]

clearly, something is wrong here. lynn's conclusion that (european) kids can survive in the kalahari desert is deduced from his own findings. now, either lynn's conclusion is correct i.e. his findings are correct, or lynn's conclusion is wrong i.e. his findings are wrong. Mackintosh criticizes

"Lynn's occasional manipulation of data, some of it originally collected by the reviewer, from which distorted conclusions have been drawn."[2]

nisbett, flynn, and others have leveled similar criticisms. Hunt and Wittmann writes:

"Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain." [Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and national prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9.]

we can not use lynn's figures without adding a whole section which exposes his "methods".mustihussain 01:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The reason is that the key debate isn't between those that believe that factor analysis is valid and those that don't, but among people who all agree that factor analysis is valid or otherwise don't care about the validity of factor analysis." Well, this account of the "key" debate is a point of view. It is a valdi point of view and should be included in the article. But it is not the only point of view, and NPOV demands we include other points of view. Including the point of view that this is a key debate. The problem is, as long as people veto including Gould in the article, no one will know that this is a debate. Do you see the problem? it is a circular argument. We exclude any critique we do not care about. Once all of those critiques are excluded from the article, we can look around and sug and say "See? It is not a key debate!" We are reaching a fundamental principle of NPOV: this is not about truth, it is about point of view. And we never put our own views in the article. I realize that Rushton and others think Gould is silly or trivial. But that is just a view, it does not mean that he "really" is silly or trivial. They think he is silly and trivial because they disagree with him, and they disagree with him because he disagrees with them. We simply cannot exclude views from this article just because people who agree with Rushton and Lynn do not agree with said views. If we used this principle in every article, every article would present only one view, and then that view would look a lot like the truth. This is really an assault on NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gould does a great job exposing his ignorance of factor analysis. That is not wiki-worthy. Gould is buried in 100 years of data and 1000s of studies showing that a statistical artifact is the most powerful variable in social science? It's outright absurd that g can be an statistical artifact given the massive data showing its predictive validity.

Further illustrating gould's ignorance -- yes IQ is not interval (though ECTs are ratio, and predict all the things that IQ scores do...) but ordinal scales are not worthless. They rank order people on g. That rank ordering predicts a host of important real-world outcomes (more so than any other single measure existing in all of social science).

Nothing Gould has written is relevant to anything in the field today. We will regress greatly by bringing him into here...all jmo. -Bpesta22 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

but it's not a debate. Unless wiki's article on plate tectonics brings in the young earth creationist POV-- for balance!-- tired old attacks on the validity of factor analysis are simply irrelevant to this debate. Structural equation modeling is all the rage in social science and beyond. It's the same technique-- more sophisticated-- used to reify g for 100 years. If g is wrong, then so is all of science.

No one anywhere in the modern literature is denying that g can be extracted from a test battery and that g predicts things. There's debate on whether g is all that matters, but no serious scholar is claiming g statistically does not exist. Bpesta22 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jensen has an article on the difference between a low score for a given race group and a low score indicating mental retardation. It's been awhile since I read it, but the two are not the same. Bpesta22 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add this to the section on why IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember watching a lecture by Rushton on youtube where he says populations with lower IQ's are not retarded, it's better to think of them as having a lower mental age. mikemikev (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How interesting, if utterly irrelevant. That should certainly make it more palatable for those who think he's just an old racist....·Maunus·ƛ· 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"A lower mental age" is precisely what the word "retarded" meant, when it was used regularly by intelligence researchers. Is Rushton being disingenuous, cynical, or stupid? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Now, in principle, I do not mind our quoting stupid things people like Rushton say. But several people have already expressed concerns about length andhow much more stuff can go in this article. Rushton's views on the IQ of Africans are so fringe, I think we should add them only after we have added the important stuff, and can discuss whether we still have room.

But this tactic of Mikemikev and others, of adding more and more racist and fringe views of Rushton while institing that criticisms of Rushton etc. by important scientists be kept out of the article is just perverse. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

totally agree. the racist agenda of lynn and rushton is clearly exposed by the their statements. however, the main point is that lynn's methods constitute scientific fraud. the fact that herr lynn conferred equatorial guinea the mean iq of a group of disabled spanish children is a sufficient reason not to use his figures! lynn, rushton, jensen are fringe "scientists" and should be treated as such. other admins should intervene asap. someone has to prevent the article to become a showcase for racists.mustihussain 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'main point' here is a dubious anecdote about a tiny subset of the data? My intention was to agree that we should not use the word 'retarded'. I don't actually support using 'lower mental age' either, I was just reporting the position of the most "racist" scientist. Sorry that was not clear. mikemikev (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BPesta is creating a false analogy. None of the young earth creationists are also considered by other scientists to be among the leading geologists in the world. When Stephen Jay Gould died, he was widely considered to be one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world, and his expertise extends to what would constitute a scintific study of group diferences among human beings. Now, I understand that there are many people with phDs especially doing research on intelligence testing who reject Gould's views. It may not even be a debate, in the sense that the rejection iis complete. This of course can go both ways (for example, when Ruchton's publisher sent one of his books to all members of the merican Anthropological Association, for free - they did this because they believed his research was relevant to the work of academic anthropologiste - many anthropologists just threw his book in the grbage. Now, I agree that this is not a "ebate." But it most certainly is a difference in view and this is what our NPOV policy insists we include in articles. It is absurd and insulting (and just poorly thought-out) to compare Gould to a young earth creationist. Those non-scientists make claims about just what Gould was an expert on. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould difer profoundly in their interpretation of evolutionary theory; among biologists I doubt you could ind two scholars as opposed to each other as these two. But Dawkins would never compare Gould to young earth creationists. There is no doubt that Gould knew moe about evolution, biology, and genetics than Jensen, Rushton or Lynn. And professionaly, he was just as concerned with the biological sources for the rise of group diferences as they were. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slru-- my analogy of Gould to YEC is actually not mine. I got it in *peer review* for an article I published in the Journal, Intelligence. I cited Gould and the reviewer told to remove it using just that analogy.

The reviewer also said: The man is an idiot. He is an advocate not a scientist. At least in this field, I agree.

Gould is completely irrelevant here. Cite Sternberg-- a much more highly regarded expert in this area-- if you want to attempt to trash the idea that g exists. -Bpesta22 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'd get the same reaction if you tried to quote Rushton or Jensen in an anthropological context - they are also considered advocates and not scientists (and racist idiots) by all the anthropologists I know.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed completely. And were Rushton and Jensen to a attempt a smackdown of some topic with 100 years of research in *anthro* I would discount their opinions appropriately. Anthro has done about nothing re contribution to human intelligence (race is perhaps a different story). Gould's article is squarely about trashing IQ. -Bpesta22 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not a correct analogy. Anthropology has of course not done anything to further studies in race and intelligence as both topics are discounted as constructions that are only culturally relevant, but not having any a priori biological validity. How would they contribute to the study of something the don't believe exists? The point is that anthropologists generally do not acknowledge the validity of any of categories that Jensen and Rushton purport to study, and that they therefore find Goulds view of the topic to be more correct. This means that Gould is only fringe to those who share Rushton and Jensens assumptions about the validity of a definition of race and intelligence as concepts with an a priori existence. My point is that 100 years of research in intelligence can readily be dismissed as irrelevant if the assumption that it exists as anything other than a social construct is not shared. Just like you can only dismiss Gould because you share the assumption. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, this article is about SIRE and IQ scores. Link to cultural anthropologists' view on race if you like but they are not experts on IQ. That they dismiss 100 years of data (on IQ; ignoring race) is their problem and rather ignorant (if indeed they do dismiss it). One would be ignorant, insane, or stupid to believe that IQ scores as measures of g are invalid. That's Gould's view. I leave you to decide which of the three he is, but any one of them makes him fringe if the goal here is to neutrally describe the science. -Bpesta22 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to be experts in order to have a significant view on it (and I don't know how you could expect someone to be an expert on something one believes to be either irrelevant or non-existant). I agree that Gould's is not a mainstream view and that it shouldn't be described as if it were - but it is notable and needs to be given due weight (which isn't necessarily a lot).·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You said: how can someone be an expert on an area they think is non existent... Precisely! Exactly like a creationist. Either unwilling or unable to read the massive *scientific* lit on the validity of g (again ignoring race). It's not like the data aren't there. Ignoring scientific data would seem to be the definition of fringe. You can have the last word next on this issue, but it seems like you just validated my analogy of gould to creationist-Bpesta22 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

except its the other way round here: Gould is the non-believer and the g-guys are the believers: that means the burdon of proof is on them just like it is on the creationists to show that god exists and created the earth. If Gould is unconvinced then that is no different from Dawkins or me being unconvinced by the evidence for creationism. (I am not arguing this because I believe that g is a fantastical belief, but to show that your analogy is false). Of course there is a lot of scientific literature about g and of course Gould, Rose and Sternberg has read it - and they have not been convinced. Again this doesn't really matter as Gould's viewpoint is clearly notable and should be given due weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, I think we all have to keep in mind the difference between a reliable result and a valid claim. I don't think it would be possible to claim that g is not a reliable result - as Bpesta said, it's been replicated far too many times to say it's just an artifact. The debate is over what this reliable result means (e.g. which theoretical claim about the underlying cause of the effect is valid), and that is a complex, multi-sided, yet-to-be-resolved-if-ever question. Frankly, I doubt science will have a decent answer to that question until it has a more analytic definition of what intelligence is (and being a bit of a developmentalist myself, I suspect that that definition will be much more subtle than can be captured by a simple measure like IQ), but as it stands, the best we are going to be able to do with this section is discuss g in its basics,and then lay out various interpretations with proper attributions, so that it doesn't look like the section is advocating any one amongst the several competing ideas. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But the more subtle explanation is Spearman's g, as explained exhaustively in Jensen's g factor, which should be featured here, obviously.

Gould denies that intelligence even exists as something measurable with a single number. He's as wrong as a YEC. To be that fringe has to violate some type of wiki policy re fringy-ness? Conversely, no one denies that human intelligence is more than just g.

To be clear here, this whole debate is a debate on g differences across races and what they might mean. -Bpesta22 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it depends on what level of reductionism is required here. Statistically g is perfectly-well defined. Psychologically, it's reasonably well defined (speed and efficiency of cognitive processes) Neurologically, it's less well defined (differences in global brain function, structure and processes); genetically is very ill defined.

But when we do get to say: IQ score is the sum of how efficient these 6 different brain areas are (as determined by x, y and z genes) we still need the explanation at other levels. So,what is the requirement here (specifically, who has issues with the construct validity of g? We should be able to resolve those easy by appeal to a massive lit). -Bpesta22 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New version of assumptions and methodology section: Comments welcome!

Here it is. Thanks to several other editors for help and comments. Thanks to Ludwig for help with the formatting --- although is there an easy way to have the references only include those from this box and not from the whole page above? Comments welcome! David.Kane (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate assumptions and methodology

Race and intelligence research involves debate over the links, if any, between race and intelligence. This research is grounded in two controversial assumptions:

• Race is partially genetically based.
• Intelligence is quantitatively measurable.

Both assumptions are disputed.

