User talk:Futurebird/Archive 4

More arguments

See if you can make use of this:

There are three major schools of psychometric interpretation and only one supports the view of g and IQ. 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; Sternberg 2004). L. L. Thurstone in the 1930’s demonstrated that g’ can not have inherent reality, for it emerges in one form of mathematical representation for correlations among tests and disappears in other forms, which are entirely equivalent in amount of information explained (Also see Flynn, 2000; Guttman, 1992; Gould, 1994; McGuire & Hirsch, 1977; Schonemann, 1992, Sternberg 2000).

Further, IQ measures are only valid or predictive given a particular application and for a limited range of tasks. They have differential validity both across and within persons, depending on circumstances. The scores are not all encompassing indicators of a person’s ability. Sternberg et al found that students identified as “gifted” are often not particularly high in Creative insight skills and that many that are high in these skills are not identified as gifted (Sternberg, 2001).

In a series of collaborations with Richard Wagner, Wendy Williams, Joseph Horvath and George Forsythe, Robert Sternberg found that tests of practical abilities among adults show virtually no correlation with IQ-like, analytical abilities across domains – “in the case of academics, such things as productivity, citation rates, attendance at professional meetings and quality ratings of institutions which one is teaching.” This finding is particularly interesting, to me, because Sternberg’s tests of practical abilities predict various criteria of job success over and above those obtained from IQ tests.

The prediction is not only for academics. In a study of business executives conducted at the Center of Creative Leadership, Wagner and Sternberg found that the best predictor of performance on two managerial simulations was their own tests of practical intelligence, followed then by conventional IQ-like tests, and then various personality measures (See Stenberg, 2001 -"What should we ask about Intelligence?").

Moreover, what is intelligence? Is intelligence, fundamentally, 1 important thing (Spearman, 1904), 3 things (Sternberg 1988), 7 things (Gardner, 1983), 10 things (Gardner 1999), 120 things (Guildford, 1967), or even 150 or more things (Guilford, 1982)? 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.

Since you bring up race differences in the United States how would it make you feel to know that black children in the UK actually do equal if not better on IQ tests than the white population (Bhattacharyya, Ilson, Blair, 2000). That is, IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and other western countries are virtually non-existent. In fact, Blacks of African descents in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations (Bhattacharyya, Ilson, Blair, 2000). According to the London daily times (January, 23, 1994, as reported in Stringer and McKie 1997:190; Re-reported by Smedley in Lieberman 2001:p87) “Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.”

In the U.S. Black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians (See Logan & Dean, 2003). A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children actually showed black children to have higher IQs than white and mixed children. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (James R. Flynn, 1980; Richard E. Nisbett, 1994; Also see, The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

Black/white IQ differences in the U.S. are not as drastic as some would have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (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. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement. Further, there is evidence that the difference is closing, still (Flynn, 2002). There are also highly convincing arguments presented from a sociological/anthropological perspective that deal with the idea of forced immigrants and counter cultures.

Bias

Instruments developed to quantify smartness are culturally based and cannot simply be "transplanted" to a culture with different values (Greenfield, 1997). 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 is a culturally, socially, and ideologically rooted concept. It could scarcely be otherwise, as this index is intended to predict success in a given society (i.e., in a large social group carrying its own set of values). (The Predictive value of IQ- Sternberg et al; Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 47, 2001)

How's it going?

I wrote this up in response to an IQ question that came up in an online Evolutionary Psychology group I'm a part of. I hope you can make use of it...You will see a lot of the information I have left here, before - but there is MUCH new information and references, and this time in composed form... Just edit where necessary. : )

(If you would like the Journal names where my references are located, just leave me a message)

READ:

There have been several studies that have done just that (improve scores). IQ is a form of developing competencies, and not neccesarialy an inborn unchanging/unchangable quality. For example it has been suggested that each additional month in school may increase a student’s IQ when compared with the IQ expected had the student dropped out of School (Ceci, 1991). There are several other examples like this... Further, IQ measures are only valid or predictive given a particular application and for a limited range of tasks. They have differential validity both across and within persons, depending on circumstances.

IQ tests cannot capture the dynamic nature of intelligence and they cannot predict what people are capable of learning in the future with education and effort. The inventors of the IQ did not believe they were measuring fixed intelligence. Alfred Binet had a radical malleable theory of intelligence. He believed that students' intelligence could be transformed through education. David Wechsler, who developed another IQ test, wrote that the IQ scores are influenced by many factors including students' personality and diligence.

