Talk:Richard Lynn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Weasel Words!

- This article is CHOCK FULL of weasel words. "The criticism can be levelled that" "sources have said that" etc. I'm removing them in a subsequent edit.

Contrary to unpopular belief

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

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

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

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

Holocaust denial

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p19_Faurisson.html

I do not know if Lynn said that quote, but the exact quote can also be found there.

Also, the quote is found here:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Think/walsh1.htm LinkinPark 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16405&page=2 Ok. So the answer is Faurisson wrote it in the Journal of Historical Review, not Lynn. If Lynn actually said this, we would have heard about it from liberal mainstream sources that would jump on him for scientific conclusions that aren't politically correct. It's just that neo-Nazis see him as a hero, even though I happen to value his scholarship. I don't know Lynn's opinions on Jews in general, but this seems to be a fabrication.

Arguments against IQ

Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp (1971:233) made the following insightful observation: Cultural differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particular cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in one cultural group, and its absence in another. A similar position is held by Berry (1974).

Sarason and Doris (1979) view intelligence as a cultural invention that does not hold true across cultures.

(Serpell, 1974; Super, 1983; Wober, 1974) Even within a given society, different cognitive characteristics are emphasized from one situation to another and from one subculture to another. These differences extend not just to conceptions of intelligence but to what is considered adaptive or appropriate in a broader sense.

Views of intelligence vary from culture to culture; and the majority of these views do not reflect Western ideas (See, Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Sternberg, 1997)

We need to reduce the bias toward measuring intelligence through logical/mathematical and linguistic abilities and move toward looking more directly at a specific intelligence in operation (Gardner, 1993).

Howard Gardner is vocal about his disdain for a singularly psychometric approach to measuring intelligence based on paper and pencil tests. Secondly, he responds to the belief that an intelligence is the same as a domain or a discipline. Gardner reiterates his definition of an intelligence and distinguishes it from a domain which he describes as a culturally relevant, organized set of activities characterized by a symbol system and a set of operations (See Gardner; Phi Delta Kappan, 1995).

Often intelligence tests measure skills that children are expected to acquire a few years before the taking the test (Sternberg, Presidential addresses; Culture and Intelligence, 2004).

Vernon (1971) points out the axes of a factor analysis do not necessarily reveal a latent structure of the mind but rather represent a convenient way of characterizing the organization of metal abilites. Vernon believed that there is no one 'right' orientation of axes. Indeed, mathematically an infinite number of orientations of axes can be fit to any solution in an explanatory factor analysis (See Sternberg, 2004).

The two most widely used standardized tests of intelligence are the Wechsler scales and the Stanford-Binet. Both instruments are psychometrically sound, but Gardner believes that these tests measure only linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, with a narrow focus within content in those domains. According to Gardner, the current psychometric approach for measuring intelligence is not sufficient (Gardner, 1993).

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define intelligence according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. He further states, traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005). - IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg, 1998, 1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).

IQ scores do change over time. The average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals change as much as 18 points (Jones & Bayley, 1941).

Individuals do not necessarily exhibit their "intelligence" in its raw state. Rather, they prepare to use their intelligence by passing through a developmental process. Thus, people who want to be mathematicians or physicists, spend years studying and honing their logical/mathematical abilities in a distinctive and socially relevant way (Gardner, 1999).⼢r>

In addition to learned reasoning abilities, IQ measures little more than a person's ability to take an IQ test, as scores increase dramatically as a person is trained or familiarized with the tests (See Kamin, 1974).

"Intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture (Gardner, 1999a), "

Research has shown that IQ type tests account for about 10% of the variation in how successful people are in various aspects of their adult lives. 10% isn't much, and it maybe coincidence. (Robert Sternberg, interview with Frontline).

Intelligence is not a characteristic of people, but rather a potential for intelligence performance that is embedded in specific situations (Barab & Plucker, 2002).

Gardner (1993) emphasizes two additional points about assessment that are critical. The first is that the assessment of intelligence should encompass multiple measures. Relying on a single IQ score from a WISC-III (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) without substantiating the findings through other data sources does the individual examinee a disservice and produces insufficient information for those who provide interventions.