There are two conflicting positions: Some scientists argue that research into race and intelligence makes no sense because intelligence is too multi-dimensional and/or poorly defined to allow for comparisons between human groups and because race is a purely social construction with no meaningful genetic basis. Furthermore, some of these scientists argue that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science. Steven Rose writes:

“ Group comparisons of IQ are even more problematic. Attempts have been made to make 'culture-fair' or 'culture-free' tests, as if such a thing were possible, to allow comparisons of 'g' between people from very different societies. But IQ is clearly a flexible construct — as amply demonstrated by decisions in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States and Britain to 'adjust' test questions to equalize the scores of boys and girls, because in previous versions of the tests girls had scored higher. When Lev Vygotsky tested Russian peasants back in the 1930s, he found that answers that seemed logical to an urbanite were responded to quite differently, but with parallel logic, by the peasants. As for 'race', the problem is whether it is a biologically, as opposed to socially, meaningful category. Among geneticists interested in differences in gene frequencies between populations, there is increasing consensus that the word obscures more than it reveals, and should be replaced by the concept of biogeographic ancestry, which makes possible the study of subpopulations for relevant genetic and phenotypic characteristics. ”

Robert Sternberg argues that:

“ [I]ntelligence is, at this time, ill defined. Although many investigators study “IQ” or “g” as an operational definition of intelligence, these operationalizations are at best incomplete, even according to those who accept the constructs as useful. Research suggests that properties of intelligence beyond g may be somewhat different from those of g. Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currently indicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these social-defined groups. In general, we need to be careful, in psychological research, to distinguish our folk conceptions of constructs from the constructs themselves. ”

Unsurprisingly, almost all scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with this constructivist position. They argue that, although both race and intelligence are fuzzy concepts, both can be operationalized enough to draw conclusions about the connections, if any, between the two. In this research, race is almost always measured via self-identification. Subjects are presented with a set of racial options and allowed to place themselves in one (or more) category. The set of categories allowed and the words used to describe them varies from study to study and from country to country. Intelligence is generally measured with some form of IQ test.

Most researchers involved in race and intelligence fall into two camps: hereditarians and environmentalists.

Hereditarians argue that genetics explain a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn.

Environmentalists argue that the hereditarians are wrong. Genetic differences are not an important cause of differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, James Flynn, Richard Nisbett and Stephen Ceci.

In theory, the dispute could be resolved with a simple experiment. Simply select 1,000 newborns at random from the relevant racial groups, say White, Black and East Asian. Place all 1,000 in identical environments. This would involved creating three separate societies (perhaps racially segregated, perhaps not) which would be perfectly equal and as similar as possible to contemporary developed countries. Nutrition, family environment, education, popular culture and all other factors which might influence intelligence would need to be identical. For example, the Nobel Prize winners in the White society would all be White, those in the Black society would all be Black and so on.

Then, after 18 years, give the thousand subjects from each racial group an intelligence test. If the group averages are the same, then the hereditarian hypothesis is refuted.

Since ethical and practical issues make such an experiment impossible, researchers in race and intelligence need to rely on simpler and less conclusive experiments and data analysis.

The research strategy for demonstrating that a factor explains racial differences in IQ is relatively simple: (1) Identify and reliably measure a factor that co-varies with race. (2) Control for the factor. (3) See if the difference diminishes (in which case the factor "explains" the difference) or remains (in which case the factor does not explain the difference).

At least two methods exist for controlling factors that co-vary with race. The first constrains participant selection so that members of all races are equal on the factor in question. For example, if a researcher thinks education is the explanation for the difference, then she could compare the IQs of only similarly-educated members of each group. Showing that the difference is zero for persons matched on education levels would suggest that education is the cause of the difference. Showing that the difference remains for similarly educated people would make it unlikely (but not impossible) that education differences across race explain differences in average IQ. The second method is similar to the first, but uses statistics (rather than participant selection) to control the factor.

References

Comments

Not bad-- immediate reaction. I think it flipped a bit to give more weight to the "iq tests suck" camp.

I think the theoretical experiment is too off the wall to be useful (i.e., it's impossible to run, even beyond ethics, no one would run it for various reasons). Plus, it wouldn't rule out pre-natal issues, plus technically we couldn't conclude cause because we didn't randomly assign people to races, and also I think a "discrimination-based" explanation could still argue that the kids really weren't treated the same.-184.59.172.151 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Not bad?" I'll take it! Other notes:

• Note that I (after discussions with Maanus, see my talk page for details) am trying "environmentalist" as a term to apply to Nisbett, Ceci, Flynn et al. Does that work for folks? I brought up this topic last week [3] but no one had any insights. Comments welcome since, presumably, this terminology will be used elsewhere in the article.
• I was trying to give more room to the constructivist position. Several editors feel that this is important and I agree. I think that Rose and Sternberg are better people to cite on this than Gould. I realize that these quotes are long. I would be happy to have them paraphrased. But I wanted to show people the quotes first.
• I have read the theoretical experiment somewhere but I can't remember where. I agree that it ignores pre-natal issues, but it could be revised to fix that. I find it helpful as a way to think about the debate, but if others don't like it, we can always cut it.

Thanks for the comments. David.Kane (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for preparing this.

• I don't agree with your assumptions at the start. If race were entirely non-genetic, this would not invalidate a link between race and intelligence. Race might be related to other inherited attributes, like access to education from intelligent parents at an early age.
• I don't agree with your theoretical 1000 people of each race test. Each race may thrive in different environments, so the ordering (if any) may depend on which conditions were selected.
• I can't see anything else suspect at the moment. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Just to be clear, they are not "my" assumptions. These are the assumptions made by both the hereditarians and the environmentalists. I am just trying to give an NPOV description of the assumptions that they make. 2) I agree with your point about the thought experiment. I will probably add that proviso, along with pre-natal issue raised above. 3) Nothing else "suspect" is high praise! At least in the context of this article . . . ;-) David.Kane (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I'll try and see if anyone important in the area agrees with me on point 1. It just seems the logical conclusion of races not being predominantly genetic. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok for the sake of balancing I think we could leave out the Rose quote and just use the Sternberg one as they are in essence saying the same thing, then we could add a quote by a hereditarian to balance it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily support the inclusion of this material, but at least for the first time, :::I have seen some glimpses of neutrality and balance. I support the using Sternberg's statement as a critique of g and IQ. I also support the arguments made by Rose.

I had previously suggested adding a topic on ethics, because in the future ethical issues are likely to be central in future research into intelligence. Increased knowledge of the nature human intelligence is likely to have implications that extend far beyond the race issue.Whoever gains the ability and technology to manipulate human intelligence is likely to gain economic, technological and even military power. I digress, but the main point is that vast majority of academicians today( such as Rose) believe that studies of race and intelligence are unethical. This is why only a small minority of scholars study this subject. So along with hereditarians, environmentalists and agnostics, I would add a fourth category which is those who believe that current R&I research is unethical. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you cite a source for that? For instance, where does this "Rose," say that? Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"glimpses of neutrality and balance" Excellent! That is high praise in this article. ;-) Seriously, thanks for the comment. I am happy to structure it as four groups rather than three. I will put up a new version incorporating all the above comments. Question: "vast majority of academicians today (such as Rose) believe that studies of race and intelligence are unethical." Do you have a good source for that claim? If so, I will certainly add it to this draft. David.Kane (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: I think that Wapondaponda is referring to the Steven Rose quote in my draft. Also, see the reference, which is on-line. David.Kane (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

David, I agree that your version looks pretty good. However, I still have some suggestions about it:

1: I agree with Dr. Pesta that this section makes too many concessions to the anti-IQ crowd. Among people who have the necessary training to make judgments about whether IQ is an accurate measure of mental ability, the view that it is not an accurate measure of this is definitely a minority (although still notable) position. I think the article ought to make that clear.

2: I think the quotes from Rose and Sternberg are too long. Part of why I’m saying this is because when I added a quote from James Flynn in the “heritability” section where Flynn describes the relationship of within-group heritability to between-group heritability, which I think is of considerably more central importance to this topic than either of the two quotes you included, I was still asked to truncate it in order to make it shorter than either of the two quotes in your own proposal. If this was necessary for the Flynn quote, in this interest of consistency I think it should be necessary for the Rose and Sternberg quotes also.

3: Is it accurate to say that one of the assumptions for this debate is that “race is partially genetically based”? Obviously this is a necessary assumption for the hereditarian position, but environmentalists disagree with one another also, such as over whether the IQ gap can be explained entirely in terms of culture and discrimination, or whether it’s necessary to invoke physical factors that can affect IQ such as nutrition and prenatal conditions. In a debate between these two environmentalist positions, I don’t see how race being partially genetic is a necessary assumption for either of them. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "make any concessions to the anti-iq crowd" it describes their viewpoint and that is exactly what this section ought to do. NPOV isn't a game of "if they get one I want one was well" its a game of explaining which viewpoints exist, who espouses them and weighing them against eachother according to notability.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn’t intending to say that I thought the article shouldn’t cover this view at all; it obviously should. I was just saying that I thought this proposal gave undue weight to the idea that IQ tests are invalid. NPOV policy states that we should not give equal validity to a minority view, which (among academics trained in this area) is what this is. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"pretty good" Excellent! All this praise is going to go to my head. ;-) Anyway, I appreciate Occam's concerns on undue weight and Maunus. To thread this particular needle --- and for the long term functioning of the article --- my goal is to explain these views clearly in this section (at whatever link editors think best) and then keep all such discussions out of other sections of the article, lest the issue become horribly confused. That is the big picture. In terms of the length here, I will try to steer a middle ground. I think that the best way to think about this is that we need to keep the Assumptions section proportional in size to the rest of the article. As the rest of the article grows, this section could become bigger. Indeed, at some future date, it would separate out into its own article, just as the history section has done. Indeed, we might even have a separate Race and Intelligence (Ethics article. But, in the meantime, I will take all of the above into account as I work on a new draft. All comments much appreciated! With regard to the quotes, my main goal in putting them in the draft was to show everyone that they were there. Unless anyone objects, I will now try to remove them and replace them with an NPOV description of those positions. David.Kane (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, I am working up a second draft on my talk page. I will post it here when completed. Thanks again for all the comments. David.Kane (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Do "hereditarians" call themselves his? I think so - but if they do not, we should call thm whatever they call themselves. Do "Environmentalists" call themselves this? I am noistso sure. I think there are three points of view we need to include. First, how someone identifies himself. How Rushton identifies himself. How Gould identified himelf. How Nisbett identifies himself. How Jensen identifies himself. How Flynn identifies himselfs. Etc. Second, how one stakeholder identifies others (e.g. what Lynn calls Gould). Third, how uninvolved secondary sources identify people. My point: each of thse is hust a point of view. I fear that we are taking ONE point of view and using it to organize our representation of the debate. But that is only one person'spoint of view!! Look, if Gould Nebit and Flynn ALL say "we are the environmentalists" then fine, this version is okay to me. I am just not sure they do this. And if they do not do this, then this version has a serious NPOV problem. The viewthat this is a conflict between two groups or a debate with just two sides may be an important view but it is still just a view. Some people may think it has more than two sides; some people may not think it is between two groups. Those views also have to be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. As usual, I agree with almost all the substantive points you make.

• As I report above: Good news! Just got my copy of Race Differences in Intelligence, an excellent secondary source. They use the terms "environmentalist" and "hereditarian," so I think we can safely follow suit.
• I am trying to keep the Assumptions section short. So, while I think it is important and interesting to know/understand all the terms that various people use to describe both themselves and others, I think that this should be done in another section. Perhaps one on Terminology? Such a section could also include a discussion of the different terms people use for racial groups.
• Could you suggest a specific sentence or two or more that I could use in the section that might address these concerns? I am eager to create this section in as collaborative a manner as possible.