There is also the meta-question of: What is intelligence? Is intelligence, fundamentally, 1 important thing (Spearman, 1904), 3 things (Sternberg 1988), 7 things (Gardner, 1983), 10 things (Gardner 1999), 120 things (Guildford, 1967), or even 150 or more things (Guilford, 1982)? Nobody has adequately defined the notion of intelligence in any meaningful way, and so to draw conclusion based on the results from paper and pencil tests dealing almost exclusively with language and math skills, such as the IQ test, is not only arbitrary in nature, but is also fundamentally bias.

Robert Sternberg and his colleagues asked 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. Further, 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. Traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning.

The Berkeley Guidance study (Honzik, Macfarlane & Allen, 1948) investigated the stability of IQ test performance over 12 years. The authors reported that nearly 60% of the sample changed by 15 IQ points or more from 6 to 18 years of age. A similar result was found in the Fels study (Sontag, Baker & Nelson, 1958): Nearly two thirds of the children changed more than 15 IQ points from age 3 to age 10. Researchers also investigated the so-called intelligence lability score, which is a child’s standard deviation from his or her own grand mean IQ. Bayley (1949), in the Berkeley Growth study, detected very large individual differences in lability across the span of 18 years. Rees and Palmer (1970) combined the data from five large-scale longitudinal studies, selecting those participants who had scores at both age 6 and age 12 or at both age 12 and age 17. They found that about 30% of the selected participants changed by 10 or more IQ points (See, Sternberg 2001 – PredictiveValueofIQ)... These studies demonstrate very well just how malleable these scores can be. That is, a person's IQ score is not set in stone! 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).

Tests of intelligence were originally devised specifically to predict educational achievement. The correlations between IQ scores and both school grades and achievement test scores average about .40 to .50 (school grades are the best predicator of later academic success, not IQ!) but have different ranges for different samples, different tests, and different areas of achievement. The relations may be lower for specific populations. In a sample of 127 students enrolled in a private day school located in a large metropolitan area, the correlations ranged from .11 to .22 with the median of .18 (Novak, Tsushima, & Tsushima, 1991).

In a series of collaborations with Richard Wagner, Wendy Williams, Joseph Horvath and George Forsythe, Robert Sternberg found that tests of practical abilities among adults show virtually no correlation with IQ-like, analytical abilities across domains – “in the case of academics, such things as productivity, citation rates, attendance at professional meetings and quality ratings of institutions which one is teaching.” This finding is particularly interesting, to me, because Sternberg’s tests of practical abilities predict various criteria of job success over and above those obtained from IQ tests.

The prediction is not only for academics. In a study of business executives conducted at the Center of Creative Leadership, Wagner and Sternberg found that the best predictor of performance on two managerial simulations was their own tests of practical intelligence, followed then by conventional IQ-like tests, and then various personality measures (See Stenberg, 2001 -"What should we ask about Intelligence?")."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Back Again

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you to improve the "Race & Intelligence" page. If you would like me to start writing sections that might be helpful, just let me know. I will write and then leave them on this page (Your talk page) - So that you can edit and then include them in the actual "Race and Intelligence" article. (That article makes me sick!)

L. L. Thurstone in the 1930’s stated that g’ can not have inherent reality, for it emerges in one form of mathematical representation for correlations among tests and disappears (or greatly attenuates) in other forms, which are entirely equivalent in amount of information explained (Curveball, Stephen J. Gould, 1995).

All of these sources call the reality of G' into serious question:

Guttman, L (1992) The irrelevance of factor analyis for the study of group differences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27.

McGuire, T.R. & Hirsch, J. (1977). General Intelligence (g) and heritability (H2, h2).

Schoenemann, P. (1992). Second round commentary on Guttman. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27.

Schoenemann, P. (2001). Better never than late: Peer review and the preservation of prejudice. Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 3.

Information

I really appreciate what you're doing!! I once tried to take it upon myself to change the Wikipedia page on Race and Intelligence (among other obviously racist pages) months ago, but found myself confound be a seemingly endless set of rules and regulations that I had little time to learn and/or administer. Much of the information that I have provided you with has been sent directly to me from researchers such as Robert Sternberg, Frederic Weizmann and others. I would be more than happy to send you this information in raw form on request.

For the time being, you might want to check out these sources:

- MCDONALD, G. (1989) The normal curve of intelligence: Is this a representation of promotion patterns? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Heretaunga.

- MCDONALD, G. (1993) Ages, stages and evaluation: The demography of the classroom, Evaluation and Research in Education, 7:3, 143-154.

- MCDONALD, G. (1998) "Working its magic"? IQ rise and the demography of the classroom, Oxford Review of Education, 24:2, 225-234.

- MCDONALD, G. (1999) Comparing school systems to explain enduring birth date effects, (re-submitted to Compare).

- NEISSER, U. (Ed.) The Rising Curve. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association.