IQ tests are convenient partial operationalizations of the construct of intelligence, and nothing more. They do not provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that tape measures provide of height (See Sternberg et al, 2005).

At this point in history, the study of intelligence has moved well beyond the realm of psychometrics.

-- African American Test Scores --

IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points or less (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, 1995, Dickenson & Flynn, 2002). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire black population together as a single body. That is, blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

Brain Size Fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2005

Regarding this edit: [1]

The line "His research is principly [sic] involved in correlating intelligence and race" is not true at all. He does do research into the relationship between race and intelligence among a lot of other anthropological and psychological research, but like any scientist, his goal is not to try to prove any particular conclusion. He simply reports his findings. Besides, he is not trying to show a correlation, nor does he have to try to, since one has already been shown. Dsh34 5 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

                          I'm no postmodernist, but your philosophy of science is overly 
                          optimistic to say the least. 

That is certainly the field he is best known for. He shows the correlation, regardless of whether previous and subsequent researchers have also found similar correlations. I think that it is open to question whether he is trying to prove a particular conclusion. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

You may be right that that may be what he is best known for, but that does not mean his research primarily revolves around only that. Of his four books (all of which I've read, by the way) two of them deal with eugenics and dygenics. One of them is a history of the Pioneer Fund. The other one, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, deals with the relationship between national IQs and their GDP. The fact that there is a relationship between race and intelligence is only a corollary of that observation. Dsh34 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

From his website:My major discovery is that the Oriental peoples of East Asia have higher average intelligence by about 5 IQs points than Europeans and peoples of European origin in the United States and elsewhere[2]. That sems to confirm that intelligence & race are his major field, and that he has "discovered" correlations presumably unfound by others. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 01:10 (UTC)

The fact that he has made that discovery still does not imply that "His research is principly involved in correlating intelligence and race." If you want to say something like "the relationship between race and intelligence has been a major part of his research", go ahead and do so, but the sentence as it stands is inaccurate. Dsh34 5 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

---

The reference link "http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/publications.htm" does not work.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Methodology

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/45664.html

The "Pioneer Fund" man to be published new study. BTW, I don't think the article really reflect the controversy over his person.

His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. One of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally…

The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

Lynn is a very controversial individual, while the article is far from presenting this, as well as the critics of his studies. Fadix 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

In general, racial group differences persist on non-linguistic cognitive ability tests and when results are controlled for income. This is discussed at race and intelligence.--Nectar ^T 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There are various studies that contradict your hypotheses, I might bring examples when I have time in the other talk page. Fadix 02:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

None of your comments are topical, Fadix. IQ and the Wealth of Nations has its own wiki page. There are various studies that contradict your hypotheses, I might bring examples when I have time in the other talk page That would not be topical. -hitssquad 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have bolded something you skipped if you don't mind. Secondly, my point was about the lack of controversial character of the man and his research, which is relevant, research the biography of other people in Wikipedia, and you will see that it is "topical." Fadix 03:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant that that would not be topical on the other talk page -hitssquad 03:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It will, they are critics of studies presented there. Fadix 03:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You can present your findings at GNXP [[3]]. Wiki is not a debate forum. Since this section is off-topic, I move to delete it. -hitssquad 04:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable criticisms of Lynn's work are germane to both this article and IQ and the Wealth of Nations, though the latter might go more in depth. The main place to debate about Wikipedia's treatment of the genetic hypothesis of IQ differences between racial groups, though, is race and intelligence.--Nectar ^T 04:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I know what Wikipedia is, when the study field of a person is covered and his study, it is IN topic to present the controversy serounding the person, and give a basic description of the critics serounding his research. And those are not my findings, I only present what is in his works and those that criticized them, since personal research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Fadix 04:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there an awefull lot of praise in the wiki article considering how much criticism this man has endured? Citing only those APA articles of praise rather that the myriad of criticisms? Admittedly, I am not NPOV on this man, I think he is the worst kind of racist and sexist.

Racism?

