Talk:Race and intelligence
(Redirected from Talk:Race and intelligence (Research))
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Elisha'o'Mine in topic Piffer (2015)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
 | Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Is there really a scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence?
Yes, and for a number of reasons. Primarily:
Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ test scores?
On average and in certain contexts, yes, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Crucially, the existence of such average differences today does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means (i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence). Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. Further, important discoveries in the past several decades, such as the Flynn effect and the steady narrowing of the gap between low-scoring and high-scoring groups, as well as the ways in which disparities such as access to prenatal care and early childhood education affect IQ, have led to an understanding that environmental factors are sufficient to account for observed between-group differences. And isn't IQ a measure of intelligence?
Not exactly. IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence, but it is widely acknowledged that they measure only a very limited range of an individual's cognitive capacity. They do not measure mental adaptability or creativity, for example. You can read more about the limitations of IQ measurements here. These caveats need to be kept in mind when extrapolating from IQ measurements to statements about intelligence. But even if we were to take IQ to be a measure of intelligence, there would still be no good reason to assert a genetic link between race and intelligence (for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this FAQ). Isn't there research showing that there are genetic differences between races?
Yes and no. A geneticist could analyze a DNA sample and then in many cases make an accurate statement about that person's race, but no single gene or group of genes has ever been found that defines a person's race. Such variations make up a minute fraction of the total genome, less even than the amount of genetic material that varies from one individual to the next. It's also important to keep in mind that racial classifications are socially constructed, in the sense that how a person is classified racially depends on perceptions, racial definitions, and customs in their society and can often change when they travel to a different country or when social conventions change over time (see here for more details). So how can different races look different, without having different genes?
They do have some different genes, but the genes that vary between any two given races will not necessarily vary between two other races. Race is defined phenotypically, not genotypically, which means it's defined by observable traits. When a geneticist looks at the genetic differences between two races, there are differences in the genes that regulate those traits, and that's it. So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same. In fact, there is much less genetic material that regulates the traits used to define the races than there is that regulates traits that vary from person to person. In other words, if you compare the genomes of two individuals within the same race, the results will likely differ more from each other than a comparison of the average genomes of two races. If you've ever heard people saying that the races "are more alike than two random people" or words to that effect, this is what they were referring to. Why do people insist that race is "biologically meaningless"?
Mostly because it is. As explained in the answer to the previous question, race isn't defined by genetics. Race is nothing but an arbitrary list of traits, because race is defined by observable features. The list isn't even consistent from one comparison to another. We distinguish between African and European people on the basis of skin color, but what about Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American people? They all have more or less the same skin color. We distinguish African and Asian people from European people by the shape of some of their facial features, but what about Native American and Middle Eastern people? They have the same features as the European people, or close enough to engender confusion when skin color is not discernible. Australian Aborigines share numerous traits with African people and are frequently considered "Black" along with them, yet they are descended from an ancestral Asian population and have been a distinct cultural and ethnic group for fifty thousand years. These standards of division are arbitrary and capricious; the one drop rule shows that visible differences were not even respected at the time they were still in use. But IQ is at least somewhat heritable. Doesn't that mean that observed differences in IQ test performance between ancestral population groups must have a genetic component?
This is a common misconception, sometimes termed the "hereditarian fallacy". [1] In fact, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. [2] [3] As geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell explains:
What about all the psychometricians who claim there's a genetic link?
The short answer is: they're not geneticists. The longer answer is that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry (see e.g. [5] and [6]). Psychometry is a field where people who advocate scientific racism can push racist ideas without being constantly contradicted by the very work they're doing. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck, who are best known in the scientific community today for the poor methodological quality of their work, their strong advocacy for a genetic link between race and intelligence, and in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years. Isn't it a conspiracy theory to claim that psychometricians do this?
No. It is a well-documented fact that there is an organized group of psychometricians pushing for mainstream acceptance of racist, unscientific claims. See this, this and this, as well as our article on scientific racism for more information. Isn't this just political correctness?