- SHUEY, A. (1966) The Testing of Negro Intelligence, New York, Social Science Press (2nd edition). First published 1958. <~~ The book containing most of the info used in Arthur Jensen's original argument - It's also rife with questionable methodology and statistics.

- Sternberg, R. (2004) Culture and Intelligence, D.C. American Psychological Association, (Presidential Addresses)

Take it easy, Charles*

P.S., You might also want to try emailing Robert Sternberg, yourself. He is exceptionally helpful: Robert.Sternberg@tufts.edu. In my experience most educators are willing to offer at least a little assistance.

Thanks again, Futurebird!!

Information

Note: the information about racial distributions of IQ on the "Race and Intelligence" page is wrong, especially with respect to Blacks and Asians. Further, there is no acceptable citation listing the source of the Jewish data… In fact, most studies listing racial distributions of IQ are either hotly disputed or based on absurd methodology. There should be no place for such numbers on this page! This is beside the fact that IQ is not a fixed number.

You will find more information about this in list of studies and arguments I’ve listed below. (Most of the info has not been organized and is in loose form.)

- The list -

IQ differences between black and white populations in the UK and elsewhere are virtually non-existent. In fact, Blacks of African descents in the UK, on average, earn more money and obtain higher levels of education than the native white populations (Bhattacharyya, Ilson, Blair, 2000). According to the London daily times (January, 23, 1994, as reported in Stringer and McKie 1997:190; Re-reported by Smedley in Lieberman 2001:p87) “Black Africans have emerged as the most highly educated members of British society, surpassing even the Chinese as the most academically successful ethnic minority.”

In the U.S. Black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians (See Logan & Dean, 2003).

Tobias (1970) listed a number of difficulties involved in measuring and making meaningful comparisons of brain weight. These included equating subjects on age, sex, body size, temperature etc. In addition, brain development is plastic, and brain size may be affected by early environmental factors. Because of all these difficulties, Tobias (1970) concluded that no adequate racial comparative studies had actually been conducted.

Interestingly enough, the brain size of American blacks reported in Tobias’s summary were larger than any white group, (which include American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the 77 national groups measured), and American blacks were estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et. 1990).

Ironically, many of the racial researchers of today who make claims about racial differences in brain size cite Tobias (1970) as one of their main sources while ignoring the findings reported in his work; I.E. Blacks on average had larger brains than virtually all other population groups!

The main correlation with brain size is height/size; because of this the average black/white brain is certainly larger than the average Asian brain (not proportionally, but in Absolute terms) – (see, Tobias 1970; Weizmann, 1990; Cernovsky, Z.Z., 1992; Gould, 1981; Peters, 1991, 1993, 1995b, 1996, Peters et al.,1998; Schoenemann et al., 2000; Lieberman, 2001) . Witelson’s, Kigar’s and Thomas’ (1999) examination of Albert Einstein’s brain illustrates that something more complicated than a brain’s size relates to it’s owner’s intelligence. They compared Einstein’s brain with an average specimen from a sample 35 intact, control brains. Einstein’s brain has about the same dimensions and the same weight as the comparison brain. However, in areas specific to Einstein’s unique skills, his brain was quite different. This leads one to believe that it is overall brain structure and not brain size that determines one’s intellectual strengths.

If you are interested in learning about the nature and nurture of brain development I suggest researching the work of Joan Stiles (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscientist, UCSD).

You may also view a presentation of her work, here: <a href="http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5991955507070826102&q=joan+stiles">The nature and nurture of brain development</a>

There is also research that shows people with higher IQ scores to be lacking in skills relating to Practical Intelligence (See Sternberg 2001, and 2004). That is, IQ and Practical intelligence skills correlate negatively. Further, Sternberg demonstrates that tests of Practical intelligence are better at predicting job performance and real world success.

Leon J. Kamin (Bell Curve Wars, 1995 p.92): “Extensive practice at reading and calculating does affect, very directly, one's IQ score.” ………………………………………..

Race and Genetics:

- A study conducted by Tizard and colleagues involving Caribbean children showed that there was no genetic basis for IQ differences between black & whites. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, and White 103 (James R. Flynn, 1980. Richard E. Nisbett, 1994. Also see, The Bell Curve wars, 1995).

- IQ differences in the U.S. are not as drastic as some would have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points (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. The truth is blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.

- In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991, 2002), 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 tended to under perform academically and on conventional psychometric tests in contrast to the former groups mentioned (See Flynn, 1991).

- Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children. Co-investigators include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

- Osbonre and Suddick (1971, as reported in Loehlin, 1975) attempted to use 16 blood-groups genes known to have come from European ancestors. Testing two samples the authors found that the correlation

What is intelligence? Is intelligence, fundamentally, 1 import thing (Spearman, 1904), 3 things (Sternberg 1988), 7 things (Gardner, 1983), 10 things (Gardner 1999), 120 things (Guildford, 1967), or even 150 or more things (Guilford, 1982)?

Thorndike, Hagen & Sattler (1986) point out the extent to which the history of intelligence is in part a battle over names.

“Perhaps the best way to achieve coherence in the field of intelligence is to recognize that no single correct “model” or “approach” is evident and that different ones elucidate different aspects of a very complex phenomenon (Sternberg, 2003).”

Wagner (1978) had Moroccan and North American individuals remember patterns of Oriental rugs and others remember pictures of everyday objects, such as a rooster and a fish. Moroccans who have long experience in the rug trade seemed to remember rug patterns better than the North American individuals.

Serpell (1979) had Zambian and English children perform a number of tasks. He found that English children did better on a drawing task, but that Zambian children did better on a wire-shaping task

Lave (1988) Showed that housewives in Berkeley California who could successfully do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping were unable to do the same mathematics when they were placed inside a classroom environment.

Sternberg et al found that students identified as “gifted” are often not particularly high in Creative insight skills and that many that are high in these skills are not identified as gifted (Sternberg, 2001).

When traditionalists discuss what we know about intelligence, they are really discussing, from the revolutionary point of view, only a narrow part of intelligence. They are answering questions, perhaps, about IQ more than about intelligence, broadly conceived (Sternberg, 2001).

Robert Sternberg (2001) and Howard Gardner (1999) and various others believe intelligence can be modified and have done research supporting this view.

Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) studied a group of Brazilian street children. The investigation found that the same children who are able to do the mathematics needed to run their street businesses were often unable to do mathematics in a formal setting.

The Berkeley Guidance study (Honzik, Macfarlane & Allen, 1948) investigated the stability of IQ test performance over 12 years. The authors reported that nearly 60% of the sample changed by 15 IQ points or more from 6 to 18 years of age. A similar result was found in the Fels study (Sontag, Baker & Nelson, 1958): Nearly two thirds of the children changed more than 15 IQ points from age 3 to age 10. Researchers also investigated the so-called intelligence lability score, which is a child’s standard deviation from his or her own grand mean IQ. Bayley (1949), in the Berkeley Growth study, detected very large individual differences in lability across the span of 18 years. Rees and Palmer (1970) combined the data from five large-scale longitudinal studies, selecting those participants who had scores at both age 6 and age 12 or at both age 12 and age 17. They found that about 30% of the selected participants changed by 10 or more IQ points.

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).

IQs today are virtually never computed as quotients, but rather as scores derived from properties of normal statistical distributions. And they are based on a notion of intelligence that many believe in the field should be recognized as outdated (Sternberg, 2001 p4)

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).

“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. 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).

In Kenya, those schoolchildren whose traditional skills are most prized by the community tend to do least well in school tests (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Sternberg, Nokes, et al., in press). In Brazil, street children who run a successful street business typically fail mathematics in the school setting (Ceci & Roazzi, 1994). In the West, school-based tests show correlations with career success, but they are also major gatekeepers of academic and vocational routes to advancement (Sternberg, 1997).

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).”

Instruments developed to quantify smartness are culturally based and cannot simply be "transplanted" to a culture with different values (Greenfield, 1997).

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), "

Scientists Richard Lewontin, Ruth Hubbard, and Howard Taylor have conclusively demonstrated that there is no scientific basis for any claims of a genetic, hereditary component of variations in "intelligence."

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, maybe it's a coincidence, but when I ask people what it takes to be successful on the job or in a personal relationship and what it takes to be successful on one of these tests, or in an introductory classroom, the overlap is probably about 10% (Robert Sternberg, interview with Frontline).

IQ is a culturally, socially, and ideologically rooted concept. It could scarcely be otherwise, as this index is intended to predict success (i.e., to predict outcomes that are valued as success by most people) in a given society (i.e., in a large social group carrying its own set of values). IQ has been most studied where it was invented and where it is most appreciated, that is, in the established market economies and especially in the United States. Oddly enough, the country where its testing originated--France--largely ignores it. (The Predictive value of IQ- Sternberg et al; Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 47, 2001)

The situation of testing itself (e.g., communicating with strangers regarding things and issues that lack context and that might appear to be meaningless) often results in the collection of unreliable data (e.g., Glick, 1968).

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

views on smartness vary in different cultures; the majority of these views do not match Western views (Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Sternberg, 1997).

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).