Thanks again for your comments. David.Kane (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that Flynn (1980) also uses the term “environmentalist” for people like himself and “hereditarian” for people like Jensen, so I think it’s safe for the article to do likewise. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is, follow what the sources say. If several different people distinguish between hereditarian and environmentalist, and name who they think counts under which category, just follow our NPOV policy and say "according to (Flynn, Rushton, whomever) a, b, and c are hereditarians and x, y, and z are environmentalists. But if someone never identified himself as an environmentalist (or hereditarian), we have to say so; if someone identified himself another way, we just say, "M, who identified himself as ...." It isn't a point of my recomending ANY sources; it is a point of using the sources you are already using, in compliance with our NPOV policy, that is all. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gene pool

The human gene pool varies from place to place. Even in the same area, there can be different gene pools due to group segregation. Therefore, there are differences between groups of people. Even if the gene pool was the same everywhere, there would still be differences between groups due to environmental differences (certain alleles would become more predominant/frequent in certain environments). --120 Volt monkey (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Another unspoken point is that genes may be only a small part of what is inherited between the generations. Cultural information may easily exceed genetic information, and still be largely hereditary. So intelligence may be hereditary even without a large genetic component. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat taboo to suggest that when the average IQ score of the individuals in one gene pool is different than the average IQ score of the individuals in another gene pool, that the reason could have a significant genetic cause. It is, however, accepted that the differing IQ scores of individuals within the same gene pool can have a significant genetic cause. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Multi-day section-editing only

I just made the following comment [4] at the ANI devoted to this article. Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

---

I am too involved with this debate to be objective and too inexperienced an editor to be knowledgeable, but MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have all, once or twice, said something nice about me, so maybe this gives me credibility. ;-) I hate to see anyone banned and, although this article is a war-zone, it has been a productive war zone over the last 6 months. I think most everyone agrees that the article we have now is better than the one that we had in November. (Whether the amount of time/energy invested is worth that progress is debatable.)

Anyway, it seems clear that the worst editing/edit-warring occurs when editors just add a sentence or two (however well-sourced and WP:NPOV) and then other editors delete that sentence with not unreasonable complaints about WP:UNDUE or other issues. Then the fight begins. The best editing occurs when someone takes an entire section, redrafts it from start to finish, solicits comments from all concerned, incorporates those comments and then iterates. MathSci did a wonderful job of this in fixing (dramatically) the History section and I am doing the same in redoing the Assumptions section. So, dramatic progress on the article is possible. Suggestion: Instead of protecting the entire page (which prevents improvement) why not enforce this procedure on the entire article? We may not edit the article directly. We must take an entire section, redo it (including seeking new/better sources), solicit comments on the talk page, incorporate those comments, and, only then, place the new section in the article. Highlights:

• This allows good progress to be made, as MathSci did with history, while preventing the vast majority of pointless edit warring.
• This would be easy to enforce. Just place the policy at the top of the talk page. If anyone edited the article without going through this process, one of the editors involved would simply revert it. (And, believe me, there are a lot of editors on this article who are good a reverting!)
• This would discourage drive-by editors who just want to add their two cents without taking the time and effort to seek consensus.
• This would encourage good editors, like MathSci, who honestly want to see the article get better and who are willingly to put in a lot of time and energy to do so.

Again, I am involved in this dispute and inexperienced (a dangerous combination!), so feel free to ignore. But, at the same time, I have dived into the topic and recently purchased several books precisely so I could provide better sourcing. Give the committed editors --- meaning those willing to fix entire sections and seriously incorporate comments --- a chance and let us show you what we can do. David.Kane (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New history section

Lol?

Is that even original writing. It looks like one huge cut and paste. -Bpesta22 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing was cut and pasted on scienceblog (not scienceblogs-- it appears this site attempts to look like scienceblogs?):

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7669?page=1 Bpesta22 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. David.Kane (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New criticisms of Lynn in "test scores" section

Mustihussain has just added the following information to the "test scores" section:

However, Lynn's findings are highly contested, and it is proven that Lynn has falsified and manipulated data . It is recommended to view Lynn's findings with "some suspicion" . Lynn himself discredits his own work by equating the 'mental age' of adult Bushmen with European 8 year olds as he did in "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis".

I have two problems with this addition. One is that I think this is the wrong section for us to be getting into criticisms of Lynn: if other editors don't think we can cite test scores to him without mentioning these criticisms, it's probably better for us to cite the test score data to someone else. My other problem is that I don't think it's neutrally worded for us to say "it is proven that Lynn has falsified and manipulated data" and "Lynn himself discredits his own work".

I think the problem with adding this information in this section are fairly obvious, but I guess we can discuss it anyway, just in case there's anyone other than Mustihussain and Mathsci who disagrees. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the edits needed at least tidying up. If we have some non-suspect test scores, we should use those, perhaps in addition. I prefer to be briefer in the criticisms as the point of this section is not to personalise the debate by criticising someone in detail. If Lynn's figures are important, we could just add a few words to say: Lynn's methods has been criticised with the references, or some such. We can't criticise someone every time their name is mentioned, and the critiques must be easy to locate, not buried at some random point in the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the criticism is that he's not a very nice man, that shouldn't be mentioned in this section. If the criticism is that he has used dodgy methods, so the figures are suspect, that should be mentioned in some brief way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - The new wording seems much more "reporting what is said" than before. However it seems to believe the reviewer uncritically compared with the author, which I will question when I've had some sleep. Also, the section gives three references supporting the claim that others have obtained similar results, so as a reader I am wondering why there is so much effort on criticising Lynn here. Perhaps the repeatable results should be separated slightly from the suspect results/criticism of Lynn which also interestingly seems to point to the unspoken flaw in the whole IQ-as-a-proxy-for intelligence issue - namely IQ tests are not subtle enough to pick up all aspects of intelligence, and are subject to wide errors when they use cultural specific questions or have a biased originator. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And a final note before I go to bed - we don't have to get everything right in a single edit. Some combination of the ideas suggested (with new ideas we haven't thought of yet) will probably work well. Stephen B Streater (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m concerned by the fact that the two users who keep putting this information back in the article, Mathsci and Mustihussain, have not made any effort to participate in this discussion or justify their edits here. We’ve been having a similar problem with Mathsci on this article, where he’s made three reverts of edits from two different users within the space of around 40 minutes. If you look at the discussion page for that article, you’ll see that Mathsci’s efforts to justify his preferred version of the article is based only on repeating the same argument again and again, while not acknowledging any of what’s been said in response, or the fact that six users have expressed disagreement with his preferred version and he’s the only user who supports it. I think we need to come up with a overall principle about how to handle it when someone keeps reverting an article while refusing to cooperate with other users’ effort to discuss these edits, because this is happening fairly often now. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many ways to do this, most of which don't work very effectively, ending up with burnout or bans. One advantage of exploring a wide range of articles is that you come across situations like this where you don't have a POV yourself, and you can see what types of solution work and what don't - and how the various participants are perceived by the wider community. This article is a microcosm of many controversial articles. Everyone on WP should also read WP:MPOV of course, though it's remarkable how few people it applies to, particularly on controversial articles! Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the quality of these edits, isn't it obvious to all concerned that this is not the best way to work for the article? Instead, folks should do what MathSci did with regard to the History section and I am trying to do with the Assumptions: Take the whole section. Redraft it from start to finish, either on this talk page or at your user page. See comments from all concerned. Incorporate comments. Iterate. And then install the new section. Most reasonable editors will then, after that process, give great deference to the new section. I am the first to admit that the Test Scores section that we came out from Mediation was flawed. But this process is not making it better . . . David.Kane (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the specific cite in the Hunt article where it's "proved" that Lynn faked data? Without pretty strong evidence, that seems like defamation. I just reviewed an article of Lynn's on National IQs (it's in press now). The nation IQ numbers have been replicated. They are not fake. Cooking the data is the worst sin in science. Do you really think he could get away with something like this, given how many people have him under his lens? Recent changes to this article have really sucked, if the goal is to present a neutral report on the current debate and data. I'm disappointed. -Bpesta22 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Realize that we could totally ignore anything Lynn's written for this article and we'd be left with exactly the same issue (100 years of race differences on IQ tests; albeit less data on the african IQ). It seems like many are setting up a straw man where if we focus on Lynn, we can debunk the whole field. Why such intense focus on him, when even if you successfully discredit him, you're still left with all the data on this topic that are not his?

That seems pov pushing. Why not just take these edits to the Lynn article on Wiki so we can focus here on the data that need to be explained? -Bpesta22 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the edits that added this new material, you’re welcome to revert them. (In case you haven’t noticed this yet, the easiest way to revert an edit is by clicking the “undo” button next to the edit in the article’s edit history.) The only reason I haven’t reverted this edit myself is because I’ve already removed this material twice, and I’d rather not get accused of edit warring.

Generally, it’s acceptable to revert edits that are clearly opposed by consensus, or that nobody is willing or able to justify on the article’s talk page. (The second criterion definitely seems to apply here.) However, it’s not a good idea to revert the same article too often, since that’s considered edit warring and it’s possible to get in trouble for that. There’s also rule (3RR) against reverting the same article more than three times in one day, but one or two reverts generally isn’t a problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we’ve still got users putting these criticisms back in the article, while refusing to participate in the discussion about why this is the wrong part of the article for them. I know this request is likely to go ignored, but: could other editors please comply with WP:BRD? When you revert something, you’re supposed to discuss it with the other editors who disagree with you; you’re not supposed to just keep reverting it while ignoring their attempts at discussion about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The African IQ section would be the perfect place to put in criticisms of Lynn. Please be prepared to prove he faked his data, if you insist on keeping that sentence in. Without evidence, I see that as potentially defamation. -Bpesta22 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

g loading section

I think the assertion that g is controversial is wrong. The whole section focuses on possible problems with the method of correlated vectors and whether the technique can inform us about race differences. None of the criticisms in that long quote are directed at g. In fact, the critics state that is a fact that g exists.

The section should perhaps be renamed to Spearman's hypothesis. -Bpesta22 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable points. Why not work up a new draft for that section, perhaps with a better title. Just copy and paste it here or on your talk page and go at it. David.Kane (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes to the actual article-- hope that's ok. I think the prior version was technically incorrect, but now is fixed. -Bpesta22 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Discussion

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WARNING!!!