No, it's science. As a group of scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina explain: "while it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed". These authors compare proponents of a genetic link between race and IQ to creationists, vaccine skeptics, and climate change deniers. [7] At the same time, researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so, as is made clear by this article: [8]. It's just that all the evidence they find points to environmental rather than genetic causes for observed differences in average IQ-test performance between racial groups. What about the surveys which say that most "intelligence experts" believe in some degree of genetic linkage between race and IQ?
Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence?
No evidence for such a link has ever been presented in the scientific community. Much data has been claimed to be evidence by advocates of scientific racism, but each of these claims has been universally rejected by geneticists. Statistical arguments claiming to detect the signal of such a difference in polygenic scores have been refuted as fundamentally methodologically flawed (see e.g. [9]), and neither genetics nor neuroscience are anywhere near the point where a mechanistic explanation could even be meaningfully proposed (see e.g. [10]). This is why the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence is largely considered pseudoscience; it is assumed to exist primarily by advocates of scientific racism, and in these cases the belief is based on nothing but preconceived notions about race. What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race?
Please see the article itself for an outline of the scientific consensus. What is the basis for Wikipedia's consensus on how to treat the material?
Wikipedia editors have considered this topic in detail and over an extended period. In short, mainstream science treats the claim that genetics explains the observable differences in IQ between races as a fringe theory, so we use our own guidelines on how to treat such material when editing our articles on the subject. Please refer to the following past discussions:
|
Lede's prose on scientific consensus
I think that modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
would be better reworded to match the section on race further into the article.
From this article's 'Race' section:
The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research. The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics...
This wording, which present race's social construction as a consensus view among scientists, rather than something which has been shown or concluded by science, is more in line with the wordings and contexts of reliable sources, like the consensus reports by National Academies of Science (here) and the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (here), which present arguments to support their consensus, but not scientifically-derived conclusions that would be appropriately reported with the modern science has concluded...
verbiage. Similarly, this SciAm piece presents race's social construction as a consensus view, again presenting arguments to support it, rather than as a scientific finding per se:
Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.
From Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics:
Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health.
From Misrepresenting Race — The Role of Medical Schools in Propagating Physician Bias:
Most scholars in the biologic and social sciences converge on the view that racism shapes social experiences and has biologic consequences and that race is not a meaningful scientific construct in the absence of context.
All of these sources report race's social construction as a consensus view held broadly by scientists, and not as a finding that has been shown or concluded by science. None of them report it as a something that science has found, shown, or concluded. Among all of these, the current lede prose stands out—which, given that Wikipedia's role is to follow consensus of reliable secondary sources, it shouldn't.
I propose the following options, or similar:
...modern scientific consensus regards race to be a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
...modern scientific consensus considers race to be a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
...the consensus in modern science is that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
...the prevailing view in contemporary science is that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
...scientists generally agree today that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,
Zanahary (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll start by pointing out to anyone who may just be stumbling on this thread that Zanahary and I (and MrOllie) have already discussed this sentence. My view is that the sources do indeed present the view that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality as a finding or conclusion reached in the genomics era, rather than a mere convention. Here's how Ewan Birney et al. explain it: [11]
Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories. Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.
- Yes, convention also plays a role because of garbage-in/garbage-out concerns, as is emphasized by the 2023 consensus report I suggested in our previous conversation on this language. But the basic fact that race serves as a "weak proxy for genetic diversity" was a genuine discovery that had to wait for the era of DNA sequencing to become settled science. That's why I stand behind "...modern science has concluded..." as a perfectly accurate way to phrase this.
- I do thank you, though, for pointing out that the body needed to comport better with the lead. It really was out of date, so I've made an effort to update it. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think the update you've made to the Race section is great! The new verbiage is specific and contextualizes the view as one of consensus. I hope that the lede can follow it, even verbatim or nearly so.For ease, the new verbiage in the Race section:
The consensus view among geneticists, biologists and anthropologists is that race is sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research.