AMA request

Main page: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Futurebird

See: User talk:Futurebird/AMA request:Race and intelligence

Sources

The Roots of the I.Q. Debate: Eugenics and Social Control By Margaret Quigley, The Public Eye, 1995 http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/034.html

RaceSci: History of Race in Science: In Media http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1084881,00.html http://www.racesci.org/in_media/weighing_brains_next.htm

Lieberman

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf

Page 70, the "Changing racial hierarchies" table 1.

--JereKrischel 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I sympathise with you. It might sound a bit rich coming from me after my "wobble" (pun intended) a couple of weeks ago, but try to stay calm and focussed. I think you are doing a great job, you are certainly making some excellent contributions. There's always going to be people who want to push a pov or include strange info in articles. I must admit to being astounded at the amount of people that have racialist or racist opinions, maybe I live in an Ivory Tower, but I had thought that people with racist views represented a tiny insignificant minority of nutcases, but since being on Wikipedia I have become concerned that racialism/racism are the norm and it is people like you and me who are the minority. I find this really quite disturbing, are we so witless as a species? Maybe it's just that Wikipedia is the sort of project that attracts people with an agenda and so certain types of people are over-represented here. I console myself with this reasoning. Anyway, I just want to say that your work is very much appreciated by this wikipedian, I think we do not always support and encourage each other enough.

(barnstar on userpage.)

Nice work on R&I!

Just a note of thanks-- I was a heavy editor on that a couple of years ago, and I was feeling a bit outnumbered at the time. It seems as if there's a better mix right now, and I have seen you bring up a number of excellent points. I may jump in at some future point with some thoughts on keeping the intro short and focused, but for now, I wanted to thank you for all your efforts! Jokestress 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IQATWON

Nice criticism of the book in the link. I will add it to the article.Ultramarine 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your photos

I came upon your user page by accident, but I feel I should tell you: your photographs, especially the one of the freedom tunnel, are gorgeous. Admirable work indeed, and thanks for sharing them. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolling...

All is well.

I've been following the discussions at R&I since August. Already the fact that Gottfredson is so central to that talk page speaks volumes. It's the type of unattractive debate on an unattractive article I shy from entering. But maybe the struggle itself is enough to fill one's heart, and one must imagine Sisyphos happy. I admire your efforts and would like to imagine you and equally rational-minded editors happy, inspite of the rolling, rolling, rolling ....---Sluzzelin 06:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Editing

I agree. Working on articles is usually fun and productive.Ultramarine 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, much of what I am quickly adding is simply material that has beem lost since the last time I looked at the article.Ultramarine 12:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I Outline

This is good stuff:

• Race and intelligence (history) - For the history of this topic.
• Race and intelligence (Research) - Meta-topic on research

• Race and intelligence (Average gaps among races)

• Race and intelligence (test data)

• Race and intelligence (Explanations)
• Race and intelligence (Utility of research)
• Race and intelligence (Potential for bias)

• Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) - How Race and intelligence have been seen in media.
• Race and intelligence (Controversies) - is this the same as "Potential for bias" ...

Please see my recent edits to Race and intelligence, and my comments. --Uncle Ed 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Null Source

http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

Race and intelligence (explanation)

Regarding your question, I feel that a new introduction should be written. I believe that a more concise and brief paragraph could replace the old intro. I think that the original intro., which have been moved to lead, should be left there. Of course, if you disagree, you can talk to the person who moved the original introduction, discuss the issue and perhaps make a compromise. Stephenchou0722 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Graphs

Thanks! I found the picture in a CDC report so it is public domain. If you want to illustrate the results from a study, then it is possible to use for example the spreadsheet in OpenOffice. However, it takes some time and practice to learn and use.Ultramarine 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice graph! Ultramarine 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Nice job with the poll at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, it's the first one that is actually working :P. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

A recent 1996 study using multiple socio-economic factors have accounted for 80% of the gap, and suggest that any remaining gap is statistically insignificant. Ethnic Differences in Children's Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home Environment, and Maternal Characteristics, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn; Pamela K. Klebanov; Greg J. Duncan Child Development, Vol. 67, No. 2. (Apr., 1996), pp. 396-408.]