This entire article is misleading and dishonest. More specifically the second paragraph in the intro foreshadows the bias of the article. Natural racial differences as the source of IQ differences is proven through thousands of studies over the last 90 years and is the view accepted in the academic and scientific community, not vice-versa. There is no substantiated data that disproves this view, therefore, this should be the view of the article. Also, when referring to the academic and scientific community this should only refer those who actually research psychometrics!!!!!! Stop damaging Wikipedia's credibility. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WARNING!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant256 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the image to the right would be acceptable for illustrating both the differences as well as the considerable overlap between group scores in the US. I'm assuming Mathsci (and perhaps others) have an objection? Btw, I'm entirely flexible on this. --Aryaman (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fine in the main body of the text where more context is provided. The lede has been written with reference to worldwide IQ testing, not just the US, so that would be another factor arguing against its prominent inclusion in the lede. For the time being it seems best to concentrate on content rather than images, which can be moved around at a later stage. Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this image belongs in the lead. David.Kane (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

YES, definitely. This is what the whole article is about, and It's both blatant POV and outrageous that there is even any question about it. BTW, Mathsci, you are SO biased and the things you've said SO slanted that you should be locked out of this page. Furthermore, I believe your attempts to shut down this article and shout down editors is so extreme as to be wiki-actionable TechnoFaye Kane 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just ask if someone has checked to make sure this image really appears in the source cited and that it is real data from a wide-ranging survey of some kind? I ask because I find it incredible that four groups were tested and found to have very different average IQ's, yet they all had the EXACT same frequency distribution of IQ relative to the mean. Studying human height you will find that more deprived populations tend to have wider bell curves, because diseases that stunt growth don't affect everybody, they come hit-or-miss. I would expect intelligence to behave the same way unless it really is 100% genetic with no environmental influences at all. If that's what the data says, then I have no objections, but I just want to be sure we're not letting false information into the article under the assumption that it's legitimate. —Soap— 13:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this graph before (and even posted it on my blog). It was used to illustrate the IQ gap, but not the distribution (I've seen the correct one, and the curve for the blacks is more spread out and therefore also lower) I'll try to find it. TechnoFaye Kane 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a moot point, I suppose, but if the graph isn't even correct it's a wonder it survived in the article for four years. I would like to see the correct graph if you can find it. —Soap— 12:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the new lead, I have been bold and made some (minor?) changes. Outside of that, I think that the new second paragraph is excellent, albeit a bit wordy. But my main concern is that there are no citations to support it. Then again, everything in there is supported later in the article. Question: Wouldn't it be a good idea to cite at least a few things here, at least the APA report? David.Kane (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the third paragraph, are there other academic bodies besides the APA that have made "official statements" which concluded that "the cause of the racial IQ gap is currently unknown?" Not that I know of . . . . David.Kane (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think using the image in the lead is a bad idea, even if Soap's concerns are unfounded, the image completely adopts and lends legitimacy to the both of the problematic categories of "race" and "intelligence" without conveying any of the problems involved in their definition. I would find it misleading in the lead, but appropriate in a section of the article particularly describing the studies on which the graph is based.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No way. This article is ABOUT race and intelligence, and the graphic lets the reader see what "the big deal" is at a glance. Otherwise the reader has to read quite a lot to even know the magnitude of the differences, and that asians score higher than whites. TechnoFaye Kane 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly peripheral to this discussion, but I would nevertheless be concerned that having such a prominent diagram showing race vs IQ is conflating the ideas of IQ and intelligence, which are different things. There are many issues with IQ, including one clearly shown in the diagram - the assumption that IQ is normally distributed (it's actually a ratio, as I'm sure you know). In fact the figures are fixed to make it normally distributed - but then the results for the different distributions for different races are affected in different ways by these adjustments, so they can't all be normally distributed at the same time. Hence the differences between the normal distributions is an inaccurate representation of the differences between the actual distributions. In summary the diagram is suspect for two reasons:

• Intelligence is not the same as IQ, so the lede should not give undue weight to IQ by giving it such a prominent image

Bull shit. IQ is a legtimate proxy for intelligence and is used that way in research. citation on req. Stop trying to water down this article! The race/intelligence gap exists. If you don't like it, tough titties. Deal with it. TechnoFaye Kane 03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The normal distribution in IQ shown only applies after normalising the results - but you can't in general do this for more than one distribution at a time. As each race has a different distribution, they can't all be normalised at once. The diagram must show an idealised (and hence subjective) picture of what would have happened if the IQs all were exactly normally distributed with different means but identical standard deviations. This does not show an experimental result, but a "what if" speculation - again not something which should be given undue weight. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've just read Soap's comment - this mirrors my second concern (vice versa in fact!) that the graphs look suspect. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

These are serious concerns. What is the source for the graphs? They come from Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330, but did thse authors normalize the curves? That we provide it, i.e. that it is not copyrighted, suggests to me that a Wikipedian manipulated the data. The Wikipedian who uploaded the image is no longer active, butif he did it, I'd say it violates SYNTH; Slrubenstein | Talk

The second sentence is poorly worded: "Debates in popular science and academic research over the possible connection of race and intelligence, originally as a comparison of African Americans and Caucasians in the United States, but later extended to other races and regions of the world." --120 Volt monkey (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Version of new Assumptions section

Here it is. Thanks for many helpful comments from editors of all persuasions, both here and on my talk page. I have tried to incorporate everything, while keeping the overall size of the section proportional to the rest of the article.

Debate assumptions and methodology

Race and intelligence research involves debate over the links, if any, between race and intelligence. This research is grounded in two controversial assumptions:

• Race is partially genetically based.
• Intelligence is quantitatively measurable.

Both assumptions are disputed.

There are several conflicting positions. Some scientists argue that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science. Other scientists insist that, independent of ethical concerns, research into race and intelligence makes little sense because intelligence is poorly measured and because race is a social construction. According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional, or has definitions that vary between cultures. This would make contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially groups that came from different cultures, dependent mainly on which culture’s definition of intelligence is being used. Moreover, this view asserts that even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, racial differences in intelligence would still be meaningless since race exists only as a social construct, with no basis in biology.

Unsurprisingly, almost all scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree with these two positions. These researchers fall into two groups: hereditarians and environmentalists. Both argue that, although race and intelligence are fuzzy concepts, they can be operationalized enough to draw conclusions about the connections, if any, between the two. In this research, race is almost always measured via self-identification. Subjects are presented with a set of racial options and allowed to place themselves in one (or more) category, or are placed by an interviewer. The set of categories allowed and the words used to describe them varies from study to study and from country to country. Intelligence is generally measured with some form of IQ test.

Hereditarians argue that genetics explain a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn.

Environmentalists argue that the hereditarians are wrong. Genetic differences are not an important cause of differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, James Flynn, Richard Nisbett and Stephen Ceci.

Other scientists, although accepting the basic assumptions of the debate, believe that there is currently not enough evidence to determine what part, if any, genetics plays in racial differences.

In theory, the dispute could be resolved with a simple experiment. Select 1,000 fertilized eggs at random from the relevant racial groups, say White, Black and East Asian. Place all 1,000 in identical environments, both pre- and post-natal. This would involved creating three separate societies which would be perfectly equal and as similar as possible to contemporary developed countries. Nutrition, family environment, education, popular culture and all other factors which might influence intelligence would need to be identical. For example, the Nobel Prize winners in the White society would all be White, those in the Black society would all be Black and so on.

Then, after 18 years, give the thousand subjects from each racial group an intelligence test. If the group averages are the same, then the hereditarian hypothesis is refuted. Since ethical and practical issues make such an experiment impossible, researchers in race and intelligence need to rely on simpler and less conclusive experiments and data analysis.

There are two primary methods for controlling factors (education, income and so on) which are correlated with IQ test scores and which co-vary with race The first constrains participant selection so that members of all races are equal on the factor in question. For example, if a researcher thinks education is the explanation for the difference, then she could compare the IQs of only similarly-educated members of each group. Showing that the difference is zero for persons matched on education levels would suggest that education is the cause of the difference. Showing that the difference remains for similarly educated people would make it less likely that education differences across race explain differences in average IQ. The second method is similar to the first, but uses statistics (rather than participant selection) to control the factor.

References

Comments welcome! David.Kane (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Can we in-line attribute the thought experiment to Loehlin, Lindzey and Spuhler? (2) Can we point out that there is disagreement among "Hereditarians" and "Environmentalists"? There are at least two subdivisions among Hereditarians -- those that believe that genetics does explain the gap versus those that believe that it could explain the gap. Murray and Herrnstein (1994) claim to be among the latter. Likewise, Flynn disagrees on many things with Gould (Gould's book evades all of Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black-white IQ gap, by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g, no more need be said. This is manifestly false. Jensen's arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or 10 or 100 factors. I attribute no intent or motive to Gould, it is just that you cannot rebut arguments if you do not acknowledge and address them. (Flynn 1999, 373)). Better yet perhaps we could disconnect the labels from the people but discuss them at the same time to get a sense of the range of views. --DJ (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Not really. (And perhaps my footnote is misleading.) Loehlin, Lindzey and Spuhler do not describe this particular thought experiment. They describe and discuss other such theoretical situations, mainly raising children in completely different environments, quoting authors from early in the 20th century. (2) If helpful, I am ready to delete the specific people and just list the descriptions. I like to think that it will be obvious that any group of scientists, even if they agree enough to be grouped under a single name like environmentalists, will disagree about many things. Flynn and Gould may despise each other, but the both agree that genetics plays no part in racial IQ differences. (3) If you would like to suggest a specific sentence to illustrate this point, I would be happy to add it. Indeed, feel free to edit the text directly yourself. I trust your judgment! David.Kane (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DJ’s suggestion about pointing out the disagreements between members of each camp. I also have a problem with the wording of this part:

“According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional. One person can be smarter than another in one subject and dumber in another. Intelligence is culture-specific. And, since intelligence comparisons between individuals are so problematic, contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially if they come from different cultures, is impossible. Moreover, even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, the non-biological character of race, and its different meanings and definitions around the world, make racial differences in intelligence nonsensical.”

I think this needs to be worded in such a way that makes it clear we’re not asserting this as fact, but just presenting it as one of several viewpoints. I would suggest something like this:

“According to this view, intelligence is ill-defined and multi-dimensional, or has definitions that vary between cultures. This would make contrasting the intelligence of groups of people, especially groups that came from different cultures, dependent only on which culture’s definition of intelligence is being used. Moreover, this view asserts that even if intelligence were as simple to measure as height, racial differences in intelligence would still be meaningless if race existed only as a social construct with no basis in biology.”

I may eventually have other suggestions also, but that’s the main one I can think of at the moment. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

David, I hope you haven’t decided to stop participating here just because of the AN/I thread. Aren’t you going to continue working on making this revision? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Still here! Just incorporated your suggestions, in place. Changed a couple of words and may change a couple more, but only to make them read better. If you object, I can change back. I am also still interested in getting feedback from others. Otherwise, I plan to install on Wednesday, about a week after the process started. [5]. Big thanks to everyone who made comments, especially Maunus, Stephen B Streater, Bpesta22 and Occam. David.Kane (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have previously mentioned, I don't support the inclusion of this material, though I thought the inclusion of the critique of IQ was an improvement. I don't think it is a good idea for David Kane to be writing the whole article. I think David has done enough already and I think he should step back and give an opportunity for other editors to shape the article. This is important for neutrality and balance. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Please, will someone else volunteer to tackle the next section that we need to fix? Of course, several sections need fixing, but I have/had promised Slrubenstein that I would fix the Adoption studies section next. Yet, I agree that it would be much better if someone else did that, ideally following the high standards set by MathSci when he redid the History section. Any volunteers? David.Kane (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of this section, can you give some more detail? What do you like about the current section that we should retain? What sentences would you like to see struck from this version? As you can see, I am eager for feedback. But just saying "I don't support" doesn't give me any specific guidance about how we might win your support. David.Kane (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few changes I’ve been intending to make sometime soon, but the “adoption studies” section isn’t what I consider the highest priority at this point, since at least it presents the data. There are two sections I’d like to work on next. One of them is the “African IQ” section, which mentions that the IQ of Sub-Saharan African countries is especially controversial, but explains nothing about what the controversy about them actually is. And the other is the section about racial admixture studies, which is a line of data that we agreed during the mediation case ought to be included, but the section about it seems to have disappeared entirely.

While I’m at it, I’m also intending to add back some of the sections about environmental influences on IQ that were covered by the article before mediation. Muntuwandi has complained that it’s unbalanced for the article to not cover these topics, and nobody else appears to have disagreed with him about this. If nobody does, that means his complaint is most likely a reasonable one that ought to be taken into consideration.