For anyone stumbling upon this now, I've started this discussion with a more specific aim (matching reliable sources), and with sources to support my proposed verbiage, than my previous started discussion, which I'd initiated with less context and editing experience. Zanahary (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)- Thanks Zanahary. I contemplated a more thorough revision (not sure if we really need more than the first two paragraphs of the "Race" section to convey the necessary information to the reader of this article), but for the time being decided not to be so BOLD. I'd be curious to hear what you think of that suggestion though.
- Wrt the lead sentence on scientific consensus, it may be that you and I just have slightly different intuitions about how best to summarize the sources. Let's see what others have to say, and if no one else here wants to weigh in there is always the option of posting at WP:NPOVN. The best thing about Wikipedia (in my view) is being able to tap into the wisdom of crowds –– in our case, thankfully, crowds of very well informed editors who have been doing this for a while. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Race section, in my opinion, is definitely sufficient to convey the necessary context for unfamiliar readers to understand what follows. Zanahary (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I wasn't clear. My idea is to cut all but the first two paragraphs of the section. Those two paragraphs are where we highlight the consensus statements from the major scientific organizations. The rest of the section seems to get into the weeds in a way that I'm not sure is especially helpful. Maybe it's best to just leave it to readers who want to learn more to click through the "Main articles" header to Race (human categorization) or Race and genetics?
- I'm not especially committed to this idea. It's just something that occurred to me when reading through the section with fresh eyes. Generalrelative (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. In that case, I think it should stay. The self-report is an important piece of context for the reader to interpret all the statistical references that follow. The clustering part is good too, though I'm going to go ahead and switch its place with the self-report paragraph, since I think it more naturally belongs after paragraphs about scientific conceptions and treatments of race than a paragraph about collection methods. Zanahary (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I like what you did there. You're right: the section does flow much better now.
- The one part that still strikes me as muddled is the final bit: everything from
Hunt and Carlson disagreed...
onward. I'm not sure what an ordinary reader is meant to take away from this. And is it really DUE to mention a disagreement among psychologists about how to read a genetics paper? In any case, if others think it is DUE, it should probably be revised for clarity. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)- Unsure why the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther get some much space, they seemingly argue "both Lewontin and Edwards are right", but the article hasn't yet introduced Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy to the reader (who might wonder who they could be) and probably not the place to do that? fiveby(zero) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, good catch. I've made some edits, and marked a confusing sentence for clarification. Zanahary (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Unsure why the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther get some much space, they seemingly argue "both Lewontin and Edwards are right", but the article hasn't yet introduced Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy to the reader (who might wonder who they could be) and probably not the place to do that? fiveby(zero) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. In that case, I think it should stay. The self-report is an important piece of context for the reader to interpret all the statistical references that follow. The clustering part is good too, though I'm going to go ahead and switch its place with the self-report paragraph, since I think it more naturally belongs after paragraphs about scientific conceptions and treatments of race than a paragraph about collection methods. Zanahary (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since it looks like the party's all here, would anyone care to give their input on the conclusion/finding/consensus/etc. verbiage question? @Sj @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Generalrelative @NightHeron @Steve Quinn @Fiveby
(Apologies if it's considered ugly to ping) Zanahary (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)- I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Race section, in my opinion, is definitely sufficient to convey the necessary context for unfamiliar readers to understand what follows. Zanahary (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I like that wording much better, including for the lead - DFlhb (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am reading the linked sources that are provided above. I'll have to get back to you on this. I will say, however, that saying modern scientific consensus says such and such, is the same as saying modern science has concluded such and such.