Hello, after being amused by its paper about IQ differences between women and men, I am pretty shocked today to see his conclusions on a European IQ study. His "northern guys became smarter in the fight with the harsh nature" stance seems to me very much similar to Nazi racial propaganda. To say it clearly, I believe the guy is racist. I found some articles talking about a possible Nazi filiation (e.g. [4]). I also suspect him of trying to prove Anglo-Saxon superiority over the Irish (in his last production, the British stand at 100 mean IQ, while the Irish go down in the second half of the list, with an IQ of 97, right before Russia). Nice to see that Ireland fares far better than the UK in both GDP and employment, even though they are not as smart. :) Dpotop 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A 3 point IQ difference between two nations is easily caused by environment; the arguments about varying tendencies in genetic cognitive ability and brain size are more interested in large-scale differences between ethnic groups independent of which country they live in. Many scientists don't feel comparing average IQs is itself racist. --Nectar 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I don't say differences do not exist or should not be studied. What I question is the particular interpretation of experimental data given by this particular guy. It reminds me a lot of simple eugenistic arguments used in the first half of the 20th century. Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I didn't have much time to read his papers, but I find it difficult to believe that the 3 point difference I mentioned can be considered as statistically relevant. Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I have a more fundamental objection to this kind of results: I do agree that one can measure brain sizes and scores in standardized IQ tests. However, I am not sure at all what these results mean. Someone labelled the result "cognitive ability". But I'm not sure this label is justified. Another suitable name, for me, would have been "ability to solve puzzles of the types X,Y, and Z", where X, Y, and Z are the preferred puzzles of the guy that was paied to create the test. Then, you have some statistic correlations (but no strict causality) between these results and some academic/life achievements. But why? I don't know, and I've seen no argument that I would call scientific, or convincing. And I believe that many charlatans exploit this lack of knowledge by promoting all sorts of stupid interpretations (such as "northern people are more intelligent because of the cold that forced them to think"). Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Proposition for Linking this site to "Scientific Racism"

I think the fact that our undoubtedly highly intelligent friend Richard Lynn probably gets significant pay for his, ahem, "academic studies" is indicative of the attitudes prevalent in the higher echelon within UK universities where there is meant to be fair competition. How does this guy get pay over someone needing health care research!?

The study of intelligence is seen as important to many institutions, though many would find it inappropriate to study intelligence in the context of group differences. A large portion of Lynn's funding has been provided by the Pioneer fund, which is stated in the article. Scientific racism is linked to from the main page in this category, race and intelligence.--Nectar 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Emeritus Professor - Assasin Question?

I'm sorry to have written the above in haste, without considering this OBVIOUS possibility (NEVER believe what you read on wikipedia without several other info sources).

Has some innocent guy's photo been put on the wiki internet site just to get him whacked? I mean, who would be stupid enough to be a crypto-fascist in the UK (even if it is Ulster - which, let us not forget, is famous for it's variety of, ahem, civil methods of public discourse resolution) and *then* state that they had scientifically probven that the Irish were genetically and racially inferior in terms of intelligence to their English counterparts?!?

Perhaps we should feel some sympathy for the subject of the photograph! Is he still alive? (probably in a wheel chair, I'd say...).

The photograph can be matched against other photos that are available; Lynn is still very active. Yes, death threats have been issued in the past against all the prominent researchers in this area, and assault has also occurred.--Nectar 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Hamilton

• "His coverage of dysgenesis of health, all in just one chapter, is, in my opinion, not very adequate." and concludes that "This ends my list of suggestions of how Lynn's central paradox of his book might be resolved."

This doesn't seem based on a complete reading of the review. The paradox referred to is a paradox within the issue, not an inconsistency in Lynn's writing. Hamilton desiring expanded discussion of health dysgenesis and infectious diseases ("all in just one chapter") isn't a condemnation of the book, and his concluding paragraph is very clear about how he regards it.--Nectar 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The passage as it is now suggests that Hamilton believes that Lynn is good with the facts in general, whereas Hamilton is clearly only praising a specific part of the book. I see no issue with letting Hamilton's own words stay, rather than using short quotes with ellipses to suggest a wholesale endorsement of the book and its theses, whereas Hamilton clearly does not think that Lynn's interpretation for the book's paradox are correct, and does not say that Lynn is good with the facts in general. --ReinesLicht

This doesn't seem very convincing from a neutral point of view. Can you quote the large disagreement you see Hamilton having with the book?--Nectar 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to spin Hamilton's statements against Lynn. His concluding paragraph is very clear: "Most of my ways are admittedly very speculative: however the paradox itself [that predicted dysgenic declines aren't apparent] is such a gaping hole and so important for our future, it has seemed to justify me, a jackdaw on the chimney pot, throwing down a variety of sticks in the dark, hoping at least one of them will lodge and start a platform for a nest down there perhaps it may make combination with that stick which Lynn himself has more securely placed in his brave and fertile book."