I’d also like us to finish discussing the “significance” section, but that can wait until after some of the other changes we’ve been discussing. Does anybody have a problem with me implementing the changes I’ve suggested here? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That all seems like good stuff. But I hope that you will do as I did and post your new section here (or at your talk page) and allow for comments. I think that this --- redoing entire sections at once rather than adding/deleting specific sentences --- makes for much more collaborative editing. I think that this is especially true of the environmental issues. (And I certainly agree with Muntuwandi that we need more of that.) But things are likely to be more productive if you spec out here in detail a draft. If you are looking for votes on where to begin, I would start with the African IQ section. It is, clearly, one of the weakest. Of course, those who do the work get to pick what they will work on . . . David.Kane (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t object to you using the method of editing you’re using here, but I really prefer something that’s more efficient than this. The way I see it, your preferred method of editing makes collaboration a lot more difficult, because that way every other revision that anyone else suggests has to be filtered through the person making the proposal. As long as I can be confident that other users will have little enough problem with what I’m intending to do that they won’t do a wholesale revert of my edits (which why I’m proposing them here before I make them), I would much rather let other users edit the material I’ve added in the article itself, and discuss individual parts of it here if there’s a disagreement over them. Since what I’m hoping to change will involve several different sections, I also couldn’t quote my proposed changes here as easily here as you did.

There isn’t a right or wrong way of doing this, in my opinion. Everybody just has their own preferred style of editing. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I am not king of Wikipedia nor of this article so, obviously, other editors are not bound by my preferences. We will see what happens! David.Kane (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added this in. Thanks to all for feedback! I like to think that almost everyone's concerns were addressed and that, as a result, the new section is an improvement on the old. My main failure has been to convince Muntuwandi. If he has time to provide a specific list of things that he preferred in the old version to what we have now, I would be eager to incorporate his views. David.Kane (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

This article has a history of strong opinions from editors, and consensus would be a good start.

But consensus is not My supporters agree. It is My opponents and my supporters agree. Often people aren't completely opposed, and have some common ground. I'm reluctant to tell other people how to edit, as styles vary, but if people waited for several people to agree who they would normally disagree with (or at least for them not object within 24 hours, to allow for time differences), the conflicts on the article pages would be much reduced.

I think the recent ANI thread produced some ideas as to how to improve the mood here, if that is what people want. There is no rush to get the article finished, remember. The problem on this article is one of process, not one-off individual actions. If we can agree a consistent process for all editors, we can move forward without unproductive edit warring. And that must include bringing in a wider range of people before making changes. And a higher bar for article changes.

My personal preference is to include relatively more detail to start with, provided it is well sourced. I don't mind initially where it is, though if people have strong feelings, we can move things around. Once all the important points are down, it will be much easier to see where things should be placed, and to trim out the repetition, which will be more important later on. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, Comply with NPOV

NPOV is non-negotiable. Properly sourced views must be included in this article. Your continued deletion of properly sourced material comes close to POV-pushing.

In your edit summary you suggest that you think that the material belongs in another section. I do not. But IF you believe this, as you claim, then what you would really do is not delete it, but move it to the section in which you think it is most appropriate. I have no idea what section you are imagining. So I have put it in the section I think most appropriate. But if you see a better section, put it there. Actually, I will create a new subsection as a compromise. This should satisfy both of us. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Occam is POV pushing. Bpesta22 seems to agree with him. So, we have two editors, at least, who find this material problematic. The issue is whether or not this material is true (I have not checked the citations directly) and whether or not it is WP:UNDUE. I certainly think it would be WP:UNDUE if it were added to the Test scores section since there is no discussion there of the quality of any other researcher's work. (I think that the best answer would be to find some other source besides Lynn, but I am not sure that this is possible.) David.Kane (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And we have at least three editors who find the data problematic. So what? NPOV does not say we include the views editors agree on. We include properly sourced views. The views I have added are certainly significant and from reliable sources. And Captain Occam's objection seemed only to be to how they were placed in the article. If the new section I created is not satisfactory, they should come up with a better idea. But deleting sourced views is a violation of policy. IQ and the Wealth of nations is widely considered pseudoscience - I have concerns even about using it in the article. But if we use it, the widespread valid concerns of scientists ought to be registered. We have already agreed that mackintosh is an acceptable source. And BPesta said Intelligence is the leading journal, so a book review from that journal ought to be acceptable as a view about the book - to reject the review from the very journal touted as the authority smacks of hypocracy, and we cannot allow our article to appear hypocritical. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a pointer to what the disagreement is about? --DJ (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DJ: You ask the impossible! ;-) I think that this dispute is about what amount of discussion, if any, should accompany usage of statistics from Richard Lynn's work and where that discussion should be placed. One "side" thinks that the Test scores section should be kept relatively free of such discussions. The other "side" think that it is unreasonable to present Lynn's results without such context. My view, heavily influenced by MathSci, is that we should find some secondary source which discusses test scores around the world and rework the entire section using that source, or multiple secondary sources. Then, to the extent that folks wanted much more detail (including Lynn's work and criticisms of it), that would mean that we needed a daughter article, just as MathSci created for History. Hope that is helpful! David.Kane (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that, without much work, we could put a few words (eg one such as controversial with an inline reference) indicating that this is contentious at this point, and put all the details elsewhere in the article, with the same reference(s) and more detail. Where there is doubt, NPOV requires we give enough information for the reader to be able to assess the reliability of sources. This solution wouldn't need additional sources or a separate article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(I tend to agree with Stephen B Streater)

Here is a quote from Hunt & Carlson (2007) on their take on the issue:

Examples of Questionable Construct Validity.

Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) used IQ test scores to predict indices of economic productivity across nations. Their data points were pairs—IQ estimate–economic estimate—for each nation. Some of the IQ estimates were based on large standardization samples; others, by ‘‘school children’’ (not otherwise described); and in two cases, a country was represented by tests on emigrants from that country to a second country. The IQ estimate for the country of Equatorial Guinea (the lowest IQ reported) was determined from ‘‘data for 48 10–14 year olds . . . collected on the WISC-R (Fernandez-Ballesteros, Juan-Espinosa, Colom, and Calero[1997])’’ (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002, p. 203). The Fernandez-Ballesteros et al. article states clearly that the participants in the study were (a) in a school for children with developmental dis-abilities and (b) Spanish children in Madrid! The construct validity of such data points is clearly questionable.[footnote here:] A reader of an earlier version of this manuscript argued that such errors do not matter, because all they would do is reduce the correlation between the IQ scores and the economic indicators. Therefore, since Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) report a positive correlation, the true correlation must be even higher than their reported correlation. This argument is incorrect on technical grounds. It is also irrelevant to our concern. Technically, increasing errors in variables will reduce correlations if the errors are randomly distributed, with an expectation of zero, and uncorrelated with the true values of the variables in question. If these assumptions are violated—for example, by systematic underestimation of IQs in impoverished countries—the correlation between variables can be increased.

... These two examples raise a vexing problem. Empirically, the relationships reported between IQ scores and the variables of interest may very well be correct. Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) argued that there is a substantial correlation between population indices of cognitive competence and national wealth. On the basis of other studies (Hunt & Wittmann, in press; Kanazawa,2006; Lynn & Mikk, 2007; McDaniel, 2006), we believe that this is likely to be the case. For that matter, because some of the lowest IQ scores in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, Templer and Arikawa may be correct in their assertion that there is a correlation between IQ score and skin color. The problem is that presenting an argument based on poor-quality data, especially on such an emotional issue as racial differences, biases general acceptance of stronger findings supporting the argument. Gottfredson (1998, 2005) has correctly pointed out that findings of racial influences on intelligence are deeply disturbing to many social scientists who are then motivated to attack reports of differences. The use of measures that clearly violate construct validity, or that are obtained in a methodologically inappropriate way, provides the attackers with ammunition. The problem is not that there will be an effect on the beliefs of specialists in the field. The problem is that other psychologists, including textbook writers, may propagate the belief that all studies on a topic are flawed because certain highly publicized ones were.

They fashion their criticism around the questionable construct validity of (some) of the IQ numbers. I think that's an excellent approach to explaining the issue and would help us here. --DJ (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a good source to draw from. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. I'm not sure about the copyright issues about copying such a large section though! Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I too think this is a very useful source and thank DJ for bringing it to our attention. I want to point out that I think there is a second problem that was fudged during the mediation: is this a US debate or an international debate? It started in the US and I would hazard a guess that the best (in terms of representative sample/sampling strategies, reliability of test, etc.) data is from the US. I think it is a debate of interest to many people in the US. I have no evidence that it is a debate of importance in Ecuador or Bolivia or Equatorian Guinea or Sierra Leone. Yet, this being English wikipedia, some editors are highly sensitive to the charge of US-centric articles. But the only really notable study on race and IQ outside of the US is this book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which a great number of scientists think is based on very crappy methods, relying on data that is not comparable or representative. So we have this dilemma: include this book and introduce highly questionable data in order to make the article more international, or exclude the book and run the risk of appearing US-centric.

(ec)Apart from that little mess hidden under the rug, is a separate question: where do we put discussions concerning the quality of the data? During mediation I agreed to a "data driven" article, which I understood to mean that the test score data and basic correlations with SIRE would be presented up top, and used to rasie a set of questions researchers are debating; subsequent sections would cover the research done in order to answer those questions. The fact remains however that even data that some of us consider highly reliable has been questioned by some. We need someplace to review debates over the qualtity of the data. I think a subsection up top is the most convenient place, but if people have other ideas, well, let's have a discussion. But we cannot exclude these views from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, if you look at my comments in the “assumptions” section, you’ll see that my intention is to expand the “African IQ” section in order to explain in more detail what the controversy over these scores is. Since the largest portion of the criticism of Lynn’s test score data is directed at his interpretation of scores from Sub-Saharan Africa, I think that’s the appropriate place to cover this kind of criticism.

The only reason I haven’t made these changes already is because I’m still waiting for other people to comment on my proposal about them. In the past, I’ve had a few users complain about me rushing ahead with changes before I’ve allowed adequate time for discussion about them. But if you’re impatient about me creating the section where these scores will be criticized, I can do it sometime within the next day.

If you have a serious problem with us citing the test score data to Lynn, we can also find a source for this that’s a little less controversial, such as Jensen & Rushton 2005. (Not that this paper hasn’t been criticized also, but most of the criticism has been directed at Jensen and Rushton’s hereditarian conclusions, rather than at their test score data itself.) Do you consider that a satisfactory solution? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I do not follow your logic. You point out that "In the past, I’ve had a few users complain about me rushing ahead with changes before I’ve allowed adequate time for discussion about them" but we are talking about material that several other editors keep adding which you keep taking out. I find this very confusing. You say ou are concerned that others do not agree with what you add, but it is you who keeps removing material added by others. Isn't it obvious that others are not objecting to adding this material?

second, I think we need to distinguish between two different kinds of criticisms. There are criticisms over the interpretation of the datas. And there are criticisms of the quality of the data. I think the former belongs in any of the various sections in the latter parts of the article, where specific interpretations are provided. But basic criticisms of the quality of the data itself should be a subsection that follows wherever we introduce a summary of the data. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I kept removing this data was because nobody was willing to try and justify its inclusion. I posted a thread where I asked anyone who thought this data was necessary to explain why they felt this way, and there were several responses from other people who also thought this data didn’t belong there, but all of the people who thought this data was necessary just ignored the thread, and kept reverting the article while refusing to cooperate with our efforts to discuss these edits. Generally, when a user refuses to justify an edit they’re making on the article’s talk page, it’s going to get reverted. This has nothing to do with whether the edit is appropriate or not; it’s just how WP:BRD works. Now that you’re finally justifying this edit here, though, I won’t revert it again until we’ve come up with a more satisfactory solution.