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

comment from mediation

at the mediation page you wrote: Race and intelligence research still needs it's own subarticle. -- what would that entail specifically? for example, i contrasted two views of what that would mean, one of which i thought sounded fine. kevin seems to have suggested a third version of that. --W.R.N. 19:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy

User: CoYep is at it again at Black supremacy. Now, SNCC was a black supremacist organization. Edit-warring. Your attention assistance are needed. deeceevoice 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and the for-crap charges against SNCC pretty comprehensively, I think. But there are other CoYep reverts that still need attention -- when you have a moment. Peace. deeceevoice 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the Civil Rights Movement section. The article introduction, as well as the section on "Nature" also need your watchful eye. There are some anonymous sock puppets operating to reinforce CoYep's edit warring, and I don't want to violate the 3RR. This isn't to say the other parts of the article don't also need attention; they do. It's the same old, antagonistic POV agenda at work here. Same old actors. deeceevoice 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles on racism

These articles could go on forever;) Taramoon 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, I was reading that article again. I'm getting the impression that the editors are basically looking for the "negative" without explaining the background, or the time-lines to this media-image thing. I can get loads of really upbeat material that would transform the article in it's totality. Taramoon 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I

I suggest resurrecting sections from older versions. The lede for example was fine a long time ago. Its tweaked now. -Ste|vertigo 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [1] Just picking on out of the stack. -Ste|vertigo 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested it because at a glance its tone appears to be neutral and balanced. It would not be NPOV to pick and choose based on the criteria you describe, research and learning is after all what Wikpedia is about. It is the interpretations which are controversal, and the proper thing to do is to explain the controversy. I agree that there is subject matter that makes itself appear more legitimate by cloaking itself in the air of research and science. I dont think this needs to be a problem, as the research can only be offered as a snapshot of a particular context. Given that snapshot, any criticism of it can then be described. -Ste|vertigo 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against the bell curve are tangential and best dealt there. Arguments central to the concepts of race and intelligence are of course the ones you want to focus on. I disagree with your idea of "not stating arguments in the intro" though in this case its probably best to just refer to the concept in general as controversial. My sense is that the "research focused" version could be made more readable if it simply had a good overview section. I guess Im going to actually have to read the article and some revision history now. :) -Ste|vertigo 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought. When you use a word like "numerous" youre going to get flagged for citations. See WP:WTA -Ste|vertigo 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like to tinker. :) -Ste|vertigo 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A competition for the leading image of the Prophet Muhammad

I have put a template here as to how we should resolve the dispute. Please leave a comment regarding this on my talk page. If you like this template please don't put it up yourself. I am looking for some sort of concensus. If you don't like the template please leave a suggestion for improving it.Bless sins 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope of African Diaspora Project

Hi,

thanks for your nice message. I am sorry it took so long to reply, but the longer I think about the topic the more complicated it appears, so I think you should define the scope widely. The topic is interesting in the sense that it becomes more complicated the longer you look into it. A reason more to work on it :-) I am sorry I can only offer questions and don't have answers.

One thing that appeared to me is that it might be necassary to include inner-African migrations. There has been slave trade inside Africa and it still exists now. If an African is talken as a slave to, say, Lebanon, then he/she would count as part of the African diaspora. But what about somebody broght as a slave from southern Sudan to northern Sudan? On the other hand, if Africa is not treated as a black box and such cases are included in the African diaspora concept, then where do we put the limit? I have a Cameroonian brother in law who is living here in Germany. On the other hand, my Cameroonian sister in law is living in south Africa. Her situation is very similar to that of her brother. So where to put inner-African migration (slaves, refugies etc.). The Sudan example shows that it might even be migration inside a country. I am also not sure if Africans who leave Africa would consider themselves as parts of a diaspora. Some of the subclassifications also seem problematic to me. E.g. my "step-grandson" here has a liberian mother and a turkish father. He speaks German and Turkish fluently. Is he an afro-turk or an afro-german (or an Afro-American, since his mother is now in the US)? There are just so many different biographies, so definitions should not be to rigid.

Another question is if African diaspora should be defined a a cultural or a racial concept. My opinion is that races do not really exist outside racist ideologies. So for example, if a child of an African grows up in an exclusively German environment (e.g. an adopted child or a child of a father who left when the child was a baby) migth not be considered part of the African diaspora at all (?). On the other hand, there are people who don't have recent African ancestors but are socialized in an environment containing a lot of African or Afro-American elements, so culturally they might be much more African than the adopted child.

You may consider starting a research project on Wikiversity and then try to get people working there. I have just started a Division of African Philosophy, a v:Topic:African History and an Institute of History of Racism. However, I cannot do all of the work, a lot of people are needed to fill these pages with content.Nannus 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations)

Why did you delete "Other Factors" ? futurebird 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13 25 February 2007 (GMT).