Hamilton indeed gives a wholesale endorsement of the book (in the sense of supporting it), but that shouldn't be expected to mean he doesn't have his own ideas about the topic and which topics should have be expanded into more chapters.--Nectar 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Hamilton did not refer to the entirety of Lynn's book when he says that he does a good job with the facts. The main text gives the erroneous idea that Hamilton agrees completely with the way Lynn is handling the facts, whereas Lynn finds part of the book to be good and part of it to be poor. --ReinesLicht

Also, Hamilton thinks that the book is an important contribution but he clearly proposes alternative explanations for the main paradox of the book, different than Lynn's. A neutral observer cannot accept that Hamilton endorses Lynn's explanations as adequate; if he did, then he wouldn't have felt the need to propose alternative ones. Saying that a book is a good contribution in a problem is not the same thing as "endorsing" the book. --ReinesLicht

Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates

Hello. This is generic message I will be placing on several IQ-related atricles that have touched on Ashkenazim Jew IQ. Much is being written/compared/correlated on wikipedia regarding ashekenazim, much of which is incorrect given most modern research regarding it.

The modern interpreation of Ashkenazim IQ is that Jews have slightly higher verbal and mathematical IQ than the average white population and the same or lower IQ in perceptual and spatial. The below letter, compiled with data and written by Richard Lynn, shows that the IQ of diasporic A. Jews just in Verbal IQ is approximately 107. Not only is this substantially lower than many other studies in the past that relied on flawed non-representative samples and had small sample sizes, but it is merely the verbal IQ. One of the main trends of the A.Jew IQ has been very high verbal, with everything else being at least somewhat lower than that, meaning that this data suggests that the IQ of A.Jews may actually be significantly to slightly lower yet. In any event, most assertions being made on wikipedia are completely offbase and needs to be re-written with the understanding of these more recent studies and extrapolations of the experts in IQ, such as Lynn. I'm writing this in hopes people will take it open themselves to clean up wikis related to Ashkenazim since I really don't want to go to the trouble of running down every wiki and editing it myself.

Lynn has also now compiled a list of European nations/ethnicities and their respective IQs. The Dutch, Germans, and Poles all have approximately the same IQ according to the data as A.Jews, which throws even more monkey wrenchs into the wikis I've been reading, ones that say things like Jews success in field X could be linked to higher IQ. If this were the case, their would be way more German, Dutch, and Polish Nobel laureates. This is just an example. Basically, A.Jews, according to the accepted and recent interpretations, slightly exceed several European ethnicities and are essentially the same as many others. Further, now that Lynn has taken the time to break down IQs by ethnicities, all wikis generally related to IQ should include the data if they cite Ashkenazi IQ in the wiki. It smacks of some kind of racism to only single out A.Jews as an ethnicity and not others when we have the data on others. this seems to be a repeated bias I see on IQ-related wikis.

It should also be noted that both Flynn and Lynn have found that when correcting for the FLynn-effect, the East Asian IQ advantage drops to statistically negligble or close to. Again, this is the recent findings and wikis should reflect such. In any event, here is the cite/info-filled letter.

Dr. Richard Lynn The Intelligence of American Jews Sat Feb 14 01:24:26 2004

The Intelligence of American Jews Dr. Richard Lynn University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland http://www.rlynn.co.uk

Summary. This paper provides new data on the theory that Jews have a higher average level of verbal intelligence than non-Jewish whites. The theory is considered by examining the vocabulary scores of Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others obtained in the American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990-1996. Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence. Jews obtained a significantly higher mean vocabulary score than non-Jewish whites, equivalent to an IQ advantage of 7.5 IQ points. The results confirm previous reports that the verbal IQ of American Jews is higher than that of non-Jewish whites.