If you don’t think we can include data from Lynn’s book without mentioning the criticisms of this data in the same section, would it be acceptable to cite the data in the “test scores” section to Jensen and Rushton instead? The criticism of their paper is primarily directed at their interpretations of the data, rather than at the quality of the data itself. Since you’ve said that the former types of criticism can go later on in the article, rather than in the “test scores” section, I’m hoping this means we can include data from Jensen and Rushton in the “test scores” section without needing an additional paragraph of criticism in this section. Do you agree to that? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You raise some valid questions. Rather than answer I would like to see what others think. Since mediation some people seem to have stopped participating but I think it would be good to get a sample of views from diverse positions. People might agree with what you propose or come up with better ideas. Can we give it two or three days? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have peer reviewed several papers on national (and US state) IQ over the last year or so. Most of these are now in press. The most recent one cleans up the estimates and further establishes predictive validity. Right now, there is strong evidence that both national and state IQs are valid measures. One of the more recent ones is Reeve, 2009, in intelligence. -Bpesta22 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal above - the single word "controversial" + one or two inline cite next to this word indicating a potential issue, with more detail elsewhere. This avoids clutter here, but leaves the reader with enough doubt to pursue it further if they think the unreliability is an issue (brevity is good because they may be interested in another area of the subject entirely). I have no strong preference for any particular cite at this point, though adding two cites would indicated more doubts than a single one. I don't think more text here helps in this case - a single cited word will attract attention. The detail should be included in the article though, as it is significant to the topic given the sparks it caused in the press. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Streater: Excellent proposal! Go for it. This seems a much better place for the article short term. But I would certainly be willing to revisit the topic, especially in the context of a thorough re-write of the Test scores section. David.Kane (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue previously here. Lynn's work is not considered mainstream and has been criticized heavily. The only way we should use this data is if it comes along with its criticisms. Considering Lynn's work as mainstream is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a controversial claim. It is probably only some Europe countries, the US and a few other "western" nations that have historical records of IQ tests such that their data can be considered reliable. AFAIK, there is no systematic, detailed and mainstream study of global national IQs. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Pesta, I was definitely planning to discuss predictive validity when I cover sub-Saharan African IQ scores. I was intending to cite this paper about predictive validity within sub-Saharan countries, and this paper about predictive validity between countries. I’m not as familiar with the research about topic this as you are, though. If there are any other papers that you think should be cited when we discuss predictive validity of IQ in sub-Saharan Africa, can you please provide links and/or citations for them? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please just refer to me as bpesta or bryan.

Two points here re Lynn:

1. I agree his data on the African IQ are controversial. There would be the perfect place to criticize him, but I would not recommend claiming he faked data.

2. Someone here brought up aggregate level data (state and national IQs). This is an emerging area of research that many people are taking an interest in. The national and state IQ data show very strong correlations with a host of other outcome variables (crime, education, religiosity, income and health in my paper on the topic). No one's really looking at race with these data, so although it's ok to criticize Lynn for the race stuff, his national IQ estimates are strongly predictive-Bpesta22 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, does it work the other way i.e. national data on crime, health, education and income predict the national IQ? In any event, I think we have to agree on two issues: first, a subsection on questions about the data belongs when the data is first introduced. If the data on African IQs is not introduced until later, I would agree that the questions section could go later - well, whenever it is first introduced. The second is NPOV. Some editors here may have their own critique, or may feel a certain published critique is very strong - or very weak. It doesn't matter. Our own views just have to be bracketed in making these decisions. Rather, we need to strive to include all significant views in reliable sources, significant and reliable as defined by our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The other point that I was thinking ought to be made is that within countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the predictive validity of IQ is the same regardless of race. The country in which this has been most studied seems to be South Africa, possibly because it’s the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that has a significant amount of test data for both blacks and whites. A source that makes this point more specifically is Human Abilities in Cultural Context by Irvine and Berry. Although the authors of this book think that the low average IQ among blacks in these countries is primarily the result of environmental and cultural factors, they also point out that blacks and whites in South Africa with the same IQ also tend to have the same level of job performance and educational achievement.

The first paper I linked to makes this point also, but not as specifically with regard to race as the Irvine and Berry book does. This book is from 1988, though, so it would be nice if there were some more recent sources we could use about this. Are you aware of any more recent sources that have examined the predictive validity of IQ between individuals, rather than between countries, in Sub-Saharan Africa? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to confront the underlying question: does the African IQ data belong up top, where the basic data on mean IQs for different races goes, or as a subsection later on? I think we have to consider the rationale carefully. To put the data up top is to say that this article is about IQ and race difference all over the world. To put it into a section on African IQ down with Flynn effect and other sub-topics is to day that this is an issue largely in the US, and in the course of explaining the gap in the US, some researchers have brought in data from Africa. Which of the two is it? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here’s what I have in mind: In the “test score” section, we present the data from Jensen and Rushton first, which only involves blacks, whites and Asians and is based on testing in the U.S. and Europe. Since the dispute over this data is over how to interpret it, rather than over the validity of the data itself, I don’t think it needs to be qualified. Then after that but in the same section, we include the data that Lynn has compiled from other parts of the world, and say that this data is generally considered less reliable and is much more disputed, with a link to the “African IQ” section which will contain the more detailed criticisms of Lynn. This last idea is based on Stephen B Streater’s suggestion. How does this structure sound to you? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, if you’re going to be edit warring with Mikemikev over this section, that gives me the impression I ought to make the changes I’ve proposed sooner rather than later. I’m hoping my proposed revision will be satisfactory to both of you, but I won’t be able to make it if the article gets locked again because of edit warring. If neither of you are able to put up with one another’s revisions to this section for more than a few hours at a time, are you sure you want me to wait a few days before implementing my suggested compromise? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit warring, I would recommend that you make your changes sooner rather than later. They can only help matters! David.Kane (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any edit warring. Mikemikev delted material I added, commenting that this was not the place to put conlcusions and that it was sloppy - in the edit summary. He was right: I fixed the portion that was sloppily formatted and restored it. He deleted a clause with a conclusion, and I kept that deletion. In short, my last edit took on board my best understanding of his complaints in the edit summary. I di dnot simply revert him.

But I will say this: when I first posted material I created this section and explained myself. Mikemikev deleted properly sourced content, without discussing it here. You accuse me of edit warring, but not Mikemikev? I stand by what I wrote before: Captain Occam made some interesting points. We should discuss them. Now, just because mikemikev went ahead and made deletions, without even discussing them or Captain Occam's proposals, does not change a thing. If he deletes again, without discussion, I do not mind fixing it. But we should still discuss Captain Occam's proposals over the next two or three days and not use this as an excuse to rush into anything unilaterally. That is not how we work things at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the key here is 2-3 days. Obviously, my proposal was the best at the time I made it, (thanks for your support up there), but there is a good chance that when people have slept on it and brought in other factors and wider issues, a more complete solution will emerge. This is why I haven't added it in yet. Also, this time, I don't need the glory of adding it in myself, whatever the agreement is, as long as it is a good edit. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, when I accuse you of edit warring, I’m only looking at number of reverts. You’ve reverted the article three times within the past 24 hours, while Mikemikev has only reverted it once during the same amount of time. A single revert generally isn’t considered edit warring, even if the revert was erroneous. Three reverts of the same material in the same day, on the other hand, often results in a warning that the person is close to violating 3RR.

What are you talking about? On April 20 I "undid" two edits, one by 120 volt monkey and one by you. After that, I made several other edits, none of which were reverts. Maybe you do not know what a revert is? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m OK with waiting another two or three days before I make the changes I’ve suggested. If that’s what I’m going to do, though, I have a request of David.Kane: could you please make your own proposed revision to the “methodology” section? The discussion about your proposal for this section seems to have tapered off now, and once I’ve made the changes I’m proposing here and we start a new series of discussions about them, I think it’s pretty unlikely that we’d be returning to the discussion about your own proposed changes. I don’t want my revisions to cause the work you’ve put into your own proposal about that section to have gone to waste, which I think is likely to happen if I make my proposed revisions before you’ve made yours. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Slru: It's probably impossible to get at cause with aggregate-level data sets. It's a swamp of inter-correlated variables. So, sure, it's possible IQ is an effect versus a cause in these data.-Bpesta22 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as the relevant sections are written in a way so that this is very clear. Remember, many people who read this article will not have your sophistication about statistics (or the sophistication of readers of peer-reviewed journal articles) ao we need to make sure things are not phrased in such a way that might give a false impression. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The publications Wicherts 2009, 2010 criticize Lynn's work and are more systematic and recent. They were discussed in the pre-mediation version which I have restored. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Bpesta22

I mentioned earlier that I’ll be making a few revisions to the article soon, and Slrubenstein suggested that I wait a few days first so other users will have a chance to comment on the changes I suggested, so I’ll be doing that. Before I make any of these changes, though, there are also a couple of things I’d like it if Bpesta could clarify, in order to make sure the material I add is sourced properly.

1: You said yesterday that there’s a significant body of data showing a correlation between national or state IQs and several social and economic factors. Could you please provide full citations for what you consider the most important papers demonstrating this? I know of a few papers that talk about this, but definitely not as many as you do, and probably not the most up-to-date of them either.

2: You also mentioned a while ago that most psychologists who study race and intelligence no longer seriously consider stereotype threat as a likely cause of the IQ gap. If I’m going to add the information about stereotype threat back into the article (which is what I’m intending to do), I think it’s important to mention what you said about this if it’s indeed the case. Could you please provide some citations for that also?

3: Do you know of any studies that specifically examined how much of a difference nutrition made in contributing to the IQ gap, such as by adjusting for nutritional conditions and seeing how much the gap narrowed as a result? I’ll want to add data to the article about nutrition also, but all of the sources about nutrition that the article used before the mediation were just about how nutrition affects IQ in general, without discussing differences between races.

It’ll probably be at least another day before I start revising the article, so it isn’t urgent that you answer these questions ASAP, but I’d appreciate if you could do it sometime today. And incidentally, if anyone other that Bpesta can provide these citations, I’d appreciate it regardless of who it’s from. Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a busy week.

1. Sorry if these links are ghastly:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4Y3K157-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=9&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236546%232010%23999619997%231751125%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=11&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c8e464fd8096daa2dd9debd00cedba66

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4XC974W-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2010&_rdoc=17&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236546%232010%23999619998%231577821%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=22&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ff0b868361b36e425e07127c0f3859b1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4WNWW6F-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=8&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236546%232009%23999629994%231432103%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=10&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4b10563d6e995633c64ee2ae7b425515

2. I don't think I ever claimed all researchers think ST is bunk. Many are very fond of it, and from what I heard, ST is featured in nearly all intro to psych texts. I personally believe it's bunk and hope to start data collection soon on an ST project. I would bet (have no evidence) that a majority of IQ researchers do not see it as all that compelling. Here's a study showing publication bias (journals that do and do not replicate the effect):

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/stereotype-threat-scientific-scandal.html

Wicherts, Jelte M.; Cor de Haan (2009). "Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans". University of Amsterdam. http://www.isironline.org/meeting/pdfs/program2009.pdf. Retrieved 17 January 2010.

3. ALL the environmental explanations do just that-- mention how environmental variables affect IQ but present no data showing that when controlling for them the gap is explained. I think the Flynn effect is a great example of this (e.g., how is it relevant to this debate unless the effect varies systematically with race?). I'm not an expert on nutrition and its link to IQ, so I can't help you on this one. -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info.