- I think the update you've made to the Race section is great! The new verbiage is specific and contextualizes the view as one of consensus. I hope that the lede can follow it, even verbatim or nearly so.For ease, the new verbiage in the Race section:
- A mainstream consensus is the position that science takes on an issue. This position seems to be the same as reaching a conclusion on an issue — especially on an issue such as this, where the scientific consensus is probably overwhelming. I am not sure the wording needs to be changed, but I will get back to you on this - hopefully within a few days, after I explore the material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, saying "
modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,"
appears to be succinct, clear and accurate, There is no need to try to water down the message here or muddy the waters. And as I said, let me get back to you on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- I didn't see it as a watering down, if anything it seemed stronger; but I'm interested in your thoughts - DFlhb (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Another issue with the use of the term "consensus" is that on controversial topics, there can be significant differences between public and private views. Publicly stating an unpopular opinion on a controversial race issue can have disastrous consequences for a scientist's career. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy is not referenced in this article but probably should be, as it surveyed intelligence researchers anonymously. Below is a relevant two-paragraph excerpt:
- The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% said that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% said that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it was "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% said that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation". According to Snyderman and Rothman, this contrasts greatly with the coverage of these views as represented in the media, where the reader is led to draw the conclusion that "only a few maverick 'experts' support the view that genetic variation plays a significant role in individual or group difference, while the vast majority of experts believe that such differences are purely the result of environmental factors."
- In their analysis of the survey results, Snyderman and Rothman state that the experts who described themselves as agreeing with the "controversial" partial-genetic views of Arthur Jensen did so only on the understanding that their identity would remain unknown in the published report. This was due, claim the authors, to fears of suffering the same kind of castigation experienced by Jensen for publicly expressing views on the correlation between race and intelligence which are privately held in the wider academic community.[unreliable source?] Bws92082 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've left out that Snyderman and Rothman's results are themselves largely rejected by the relevant experts. 'Everyone secretly agrees with me but won't say so' is sometimes used as a debate tactic by scientific minorities, but it as unconvincing here as it is everywhere else it is used. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your entirely dismissive response is not justified by the content of that Wikipedia entry. If Wikipedia felt it was worthy of an entry of its own, then clearly it would be relevant to the 'Race and intelligence' article, and should be referenced. Bws92082 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also thinks that Modern flat Earth beliefs deserve an entry of their own, but you will find they are not mentioned on articles about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Modern flat Earth beliefs were shown to be largely accepted in a poll of published astronomy researchers, then it most certainly should be mentioned in articles about astronomy. Bws92082 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there were flaws in the polling, we'd probably mention it in its own article, and perhaps in a history article (like, say, History of the race and intelligence controversy). We wouldn't (and per WP:GEVAL could not) use it to try to undercut higher quality sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are other sources that support Snyderman and Rothman's view that there is no real consensus among intelligence researchers on the cause of the Black/White IQ gap. For example, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301886?via%3Dihub
- In closing, I will note that the 'Race and Intelligence' article's quote that "genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin" is truly an extraordinary scientific claim (which would require extraordinary evidence to confirm). It rules out any genetic contribution to group differences allowing only for a 100% environmental effect. All human groups, in other words, have identical native intelligence. This may well be true, but any suggestion that researchers are anywhere close to demonstrating this as a scientific fact would be highly questionable. Bws92082 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rindermann's survey has been discussed extensively in the talk pages archives. It's not surprising that he got the results that he did, since he surveyed the members of ISIR, who we knew very well would give the results he was looking for. Then he published it in a journal known for publishing racist pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Like it or not, ISIR's flagship publication 'Intelligence' is a leading journal in its field. The world-renowned behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin, for example, publishes papers here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000278 . Again your totally dismissive attitude is unwarranted. Excluding all ISIR opinions cannot be justified. Bws92082 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- That journal isn't immune to publishing papers that are controversial and contested, something the Intelligence (journal) article already points out. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being "immune to publishing papers that are controversial and contested" is not an appropriate requirement for a truth-seeking scientific journal. Bws92082 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, perhaps not. Keeping white supremacists off the editorial board is an appropriate requirement, though. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being "immune to publishing papers that are controversial and contested" is not an appropriate requirement for a truth-seeking scientific journal. Bws92082 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- That journal isn't immune to publishing papers that are controversial and contested, something the Intelligence (journal) article already points out. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Like it or not, ISIR's flagship publication 'Intelligence' is a leading journal in its field. The world-renowned behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin, for example, publishes papers here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000278 . Again your totally dismissive attitude is unwarranted. Excluding all ISIR opinions cannot be justified. Bws92082 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rindermann's survey has been discussed extensively in the talk pages archives. It's not surprising that he got the results that he did, since he surveyed the members of ISIR, who we knew very well would give the results he was looking for. Then he published it in a journal known for publishing racist pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there were flaws in the polling, we'd probably mention it in its own article, and perhaps in a history article (like, say, History of the race and intelligence controversy). We wouldn't (and per WP:GEVAL could not) use it to try to undercut higher quality sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Modern flat Earth beliefs were shown to be largely accepted in a poll of published astronomy researchers, then it most certainly should be mentioned in articles about astronomy. Bws92082 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also thinks that Modern flat Earth beliefs deserve an entry of their own, but you will find they are not mentioned on articles about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your entirely dismissive response is not justified by the content of that Wikipedia entry. If Wikipedia felt it was worthy of an entry of its own, then clearly it would be relevant to the 'Race and intelligence' article, and should be referenced. Bws92082 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've left out that Snyderman and Rothman's results are themselves largely rejected by the relevant experts. 'Everyone secretly agrees with me but won't say so' is sometimes used as a debate tactic by scientific minorities, but it as unconvincing here as it is everywhere else it is used. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't see it as a watering down, if anything it seemed stronger; but I'm interested in your thoughts - DFlhb (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, saying "
I recently added a source[1] which should clear up any uncertainty as to where the scientific consensus stands on the matter:
Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary. ... Despite the veneer of modern science, RHR [racial hereditarian research] psychologists’ recent efforts merely repeat discredited racist ideas of a century ago. The issue is truly one of scientific standards; if psychology embraced the scientific practices of evolutionary biology and genetics, current forms of RHR would not be publishable in reputable scholarly journals.
Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bird, Kevin; Jackson, John P.; Winston, Andrew S. (November 2023). "Confronting Scientific Racism in Psychology: Lessons from Evolutionary Biology and Genetics". American Psychologist.
Article scope
I think this article should contain content about the well-covered stereotypes relating to race and intelligence, and social notions relating to race and intelligence. As it stands, the article seems to be ~only about the notions and controversies in science and pseudoscience relating to race and intelligence. Would these proposed additions be out of scope? Zanahary (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I remember seeing another editor raise an idea like this earlier. Sorry if this is redundant; I can't find the earlier discussion. Zanahary (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Piffer (2015)
Piffer (2015) found differing frequencies of cognition and IQ-enhancing genes in different racial populations:
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-piffer.pdf
Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Intelligence (journal) for some well-sourced commentary on the merits of that particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Even the two critical sources stated describe it as 'one of the most respected in its field' and 'a more respected psychology journal'.
- If any experts in the field of intelligence research have made a case against the journal's reputation, then its reliability could be questioned. As it is we have mixed criticism from two journalists of a well regarded peer-reviewed publication. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Wikipedia's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the SPLC (noted experts on racism) published an article that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote:
Piffer’s credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect
- MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Based on which Wiki policy are you discarding it as a source? It's used several times in articles related to intelligence research.
- Not than an advocacy organization's opinion really is of note when it comes to population genetics, I do note that these several SPLC paragraphs go into no more detail than to state that scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect (no reasons for this assessment or counterarguments given, at all), to question the author's credibility and to state that there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Which adds up to nothing in particular from an organisation with absolutely no standing in scientific matters. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per my original comment and your response to it, I'm referring to the journal Intelligence. Which seems to have somehow achieved the status of a 'pick-and-choose' source.