(possible copyright violation removed) And here is a link to the list of White ethnicities IQs: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html Ernham 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Emeritus Professor?

Does anyone actually have any proof that Richard Lynn is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Ulster? The University of Ulster makes absolutely no mention of him, while the Observer cites his as an "Ulster academic" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1635380,00.html). Aside from his own website, and others seemingly as dubious, there seems to be absolutely no evidence that he holds an Emeritus Professor position anywhere.

The claim "Emeritus professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster" can be attributed to the BBC. [5] --Nectar 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Lynn is not listed on the University of Ulster staff directory, therefore it seems odd to say that he is an Emeritus Professor AT Ulster Uni. If he is anything then he is an Emeritus Professor of Psychology, formerly of Ulster University. Beeromatic 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Dysgenics?

Since Richard Lynn is about the only person who has written about this subject, and it is not a recognized as a science, in keeping with the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, I see no reason that the gist of this can't be covered in the article about the major author on the subject.--MONGO 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (copied from Talk:Dysgenics)

I would say oppose. From past experience, it's always a bad idea to merge a topic with a biography. Especially in the case of Lynn, who is already a controversial character, this could turn into a refutation match of some more of his theories. This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that dysgenics is a subject much vaster than Lynn himself. No, I say kee the articles separate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 November 2006.

Support - Once material that does not satisfy WP:V or is not pertinent has been removed from Dysgenics, it is little more than a dictionary definition. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be true. In which case, would it make more sense to move it to Wiktionary? -Will Beback 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, if that's all that's gonna left of the article, transwiki should be the road. Unless one feels Richard Lynn is the definition of disgenics? (just kidding)--Ramdrake 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, this is turning into a case of pov warring. The sources the article is based on do meet WP:V and the idea of pushing the removal of sources, next stripping the article bare for not being sourced, is really a bad way to go about editing, or should I say deleting, an article. I must say I admire the creativity.

As a side note, I haven't seen any kind of effort from these 3 editors to actually improve the article in question. --Zero g 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, on the same general basis as Ramdrake. A biography article merged with a discussion on the detailed merits or mistakes of a theory ends up being a POV war mess. I would almost regard anything but the lightest overview of a theory as OR - Wikipedia should not take the format of papers to be submitted to journals, with detailed blow-by-blow citations of support (or attack) of a given theory. --JereKrischel 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge to Eugenics would be appropriate. It's just an inverted term. In fact, most eugenicists were as much or more concerned with the inheritance of harmful traits as with positive traits. -Will Beback 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just as bad an idea, as then you're stating that Richard Lynn isn't notable enough to have his own WP article. I don't think that's right, considering the resume of this researcher. That being said, I totally disagree with most of what he says, but denying his existence or his importance is another matter entirely, akin to censorship IMHO. Is anybody here contesting the existence of a word like dystopia; it's clearly the inverse of eutopia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 November 2006.

You misunderstand. I mean we should merge Dysgenics to Eugenics. -Will Beback 23:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Eugenics article is already quite sizable. Besides, being the inverted term also has various implications. It could be said that dysgenics could be considered a part of mankind's 'natural' evolution. While eugenics is clearly a social philosophy of some sort, dysgenics is not, no government that I know of has ever adopted an ideological 'dysgenics program'. Another issue is that dysgenic decline, or the lack of it, can be measured because it 'occurs in the wild', where as there are no notable eugenics programs that can be measured for their effectiveness. Dysgenics as a concept is also backed by modern evolutionary models. Due to these issues the dysgenics article has an entirely different scope than the eugenics article, and given the term dates back to the beginning of the 20th century I don't see why it shouldn't have its own article.

Besides, while someone might have moral objections to the concept of eugenics, this doesn't mean they don't consider the concept of dysgenics invalid, and if so might even believe it actually occurs. --Zero g 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Lynn is a Nazi

Richard Lynn, his pioneer fund and all those around them are a bunch of Nazis. Some of his assertions are ridiculous, like civilization emerging among Caucasian peoples and then drifting towards Northern Eruopeans etc, ignoring the fact that the contribution of civilization of Northern and Eastern Europe was close to zero until relatively recently. His manipulation of facts is for idiots and hate-mongers and these should all be locked where they belong. Heil Hitler or Heil Lynn, the manipulator and shameless propagandist.