I don’t think we can cite the Steve Sailer article, because blogs aren’t considered reliable sources by Wikipedia’s standards, and Steve Sailer doesn’t (as far as I know) have any professional training in psychology. But I definitely think that Wicherts’ analysis of publication bias in studies about stereotype threat ought to be mentioned. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wicherts on Lynn

I'm in the middle of reading a fairly long critique of Lynn by Wicherts. It can be found at http://dare.uva.nl/document/44999?fid=44999. It had been linked to in the article, but it currently isn't there. I realize it's a large article, but it does a good job of explaining many of the problems with Lynn's recent work. I don't know that it qualifies as a secondary source. If it does, I think it would provide a good basis fur summarizing the criticisms of Lynn. A.Prock (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly this needs to be somewhere in the article, or multiple places. I do think it makes sense to separate the raw data and the interpretations of the data; therefore it makes sense to put criticisms of the quality of the data in one place, and criticisms of the interpretations in another place. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

wicherts & co have recently published 5 studies concluding that "the controversial study on african iq levels conducted by psychologist richard lynn is deeply flawed"[6]. the studies are published in "Personality and Individual Differences":

1. Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom and Conor V. Dolan. Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 2010; 48 (2): 91 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028

2. Jelte M. Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan. Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C. Personality and Individual Differences, 2010; 48 (2): 104 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.020

3. Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan and Han L.J. van der Maas. A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans. Intelligence, 2010; 38 (1): 1 DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.002

4. Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan and Han L.J. van der Maas. The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers. Intelligence, 2010; 38 (1): 30 DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003

5. Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Jerry S. Carlson, and Han L.J. van der Maas. Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 2009; DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.001

does someone have access to these papers? dr. pesta? mustihussain 11:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can get all of them for you, but likely not today (long day of work). I would stipulate that more data are needed on the accuracy of the African IQ, but would worry about giving undue weight to this section, as whatever the true IQ is, we're still left with lots of non-lynn data showing a large SIRE difference worldwide. -Bpesta22 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

marvelous! i will really appreciate your help. my impression is that wicherts has reassessed the sub-saharan data from literature in general.mustihussain 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

I have the articles-- except the last one; please verify the cite. Where should I send them? -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)\

musti_hussain at hotmail dot com mustihussain 11:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

here is another article it would be great the read [7]. it criticizes the use of pisa, timss and other international achievement test scores to estimate average iq. please send the material to musti_hussain at hotmail dot com. i owe you a couple of beers. mustihussain 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here's the link to the last one:e

http://users.fmg.uva.nl/jwicherts/wichertsRavenAfr2010.pdf -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft

I have restored the pre-mediation version and moved the recent changes to a draft at Talk:Race and intelligence/Draft. This is because the pre-mediation version was the stable consensus and its core material had remained in place for several years. We should not discard the work that several editors had put in over the years. The recent changes do not have broad consensus yet and there are still numerous problems as evidenced by persistent edit warring and noticeboard threads. There is a lot of useful material in the pre-mediation version, and going forward we should work at finding a compromise and merging the two the versions. The biggest problem with the recent changes is that undue weight is given to the hereditarian position. All the section headings that are included or being proposed are those meant to argue for the hereditarian position. We need a general article on Race and intelligence, and not one that reads like Rushton's Thirty Years of Research..... Wapondaponda (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, have you read any of the recent discussion here? In response to your complaint that the current article doesn’t provide enough discussion about environmental influences on IQ, I’m planning to re-incorporate a lot of the past material discussing this. The only reason I haven’t done this already is because Slrubenstein asked me to wait a few days first, in order to give other users the chance to comment on my proposal.

How many times have you suggested that we reject every change to the article that was made during and after mediation, and how many time has every other user participating in this discussion disagreed with you? One of the first things that was decided on during mediation was that the version of the article resulting from the mediation case would be its default version going forward. If you think there are things that are problematic about the article, the way to deal with them is by bringing them up here, as you have sometimes done, and which will soon result in one of the problems you complained about being fixed. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, are you edit warring? Muntuwandi was part of the mediation from the start - if he has strong doubts about David Kane's revisions, these should be taken seriously.

You are entirely misrepresenting the mediation. Yes, we discussed specific issues and on those issues we often achieved consensus. BUT we did not then go and make specific changes to the article, based on the specific consensus. Instead, one person, David Kane, did a major rewrite. We never discussed his re-write before it was placed in the article space, so we never had a chance to see whether his rewrite had consensus support. Muntuwandi's proposal does NOT "throw away" any of that work. It simply puts it on its own page where wee can go over it and see if we really have consensus. What is wrong with that? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am hardly independent here, but what is "wrong" here is that, on multiple occasions, I (and others) have asked Muntuwandi to provide a specific list of those aspects of the old version that he liked and/or those versions of the new version that he dislikes. He has never provided such a list. Instead of reverting a huge amount of work, he should provide such a list. Give us specifics! Is that so hard? Once he does, we can have a reasonable conversation. But he has never done so. Instead, he provides extremely vague complaints that are impossible to objectively evaluate. Please quote (just copy and paste here) the "useful material in the pre-mediation version" that you feel was wrongly deleted. David.Kane (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We are where we are. It is quite reasonable for editors to put forward specific objections so we can assess the pros and cons of amending the current version vs restoring a previous one. I don't think an un-reasoned revert is legitimate, even though the mediation didn't have universal support. I'm generally a believer in gradualism as rushed big changes are prone to unforeseen flaws. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone would like to see an improved article, but this doesn't mean that what David Kane wrote is it. As Slrubenstein has pointed out, we could not have agreed to something before we read it. What David Kane wrote has no consensus. Instead it is being forced through by Captain Occam and a few editors who agree with his point of view. As pointed out at ANI, Captain Occam is currently an SPA who spends all his time on this one subject, reverting and edit warring to ensure that his preferred material is in the article. Just because Occam dominates the proceedings here does not mean that all other editors agree.

Now to re-address specific problems, the main problem with what DK wrote is that it was biased towards the hereditarian viewpoint. Occam and Co. were willing to devote whole sections to even some of the weakest hereditarian arguments such as African ancestry and regression, and leave out the most important environmental arguments such as the Flynn effect. No need to reinvent the wheel here, since the pre-mediation version does not have this problem. DK included a number of controversial claims and portrayed them as unqualified facts. For example, Lynn's data was treated as factual despite the numerous criticisms that have been mentioned. DK treated Rushton's brain size data as unqualified facts, when in fact most of the data is not based on the more reliable MRI scans. Rushton states:

One MRI study of race differences in brain size looked at over 100 people in Britain. (It was

published in the 1994 issue of Psychological Medicine). The Black Africans and West Indians in the study averaged smaller brains than did the Whites. Unfortunately, the study did not give much information on the age, sex, and body size of the people tested.

Most of the section headings in DK's version were taken directly from Rushton's 30 years of research and are therefore biased towards the hereditarian position. About 7 out of 10 subsections appear in Rushton's article and Occam and Co. are looking to add the rest of the sections from Rushton's article. No need to reinvent the wheel as the pre-mediation version does not have this problem.

I suggest that we consider using a draft. We have never used one before during this dispute. The advantage is that with drafts there is no pressure to edit war. We also get to see the product before we express our opinion. This contrasts to how DK's version was just thrust upon us, with the implication that if you were part of the mediation, you automatically supported it. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider this progress. I have more specific questions for Muntuwandi.

• "Occam and Co. were willing to devote whole sections to even some of the weakest hereditarian arguments such as African ancestry and regression," M, could you provide sources criticizing these arguments, and draft summaries for us?
• "and leave out the most important environmental arguments such as the Flynn effect." There is a section on the Flynn effect. Are you saying it is anemic, or that it is misplaced (structurally)? If anemic, what more would you have it say? If you feel Flynn wrote things that belong in other sections, can you tell us what? Again, I am asking you to draft specific passages with proper citations that we can plug in.
• "Lynn's data was treated as factual despite the numerous criticisms that have been mentioned." Can you provide reliable sources that raise these objections, and draft a summary we can put into the article?
• "DK treated Rushton's brain size data as unqualified facts, when in fact most of the data is not based on the more reliable MRI scans." Can you provide reliable sources that raise these objections, and draft a summary we can put into the article?
• Can you draft a section based on the more reliable MRI scans, with proper citations to reliable sources, that we can add?

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications:

• "Most of the section headings in DK's version were taken directly from Rushton's 30 years of research and are therefore biased towards the hereditarian position." This is a misunderstanding. As was pointed out numerous times during the mediation, the current structure of the article are based on the structure of Nesbitt [8]. In other words, we took the leading environmentalist in the world and structured the article the same way that he structured his article.
• "DK's version was just thrust upon us." Well, I encourage all participants to read through the archives of the mediation [9]. Nothing was "thrust." Indeed, there were two separate major rewrites of the article, separated by a week's worth of commentary and discussion. Almost every editor involved made specific suggestions and almost all of these were incorporated.
• I am unaware of a single editor, other than Muntuwandi, who believes that the article we have now is worse then the article we started with. Of course, the article still has many, many problems, as I am the first to admit. And many, many editors have problems, sometimes conflicting, with the current article. But, to justify a total revert, one would need to argue, with details, that the current article is worse. And that could be correct! But someone needs to make the argument before doing a total revert.
• I agree with many of the comments that Slrubenstein makes above. For example, the section on the Flynn effect could be much, much better. But the good news is that we now have a process for fixing such problems, as MathSci demonstrated in fixing the History section and I demonstrated in fixing the Assumptions section. (And, again, I don't know of a single editor who thinks that those fixes did not significantly improve the article.) I hope that someone will do the same for the Flynn effect section.

Again, I am happy to engage in a detailed discussion of this topic. Yet there are two separate issues. First, is what we have now better? Second, how can we improve it? As for me, the next section on my list to tackle is the Adoption studies one. Look for a proposed draft (and a request for comments) soon. David.Kane (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

David, I have one immediate suggestion for you, for you as the person who put together the current draft. Go through the pre-mediation article, which Muntuwandi (and others, myself included, at least partially) like, and see what properly sourced material is there that is not in your draft. My suggestion is: any material that is properly sourced from the older draft that fits into the current draft (that has an obvious appropriate place in David Kane's draft) should be cut and pasted in.

Also, I too have questions about the organization. You say it came from Nesbitt, but didn't it come from an appendix from Nesbitt? Material in appendixes can have all sorts of statuses, they are not necessarily the best representation of the author's views. I thought appendix B was Nesbitt responding to Rushton and Lynn et. al, and he organized the appendix based on their claims. Well, if he did that, the structure of the appendix, which is what is at issue, is really Lynn and Rushton's views, not Nesbitt's right? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• If there were consensus that it would be useful to go through the old version, find lots of well-sourced material and add it in, I would be ready to do that. But lots of editors would cite, reasonably enough WP:UNDUE when too much material on topic X, however well-sourced, were added. For example, there were many quotes/descriptions from Richard Lynn in the old version. Should that be added? It is all correctly sourced! Again, as best I can see, the way forward is to attack the article section-by-section. As part of that process, I agree that we should use the old version as a resource. In fact, I did precisely that in re-doing the Assumptions section!
• Nesbitt wrote it. It is Appendix B of his book. But note how it first came to my attention. MathSci suggested it and provided a copy. Unless you believe that MathSci is merely a tool of "Occam and Co.", I think that the fact that he suggested it as an excellent neutral secondary source is all that needs be said. This is Nesbitt's summary of the academic debate over race and intelligence. Now, of course, much of this debate is driven by hereditarians, but that is true no matter who does the summarizing. But, again, if you want to suggest a different secondary source, I would be happy to consult that as well. Note the pages from Loehlin et al. that I have posted [10] in the History article. I also have Mackintosh, also recommended by MathSci, on order.