- The argument against mention of the Piffer paper, whether it's flawed research or not, requires something more than commentary from a civil rights organisation. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, here is a fine peer-reviewed source that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. Generalrelative (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- A preprint is not a fine peer-reviewed anything.
- Our guideline places Piffer as a fringe source based on his conclusions, or is it his associations?
- I'm aware that a past RFC prematurely declared the suggestion that genetics plays a role in population group IQ differences to be 'fringe' rather than merely minority. As RFCs aren't binding and consensus can change at any time, hopefully this will be rectified at some point. Though a consensus against it is emerging, the idea hasn't been conclusively refuted and research is ongoing. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The author of that paper is Kevin Bird. Kevin Bird also said: "The past isn't an indication of how the future behaves...I do science because I find it intellectually engaging, to be completely honest...I do it with not as much interest in attaining or discovering truth." He then said that he is "not interested in discovering truth". It is completely impossible to take a person like that seriously. And that paper's not peer reviewed. Hi! (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bird et al. has now been published by American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? Hi! (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That your attempt to smear Bird is thoroughly unconvincing. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updated cite. But an Indiana Jones meme? What am I supposed to take away from that? Hi! (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bird et al. has now been published by American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association. It is no longer a preprint. As to your gotcha quote about "truth"... Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you might imagine, we rely on editor judgement for evaluating source reliability all the time, and Piffer is definitely a fringe source per our guideline. This would be ascertainable even without explicit debunking in a scholarly source. Some pseudo-scholars are too insignificant to draw that kind of attention. That said, here is a fine peer-reviewed source that explains in no uncertain terms what is so profoundly unscientific about Piffer's methodology. No matter how you squirm, you will get nowhere with this line of argumentation. Generalrelative (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- If this Piffer article is used several times, please point those usages out specifically because those definitely need to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The SPLC aren't experts on genetics, and they don't cite any scientific publications in their article to critique Piffer. The closest they come is citing a non-peer-reviewed book review of a book Piffer didn't write. Hi! (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The SPLC may be experts on racism, but is there any evidence that they're experts on science? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience is that which does not employ the scientific method. Neither the SPLC nor Bird have made such an extreme claim about the Piffer paper. Bird may have the expertise to critique the methodology employed, but anything of the sort is well beyond the SPLC's realm of expertise. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Correctly identifying racist pseudoscience is part of their expertise, yes. It's not like they're commenting on an article about astronomy. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nah. We can discard a source without needing to meet your personal standard, which doesn't have any relation to Wikipedia's policies so far as I can tell. It is worth mentioning, though, that the SPLC (noted experts on racism) published an article that spends multiple paragraphs on this specific paper and how it shouldn't be used as a source. A sample quote:
- 'Highly regarded' went out the window when they had white supremacists on the editorial board. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The criticism appears to be sourced to a journalistic piece in a progressive political magazine and another in a pop-sci magazine. 'Well-sourced commentary' such as this doesn't weigh heavily when it comes to a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please also read OpenPsych concerning the journal co-founded by Davide Piffer. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I posted already on WP:FTN, but would like more eyes on the discussion to provide more perspectives.
Also I tried editing the article, to give it more substance, but this is not my area of expertise. Please feel free to clean it up anyway you want. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Test scores
The Test Scores section has a paragraph discussing disparities in academic achievement and math test scores in the UK, but surely those are a less reliable measurement of intelligence than general mental ability (GMA) tests, such as those discussed here?[1] Is there any objection to replacing this paragraph with the results from this meta-analysis of GMA tests? Stonkaments (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no reason to remove the current text or the sources used, but feel free to suggest additional text sourced to [1] for discussion here to reach consensus. How to define intelligence and what's a less or more reliable way to measure it are controversial. Many believe that intelligence includes many disparate capacities and that there cannot be a numerical value that measures general intelligence.
- Note that the reliability of your source [1] is very questionable, since all three authors are closely associated with either Mankind Quarterly (see also Jan te Nijenhuis) or OpenPsych. NightHeron (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)