And do not erase this. I do not say it. Many others do:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-11-Sun-2007/news/13063858.html

Although the article mentions it, it should be emphasized more, wiht more quotes. This guy is just another of the Nazis trying to make the come back and so he should be presented. I am not doing it though. Just proposing it.

Just some cut and pasting from the paper:

---

It is troubling to ADL that a UNLV professor would host a conference with featured speakers who have confirmed racist viewpoints," Luria said. "While ADL believes in freedom of speech, one only has to research Richard Lynn or Tatu Vanhanen to discover their philosophy is rooted in racism."

"These are folks who are on the extreme end of the scientific community," said William Turner, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University and author of the 2002 book "The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund."

---

The rest you can read. It is about time that Wiki stops presenting Nazis as if they were scientists that are taken seriously by the scientific community. Only their racist circle takes them seriously. 72.144.17.153 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

72.144.110.117 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Richard Lynn a Holocaust denier?

I found a quote, only on neo-Nazi sites, claiming he denied the Holocaust. It could just be a forgery. Maybe someone can contact him to verify if he actually said what they claim he said.

---

He is a full grown Nazi and a clown; See:

http://www.rense.com/general74/short2.htm

65.11.114.169 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Again, I wouldn't trust Rense. It is a kook neo-Nazi site that probably makes up quotes. If you have something more verifiable, I would be interested.

By the way, to call someone a Nazi because you disagree with his science is outright McCarthyism. Lynn is well quoted by a mainstream such as Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute and the Jewish Richard Herrnstein.

They are all Nazis of the worst kind. And they are more dangerous than normal moronic street Nazis because they are hiding as "pseudoscientists". They are using the vocabulary traditionally used by the left like freedom of expression and all that. They have just become a bit smarter and try to fool some people. But usually we have two types: those who are real morons and those who actually have Nazi sympathies. Anyone else knows very well what they are and what they stand for. Nazism, white supremacism, white natinalism or however you want to call it is being reborn, especially in the US, under the protection of organizations like the Pioneer Fund. But anyone can just do a little research to know what they all are. Fortunately most people are not buying these clowns cheap propaganda, but as said, some morons and some sympathizers are. In any case, read well the article, you have some information there and under the Pioneer Fund. As an example here you have another

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/450021.stm

But of course these people and American Renaissance: see

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/amren.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=amren

are not what they are. In short, if we see a duck that talks like a duck and walks like a duck, still the strategy now is to say that they are not a duck, just people who make use of their freedom of expression. Come on, do not make me laugh. 65.11.70.20 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

65.11.70.20 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Who cares what Abraham Foxman says? Lynn says Jews are smart, so the ADL should leave him alone and not cause more anti-Semitism. Anyway, I have my answer as I have written above. The quote is attributable to Faurisson, but neo-Nazis wanted to have a legitimate, yes legitimate non-Nazi scholar voice that repugnant view. As I have said, mainstream scholars have also shown differences in IQ and race and have based their work on Lynn.

Well, I think there is enough information here for people to see, unless they are blind. About IQ differences see Flynn effect. White Americans scored about 75 more than 50 years ago, now about 100 and blacks now about 85. I guess both Whites and Blacks of today are a different race with a superior intellect than those whites. In the 60s and 70s Asians scored below Whites, now above them, I guess another race emerging. In 1967 a survey of Spanish kids in then backward Spain obtained 87. In 1987 did the same and they obtained 98 (surprise by them education and living conditions had improved a lot). Now, 20 years later they must be some kind of geniuses. The assertions behind these studies are so stupid that most important experts laugh at them. Interestingly those who want to speculate about race differences using these studies are ALL related to white supremacist groups, like the ones that I have mentioned. They do not mind making minor concessions (that seems to give them more credibility and by the way, Jews are not a different race), but follow them well. Anyway, come on, the links are there: What is the Pioneer Fun? Lynn is a member. Who attends AR meetings? Well Lynn does, and a long etc 65.8.232.101 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Race Differences in Intelligence.jpg

Image:Race Differences in Intelligence.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Which denizen of Hades...