Cool (aesthetic)

You had me laughin'. I see u on it! I was in the process of reverting/editing the anonymous editor's changes of my earlier version, and I got caught in an edit conflict, and I'm thinkin', "Gottdamned edit warriors!" But it wuz u. :) I made some changes. I put the Africa section first, rather than dead last. (We know what that's about -- don't we?) The reasoning I offered up was not that that's where the whole freakin' thing started in the first place -- which it is -- but that I'm taking the geographical areas alphabetically. Besides, it makes sense to begin with the section with the most information. All the other sections, which the anonymousu editor divided into subheads are ridiculously brief and wholly uncited. I started out deleting the subheads, but I figured that would just invite more edit warring. So, I retained the subsections, but pointedly marked them as "section stubs" and affixed "citation"/"fact" tags to the unsubstantiated assertions. Let's see what they do with that. Thanks for your continued vigilance there. :p

Ur makin' me feel bad about not getting to the race and intelligence article. (I dread dealing with it, plus I've got some deadlines I'm dealing with.) But I'll get there. Bless. :) deeceevoice 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sis. I see you've been holding down the fort at Talk: Cool (aesthetic). See my comments here.[2] Bless. :) deeceevoice 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

IFD two curve bell?

The discussion period was over and based on the discussion I decided to keep the image, so I removed the IFD tag. I forgot to note the decision. Sorry about that. I'll fix. -Nv8200p talk 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request a deletion review. The process is for appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion. -Regards Nv8200p talk 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is GFDL and still in use, if only on talk pages. If the new image obsoletes the old image then all uses of the old image need to be replaced by the new image. If the old image is orphaned then there would be no need for it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to wait any longer that I can see. I deleted the image. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

huh?

please desist from "vandalism" warnings. it is uncivil. if you've got comments, make them on the talk page.

it is ok to remove inappropriate or overly long cited material. the "cool" article has a long portion of information from one authors book. it also seems fairly clear that someone (not you) is trying to make the african portion much more prominent than the other sections, lengthening it, placing it first in the article, collapsing all other cultures into "the west". you may have noticed her notes to you talking about "they" and "us" and that this particular editor thinls black supremacy isnt racist and has expressed approval when a professor called for the descruction of white people. your work here is in general fantastic, but perhaps your scolding would best be directed elsewhere...

waddya think? maybe its time to turn a sightful eye towards the editor calling people crackers and approving of ethnic cleansing?

Check this out

[3] JJJamal 11:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent

excellent graphs on race and intelligence. the visual effect of the page no longer strikes me as hereditarian, and the number of minds you've "de-prejudiced" (for lack of a better word) is difficult to underestimate. thank you!--Urthogie 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the discussion page of the draft.--Urthogie 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Black supremacy

I strenuously disagree. See my comments here.[4] deeceevoice 09:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

your confusion

I was referring to WRN's comment made shortly after I unprotected the page, at 8:40, Feb. 15, which should be here. By the way, on January 29th you told me that "Sometimes I wonder if anyone even understands what's wrong with this article... this whole experience is making me physically ill." and on Feb 10th you expressed your fears about systematic bias. How do you feel now? At the time I meant to encourage you to trust the process (and keep participating in it) and assure you that it is possible to turn it into a non-racist article. I am sorry if I was not always as supportive as I perhaps should have been though you seem quite capable of fighting your own battles. Anyway, I'd like to know if you still feel the same way, and if you still have concerns about the process and the policies here. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole category, unfortunately, gives one reason for despair, as well as something like "race science". I don't know what to do with articles such as Height and intelligence, Ashkenazi intelligence, pseudo-graphs such as [5] or [6], Height and intelligence (I couldn't believe my eyes at that one! the rest is just simple, old, outrageous racism that poses as "scientifical", but I didn't believe one could actually imagine such a test, notwithstanding the non-sense of "IQ test" - true, I couldn't imagine before that 21st century "scientists" still tried to prove colonialist theories...) I can't believe my eyes I what I am reading just now at craniometry; do real people have actually revived these old terms of dolichocephalic and brachycephalic? this reminds of An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853 - sic) or of Boulainvilliers (17th century). But I fear there is not much way to struggle against this soapbox use of Wikipedia and of WP:SYNT which claims to be in accordance with WP:VERIFIABILITY... The Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation is another outrageous article... I don't know. But it seems that, if I haven't had right now the courage to read all of "Race & intelligence" entry, at least the lead has been preserved from total racist POV. And there are some good articles, such as Human zoo, a sad thing that, seeing current "scientific studies", is maybe not a thing of the past... Let's fly for a better future! Tazmaniacs 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm prompted me to clean-up a bit Craniometry. I hope you'll help me keep it in its current state! Cheers! Tazmaniacs

So you motivated me for some general clean-up! I do think the best solution is to merge these two articles. Reading your page on graffiti reminds me, funny, that time when I was really drunk & decided to vandalize the Vandalism article by adding that stuff about Nietzsche and the quote "The criminal fight against culture is only the reverse side of a criminal culture" - something which incredibly has not moved since... In any way, it had been some times I had not read stuff on racist issues, and I was improving the Georges Vacher de Lapouge article, which made me discover surprising things (not that much, but I didn't know Lapouge also thought that) concerning races & classes. I'll try to see if anything's interesting in [7], and recently went out of my way to resume the nice The Race Question from UNESCO. I don't know if you've read Lévi-Strauss' "Race and History", but it is a must-read, 50 pages of pure brightness... Cheers, you surely are not alone in that fight (but I've been despaired in others pages, such as Ma'ale Adummim, just too much intolerant editors to find any consensus...) Venga! Tazmaniacs 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts!