David, please do not personalize this. We all know the fault lines here, but I did not mention mathSci and I did not mention Captain Occam, because I did not think they were relevant. If your point is that you have tried to operate by consensus with ideas from a range of people - well, fine, I honestly di dnot mean to suggest that you had not. Please do not take this personally: the problem is that there was not sufficient discussion of your last draft. remember, after your first draft there was a lot of discussion - yes, which you encouraged - and which led to your second draft. Some people then rushed to end the mediation at that point. You will remember that I opposed that. Had we continued the mediation, there would have been more discussion ofyour second draft, more suggestions, which surely would have led to a third.

The issue here is procedural and I think Muntuwandi has a good and valid point to make and it is worth serious consideration even if some people don't agree. The procedural question is, what should we do when closing mediation? Had we turned your draft into a specific "draft" page, which is just what Muntuwandi is suggesting, we would have continued the process of discussing your draft, raising issues, makind suggestions, which would then have led to a third draft - the only difference is that this would have been done unmediated. And this seems quite reasonable and logical to me. We ended the mediation becuase it seemed we could work together and no longer needed a mediator. AT NO POINT was there a decision that your second draft was the final draft. Given that, I think Muntuwandi's is a perfectly constructive suggestion. It is not a repudiation of your draft, it is rather a means to continue the process we were finding so constructive, just without the guiding hand of a mediator. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• But do we (you, me, Muntuwandi, others) really disagree on the best way to spend our time going forward. I am about to redraft the Adoption studies section, just as I redrafted the Assumption section. I will post a draft, solicit comment, post a second draft, solicit more comments and so on. I will also post some secondary source descriptions. Isn't that the best way for me to spend time, rather than fighting with Muntuwandi and trying to preserve the progress that has already been made?

In any event, thanks for these comments. If you think that my next project should be the Flynn effect section instead of the Adoption section, please let me know. I am all about consensus! David.Kane (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein, for your first second and third bullet points, for the most part these issues are already taken care of in the pre-mediation version. There is always room for improvement, but we don't have biased section headings in the pre-mediation version. There is already a brief critique of Lynn's work. The Flynn effect was indeed changed after I raised some concerns and now includes some of the material from the pre-mediation version. As for Brain size, Wicherts states that he is not familiar with any modern MRI studies involving race. The specific issues I raised are by no means exhaustive, but were just used to illustrate some of the problems with DK's version. Looking at the direction things are presently moving in, even if we were to go with DK's version, in the long run it is possible that it will end up looking like the pre-mediation version.

I agree with Slrubenstein that Nisbett is responding to Rushton and Lynn, he is not proactively making these arguments. This will make non-hereditarians look like they are always playing catch-up. Non-hereditarians have their own arguments that include ideas such as race is social construct, environmental factors cause the IQ gap or that race/IQ research is unethical. There are sections, such as "suitability of study" and "utility of research" in the pre-mediation version that already deal with ethics. There is no ethics section in DK's version. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, you say that several of your points are covered in the premediation version. Let's face it: the pre-mediation version is toast. That is why we just went through four months of mediation. We need a version acceptable to all, and the pre-mediation version was not that. The question is, how to put material you and others consider important into the new version. Here is my proposal for you: cut and paste those specific parts of the pre-mediation version that respond to my quesions and put them in a new section on this talk page. If no one objects, we can then add them to the new version. I understand that you have many problems with DK's version. I am telling you: the only way those problems will be solved is if you bullet-point a list of passages with sources that you want added to the current draft. You can cut and paste from the old version, if you are satisfied with the way it was phrased there. Or, you can draft a new version, and add ciations. If you do not do this, the material will not be added to the article. If you want this material added to the article, the only way I see it happening is if you provide a list of the points, the text you wish added, with proper citations, and put it here first to see if anyone has any objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Nesbitt was just responding to Rushton and Jensen in his Appendix B - he probably explains his precise motivation for writing it in the book itself. The book is a populist, possibly slightly tounge-in-cheek, DIY guide for dilligent parents, that are also avid readers, to make their children smarter.

I do now have a copy of Mackintosh's OUP book "IQ and human intelligence". (So far it has just helped me fall asleep, but that could also be ferry-lag or culture shock.) It is an animal behaviourist's view of the subject in which he is not frightened to come down on one side or the other. The most relevant section of the book explains very carefully why results of IQ tests to primitive populations tell us almost nothing (pages 180-182, research of Alexander Luria). Taxinomy is not part of their way of thinking. As Mackintosh writes in summary (page 199), "it is important to acknowledge that confident pronouncements about the average intelligence of African peasants, based on the results of standard IQ tests, are foolish and dangerous: an IQ test can only purport to measure the intelligence of people with some common cultural background". Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

the last Mackintosh statement is very sensible and should be added to the "test scores"-section.mustihussain 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope we are going to keep the current version rather than reverting. I agree that the "Test scores" should be taken to the talk page to be re-edited; it should have a tighter focus. --DJ (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I’d just like to point out, again, that my planned revisions to the article that we’ve been discussing for the past few days will include re-incorporating some of the material from before mediation about environmental influences on IQ. This is something I’ll be doing primarily because of Muntuwandi’s complaints about this material being under-represented in the article, so it’s possible that my doing this will make the article satisfactory to him, even if he doesn’t follow Slrubenstein’s suggestion to provide a list of material that he wants added back.

However, I would like for my revisions to address Muntuwandi’s complaints about the article as specifically as possible. So if he can provide a list of material that he wants added back, the way Slrubenstein is suggesting, I’ll use that as the basis for this aspect of my revisions. Yesterday Slrubenstein suggested that I wait a couple of days before going about these revisions, so my current plan is to begin making them tomorrow, as long as Bpesta22 has provided the citations I’m asking for by that point. Muntuwandi, no matter what I’ll be doing the best I can to take your complaints into account when I revise the article, but I think there’s a greater chance of you being satisfied with the result if you can comply with Slrubenstein’s suggestion for you sometime before then. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I also hope that Muntuwandi finds the time to make specific suggestions. Either way, my advice is to draft things here, editing/presenting entire sections, rather than editing in place. I think this procedure minimizes edit warring and maximizes consensus. Good luck! David.Kane (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you before, I know this is your preferred style of editing, but I don’t think it would work very well for the sorts of changes I have in mind. However, I also think that the changes I’m proposing have been discussed for long enough, and enough users have expressed approval of them, that the odds of people edit warring over them should be pretty low.

Unless there are any objections (not that I’m expecting any at this stage), I’ll make the changes I’ve suggested tomorrow. If Muntuwandi has explained in detail by then what specific material he wants to see added back from the version of the article that existed before mediation, I’ll base my revisions partially on his requests; otherwise I’ll do my best to figure out for myself what material should be restored. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I think I have explained some of the reasons why I find the pre-mediation version more neutral. The section headings in the pre-mediation version are not identical to Rushton's 30 years....This demonstrates that the pre-mediation version is not heavily reliant on a single source. The pre-mediation version includes sections for environmental arguments such as health, stereotype threat, quality of education and caste-like minorities. These sections are are not included in the current version. The pre-mediation version devotes a lot more to the discussion of ethics. There are sections such as "suitability of study" and "utility of research". There is also a quote from Peter Singer that some may find useful.

The section on African ancestry states "The very low IQ scores reported for sub-Saharan African populations (average of 70) are controversial." This assumes that the IQ scores that have been reported are in fact accurate. The premediation version already has criticism of these findings, including statements from Wicherts who states that these findings are inaccurate and Mark Cohen who argues that these findings are preposterous.

The current lead is one of the few sections that has broad consensus. Though the pre-mediation version has some grammatical flaws, I find it less shocking. For example, the first paragraph makes no mention of any specific racial group or IQ. Given that this article is entitled "Race and intelligence" and not "Race and IQ", or the "black/white IQ gap in the US", I think it is important to start the discussion with general ideas of race and intelligence. It would be ideal to assume that a person reading the article could be from anywhere in the world and may be interested in any supposed racial intelligence differences, or lack thereof, and not necessarily the B/W IQ gap in the US. I also think that any information that is not reliable should not be in the lead, but rather in the body of the article. For example IQ scores outside of the US, or of SIRE groups other than black or white are too unreliable for the lead. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi: You raise some interesting points. Some I agree with, some I don't.

• "The section headings in the pre-mediation version are not identical to Rushton's 30 years" Untrue. It is tough to take your other comments seriously if you insist on making factually inaccurate claims that anyone can check. They are certainly related, since they are based on Nisbett (2009) who is arguing with Murray/Herrnstein/Jensen/Rushton, but they are not "identical."
• "[T]he pre-mediation version is not heavily reliant on a single source" Neither is the current version. We have dozens of sources. How many is enough?
• "These sections are are not included in the current version" Do keep in mind that the previous version violated WP:SIZE. Half the material needed to go. So, while "caste-like minorities" are, for example, an interesting topic, they are not races, and this article, for better or worse, is about race and intelligence. That is why we do not discuss topics related to Ashkenazi intelligence. They are interesting and well-sourced but not directly related to the topic at hand. Again, I think that there is much useful material to be added and much rewriting to be done. But not every topic/idea/reference under the sun can fit in this article.
• I agree with you that the section on African IQ is very, very weak. Why don't you rewrite it? Include Wicherts and Cohen and anyone else. Just do as MathSci and I have done. Post a draft, solicit comments, incorporate feedback and so on. If all the material that you want is in a previous version, then this should be a simple copy and paste.
• I agree that the lead should be much more global and less US focused. Did you see my version?

Again, I think that we agree about many of the flaws with the current article and the need to make it better. But, as of now, all my efforts are devoted to preventing a pointless and destructive reversion. As best I can tell, you are the only editor still seeking to revert many months of work. David.Kane (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

David, do you think it might be a good idea to put this discussion on hold for another day or so? A lot of the problems that are being discussed here might not be problems anymore after I’ve made the revisions I’ve been suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I am happy to have this conversation whenever anyone wants to have it. I certainly hope that your revisions will help matters. I look forward to seeing them. Good luck! David.Kane (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, everybody. I should be able to get on this sometime within the next day or so. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with Captain Occam drafting environmental arguments is the possibility of straw man type arguments. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that straw man arguments do not conform to policy. Why not let him draft something, and if you see anything you consider a strawman argument, you can remove it to the talk section for discussion. I am sure that in lin with BRD Captain Occam would agree that anything he writes that anyone takes objection to couls be removed to talk for discussion and not be returned to the article unless and until a consensus is reached. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, the arguments I’ll be presenting in favor of environmental causes will be the same ones that were presented in the pre-mediation version of the article. In as many cases as possible, I’m going to simply copy the text from the article’s previous version. The only way the arguments I present for environmental causes could be strawmen is if the arguments in the article’s earlier version were strawmen.

You’re the person who’s been trying to get us to add material from the earlier version of the article, or to revert the article to its pre-mediation version. The reason I’ll be adding this material is primarily in response to your requests. If you claim after I’ve done so that the material I’ve added isn’t acceptable because it involves strawman arguments, when this material is what was in the earlier version of the article and you’re the person who asked me to add it, I hope you can understand why that wouldn’t be reasonable.

I’ll be making my revisions over the next several hours. If any of the new material I add (that is, not from the article’s earlier version) is particularly contentious, I’ll be OK with removing it from the article temporarily while it’s discussed. However, I would like all of you to show me the same respect that you showed to David.Kane while he was redrafting the article, in that you’ll allow me to finish making my revisions before you revert any of them. I’ll be changing some sections of the article before others, so if at any point you look at the article and it looks like something’s missing, there’s a good chance that I’m intending to add it myself shortly. I also hope that my changes can be discussed one section at a time, rather than anyone doing a wholesale revert of every change I make tonight. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)