The current text quotes IQatWoN. Any relation to R2D2 or 3CP0? Why not give the reader a break? P0M 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lobbying in an encyclopedia article?

What is the following paragraphs doing in this article? It looks very much like whoever wrote it is lobbying to have some credit given to the subject of this article. Is another reminder needed that wishful thinking, POV-pushing and original research is not permitted on Wikipedia? If you think the following should be in this article, given the way it is written, please explain why. For starters, the first paragraph is so obscure and so insider, it makes no sense whatsoever to casual readers of an encyclopedia.

Removed from article for cause and for discussion:

The Flynn effect

The Flynn effect is sometimes referred to as the "Lynn-Flynn effect" to give credit to Lynn for his identifying of increasing IQ scores in Japan in a 1982 Nature article which preceded Flynn's 1984 description of increases in the U.S. However, Flynn describes a lesser-known 1982 article of his own describing "the evidence for American IQ gains," and it was Flynn's 1987 article that showed the trend was large, long-term, and observable in more than a dozen other developed countries, which is the key point of the Flynn Effect.

Why is the following hypthetical in this article? (This maybe the worst case of POV-pushing I have ever seen in Wikipedia):

If Lynn's nutrition hypothesis is shown to be correct, this could strengthen the case for adding Lynn's name to the term. General improvements in nutrition and health care have led to large increases in average adult height in industrial nations since cognitive ability testing began, and available data suggests these gains have been accompanied by gains in average brain size. However, it's thus far been difficult to study directly the relationship between nutrition and intelligence, leaving this hypothesis an open question.

Skywriter 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and lack of biographical information

I have copy edited this article to remove the POV pushing, including the various adjectives representing the viewpoints of the writers who have added to this article. Let's try to keep it factual without bringing personal opinion into whatever is thought about this article.

Further, basic biographical information is entirely missing from this article. When was he born? Where? Who were his parents? What else is known about him? Is he married? Does he have kids? We can't launch into a section about a flynn effect without telling the reader who is this person. So who is he? Skywriter 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In The Disgenics and Eugenics Section

Often left unmentioned by champions of Richard Lynn is that he has also been known to argue based on eugenic principles for the extinction of entire cultures based on their "incompetence." In Lynn's own words,

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures.[13] But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."

Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)"

However, Lynn has stated that he was actually summarizing the views of another author in these quotations. The quotations are from a book review.

Using words like "champions of Richard Lynn" and "he has been known to argue... for the extinction of entire cultures" give away the author's philosophical leanings on this subject. Other things in the quoted text that deserve an edit would be the quote of a quote from the New Republic. We should find out if this quote was used out of context as Lynn says, or if it was an actual expression of his personal opinion. Otherwise, as stated [above], this is character defamation. I have no wiki account and don't want to edit without one, as I know it is a sore spot with users. Could someone look in to this?

131.230.62.244 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)A Concerned reader.

"Irish have lower IQ"

This clown's "research" was reported in The Irish Times on Tuesday 28 2006. Who is funding this individual? Well, if a guy who claims to be a scientist but then talks about the "races" of the world deems the Irish to be less intelligent than the British then a) his thesis is false or b) he himself is, by his own logic, really Irish. I suspect that calling him the latter would be far more offensive. I know it would certainly be more offensive to the Irish. He is of course the latest in a centuries-long list of herrenvolk British loyalists telling the native Irish that they are "inferior". Dehumanising the natives is the oldest of all the colonial tactics. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. El Gringo 19:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Irish may or may not be more stupid than the British, at any rate the 2 populations are unlikely to get equal IQ scores and one must come lower. I am more concerned about this remark: Professor Lynn ascribes the differences between British and French intelligence levels to the results of military conflict. He described it as “a hitherto unrecognised law of history” that “the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942”. What an odd remark. It is characteristic of Totalitarian regimes to describe those with whom they disagree as crazy, however... NectarFlowed if another user is introducing information specifically critical of Lynn's work than it should be allowed to stay. 159.134.229.205 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

...Bloody hell. How is this man still employed? 86.4.214.16 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

not wanting to be rude

But Richard Lynn is a degenerate idiot, and in the interests of human development should be sterilized, or at the very least taken outside for a good kicking. IronButterfly 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. This prick Lynn is a classic example of the racist sickness in British Academia today. He should be jailed for inciting hate crimes.User:Subhash Bose

Thirded. 86.4.214.16 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Richard Lynn. Paulus Caesar

Template

I'm finding it difficult to navigate easily between the books by this author. Perhaps a navigational template (e.g. Template:Richard Lynn) should be created with links to his books and maybe some related topics (though the template would only be placed on this page and his works, not general topics he has worked on). Richard001 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Book notable?