Thanks so much for the reverts at the Delta page. I have all NPHC pages watched, because there is a vandal named User:Mykungfu who causes disruption with the NPHC pages, along with the occasional neophytes who just want to vandalize each others fraternities/sororities for which ever reason that they deem possible. Cheers. Real96 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the sourcing in that RfC [8]

And I love the poety on your user page ... it's so moving. It's been an uphill battle to get that information included and I really appreicate the support. You got a sister in Palestine my friend. Tiamut 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Population estimates

Hi Futurebird

I think some population information is useful because it is very much connected with race relations. For example one reason why many black people come come to New York is that it is more tolerant. About one fourth of New York is of African descent so nobody is surprised to see a black person. Imagine one black person in an all white town, they would stick out like a sour thumb.Muntuwandi 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence

I generally agree with all your comments. If you see a consistent pattern of POV pushing that includes deleting and reverting material you add that you are sure complies with our core policies of NPOV, NOR, and V, then my suggestion is to lay out the basic facts and take it to the mediator, Killer Chihuahua - who should care about these matters. I personally think Wikipedia will never live up to its aspirations (for reasons all to clear to you) BUT I also know it will increasingly be the first place high school and college students go to find out about stuff and for that reason it is important for well-intentioned and knowledgable people to do their part. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You might like this

Something interesting you might like. A computer model has predicted that the most recent common ancestor for all humans alive today lived about 3500 years ago. They also predicted that everyone alive 7400 years ago is the direct ancestor of everyone alive today, so all humans that ever lived before 7400 years ago are direct ancestors of all of us.[9] I'm not entirely surprised by this myself, but it's still interesting. Do you think you might find any use for this information? I think it illustrates nicely the fact that as a species we are descended from a global population that was very small until very recently. I worked out that if we take our (theoretical) ancestors from say 1000 years ago (say 40 generations), each of us is descended from 2⁴⁰ people from that time, that is 1.1 trillion people (1.1x10¹²), obviously this is far larger than the population of the world at that time (or even today!!), so we are all multiply descended from our ancestors from that time. So the results of the computer simulation do not seem all that strange. I'm still feeling a bit unhappy here, I think I'm going to concentrate on just a couple of articles at the moment. I can't keep my temper when dealing with certain issues and I don't think that's a good thing. How are things with you at the moment? By the way I like your user page picture. All the best. Alun 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Rbaish

FYI, it seems to me that some of your complaints about this user would be better addressed in an RfC on him, or requests for arbitration/mediation -- particularly if the sockpuppetry charge doesn't prove valid. This guy needs to be prevented from vandalizing articles and twisting them with his racist, right-wing political agenda. deeceevoice 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• [10] Importantly, an RfC can lead to an ArbCom case, which can result in this guy being banned from editing certain articles, which might seem to be the most useful way of dealing with this guy's repeated and NPOV blatant skewing of articles, edit warring and section blanking to serve a racist agenda. deeceevoice 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't care less? That makes two of us! lol I honestly don't know if he was involved or not. I didn't pay the process a whole lot of attention, to tell you the truth, which is why I just noticed how ridiculous the POV charges where the other day; I hadn't read the b.s. before. I had complete contempt for the entire process; it was a witch hunt. I somehow don't remember Rbaish until after that process was complete. I don't think he was editing then, though -- at least not under that name. I have a tendency not to notice user names much. For my money, frankly, the anonymous I.P. user could be User: CoYep or User: Justforasecond (despite the fact his user page says he's "retired," he continues to edit from time to time under that name) -- or any one of a number of people. deeceevoice 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

futurebird, this is very unusual. you call editors about minor misbehavior whenever you see it. 3rrs, sockpuppet things, messages on talk pages. why is that deeceevoice doesn't bother you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I have added the appropriate tag, just follow the instructions in the tag and you are set. Teke ^(talk) 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

stalled

at the mediation page I wrote: FB's comment re: But, Race and intelligence research still needs it's own subarticle. -- there are now a number of permutations on that idea. Can you give a specific suggestion? --W.R.N. 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)