If you watch this page will have already noticed that I have created an article Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. One editor felt it didn't meet the notability guidelines, and has since decided to let it go, but I would like to know if any others feel it should be deleted (I don't want to work on something that's just going to be deleted later on). Richard001 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I recently started adding representative citations from some of the book reviews here, without too much effort. You subsequently created a stub on the book containing a list of contents and external links. Why not go ahead and add relevant new material here (e.g. as footnotes with exact references to book reviews in peer-reviewed journals in standard wikipedia citation format)? That way, there would be no risk of duplication or wasted effort. If afterwards it seemed that there was too much material here, that would be an appropriate time to discuss the future enlargement of the stub. (I'm not planning to add any material to the stub at the moment.) Just a thought. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor emeritus

While Lynn's web site http://www.rlynn.co.uk/ claims he's a "Professor Emeritus" at the "University of Ulster", there's nothing to substantiate this in the staff pages of the University of Ulster http://www2.ulster.ac.uk/staff/staff-l.html . Moreover, I can find no proof of this guy being a professor, emeritus or not. This is no light matter, so for now I'll just place a mark on the page. Dpotop (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You think he's making it up? Seems pretty unlikely to me. I have seen many others refer to him as 'Professor Emeritus' in reviews etc, although maybe they have just been fooled by him? Richard001 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ulster's site lists him at http://www.science.ulster.ac.uk/psyri/profiles/ and UU in the news. That wasn't harder than using their search engine or google "richard lynn" site:ulster.ac.uk. Presumably the staff dictionary lists current staff. 129.240.6.233 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Global Bell Curve - new book

Lynn has recently had a new book published called The Global Bell Curve, which seems follow in the footsteps of The Bell Curve. A section should be added on this; perhaps it should even have its own article, depending on how it is received. Richard001 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Its full title is "The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ and Inequality Worldwide", published very recently by Washington Summit Publishers and already reviewed by J. Phillipe Rushton. WP does not need more forked articles on Race and intelligence or dysgenics. If the book has just come out, please just add it to the list of Lynn's books; then wait a few years until it has been officially reviewed in several mainstream scientific journals before adding anything more. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what you mean by 'forked articles'. Could you explain yourself? Richard001 (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A forked article is normally an article designed to give an alternative point of view to an existing article. The appropriate place to discuss the book, when the time is ripe, is on this page. If at some later stage there is too much content, then a separate article could be created. It does not seem appropriate to start an article on a book that has just appeared and which has not yet been reviewed in a mainstream journal. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clear above that I wasn't suggesting we create an article on it now. With books, however, there is always plenty to write about provided the book is worthy of an article. A book can hardly be adequately dealt with as a small section or part of a section on its author's article. This option is reserved for books that are not worthy of an article (as is the case with this one at the moment, with only one review), or those for which one has not yet been written. If they are worthy of an article and there is a NPOV problem, it's a matter of article cleanup. Richard001 (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Serre and Alain Connes, two of the most distinguished living mathematicians, have written highly influential books, some of which are not even mentioned on their BLP pages. Both are Fields medallists, professors at the College de France, etc, etc. The research of these authors is largely covered by mathematics WP articles, without separate articles for their books, even when they contain highly original and important new ideas. It is not clear why that should be any different here. Two sentences or a short paragraph would presumably amply summarise the content of Lynn's book. Of course the book might provoke fresh controversy in the new countries to which he has applied his methods; in time this might make the book notable in its own right. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You have some strange ideas on summarizing books, Mathsci. You can't summarize any book in "two sentences". The only reason for not having an article on a book is (1) it isn't notable or (2) nobody has gotten around to writing one. Richard001 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)