User talk:MjolnirPants/RnI FYI

IQ

This draft falls at the first fence. IQ is a measure of performance in IQ tests, which are culturally biased. It then says that "different races have different average IQs" and a few points further on admits that 'race' is a construct. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Group differences are well established, as you can verify at our articles and their sources. The scientific consensus is that those group differences are the result of environmental effects, which includes the cultural biases of the IQ tests. You're not contradicting anything in the FYI. You might note that the FYI never claims there are group differences in intelligence, as well, because IQ is not a measure of intelligence, but of IQ. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add a second question explaining that IQ is not intelligence, to make this more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not unreasonable, however, to briefly note the limitations of IQ tests. I just made this edit: [1]. Adding: feel free to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's a good edit. I went ahead with the second question, though, as it unpacks yours a bit more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman: this is just a courtesy ping, in case you're not watching this page. Curious if the edits by Tryp and I have made things more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have a watch on it. Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm still unhappy about the first sentence, though I'm not sure of my facts because I am not familiar with all the "significant reproducible research". I am aware of some studies of small populations of the descendants of the survivors of slavery, a population that is the result of unnatural selection, where being 'too clever' or 'uppity' got you killed and your genes selected out. These studies are then extrapolated to all Africans, without any actual research being done in Africa on actual African populations. And compares peoples with equal health status (xref tropical diseases) and whole variety of extraneous factors that muddy the waters.

So the statement The broad claim that different races have different average IQs is based on significant reproducible research really needs to be founded on real research and not extrapolation from very specific population samples. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've got IQ and Human Intelligence (N. J. Mackintosh, Oxford University Press, 2001) open on my lap right now. On page 149, a chart from a paper written by Mackintosh and Mascie-Taylor, from a 1986 meta-analysis of IQ test result surveys from 1969 to 1980 shows an average difference of 16.9 points in 1969, narrowing to 8.6 points in 1986. On page 150, Mackintosh writes "We should accept, then, without further ado, that there is a difference in average IQ between blacks and whites."

Note that Mackintosh does not entertain for one second the notion that this difference is explained genetically, for a variety of reasons, including input he's gotten from geneticists. He's firmly in the "environmentalist" camp.

You can also see the following:

• https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/
• https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/06/heres-why-the-black-white-iq-gap-is-almost-certainly-environmental/
• https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html?_r=1
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/40064475?seq=1

To the best of my understanding, the current IQ gap in the UK is about the same as it was in 1980: about 8 points. In the US, it's closer to 10 points. There's more evidence out there of racial group differences, but it's on much less methodologically stable ground. Asians tend to score about 6 points higher than whites, and Ashkenazi Jews might have an average IQ anywhere from 3 to 14 points higher than whites, but that whole question is extremely fraught, and possibly moot.

If you think that question needs to be more specific, though, I can get behind that, no problem. I was aiming for a bit more "common questions whose answers plainly state generalities about the research," but we can push that more towards "a lot of specific questions with specific answers".

I'm just wary of the FYI getting so dense that it's unreadable. An FYI that doesn't answer questions from people who don't know the subject already is of absolutely no use to anyone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree totally on your last point but the converse is equally true. If the studies only looked at black Americans or British Afro-Caribbeans then not only it is fundamentally invalid to extrapolate that to all African and African-origin people but also it plays straight into the hands of racists who love to cherry-pick evidence that supports their case. For this reason, I remain strongly opposed to your current opening sentence as it stands. And btw for the record, the British studies also show that children of recent African migrants have above average attainment – but they also tend to have above average nutrition, housing and family income stability: for Afro-Caribbeans, the reverse is typically the case.

How about The broad claim that different races have different average IQs, is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of significant reproducible research? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I made this edit: [2], but anyone should feel free to change it. My intention (whether I achieved it or not) was to convey the limited research basis without getting (yet) into the assertions of deliberate misrepresentation. Those assertions do come lower down, where they are backed up with more specifics. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen an RS state that the differences in average IQs was based on a misinterpretation. In fact, the suggestion that it is undermines all of the research which has been done to determine what environmental effects are responsible and how (the adoption and twin studies come to mind).

• I understand how the claim that Black people have a lower average IQ than white people can come across as wholly wrong, but it seems to be a fact, based on the research which has been done. The implications of this fact, however, are not that Black people are less intelligent than white people, but that there are factors such as economic class, stereotype threat, cultural values, test bias and test limitations which prevent IQ from being a definitive measure of overall intelligence.

And while we're on this topic, I think the FYI might benefit from us pointing out that the IQ differences vary from country to country (they're smaller in the UK than in the US, for example), and that certain groups of Black people consistently score higher than whites on several metrics of intelligence, such as students of Nigerian origin in the UK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, so evidently I wasn't clear. I did not intend to suggest that the studies misrepresent their data and would not want any revision to suggest that. It was rather that the misrepresentation is by those who extrapolate from studies that have found that Afro-Americans have a lower IQ test performance than Euro-Americans and leap to a conclusion that that black people are on average intellectually inferior to white people, period. Now I am well aware that this is not your belief nor do you intend to say it, but that is exactly what the first sentence says: Q: Isn't there research demonstrating that there are differences in IQ between races? A: To some extent, yes.. No! There is no such evidence. The studies are of limited subsets of African-origin people in North America and Europe, almost all of whom are descendants of slavery survivors. If we are to say such a thing, it needs to be founded on very large-scale studies world-wide but at least all across Africa. The data from Nigerians in the UK should tell you that there is a serious problem with that extrapolation, as is typical of "particular to the general" inferences.

So suggestion #2: Q: Isn't there research demonstrating that there are differences in IQ between races? A: No. Although there has been significant reproducible research that has found differences between the descendants of slavery survivors in the USA and UK and their Caucasian counterparts, these results cannot be used to make any general inferences about African-origin or European-origin people in general.

Any clearer? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with using "yes" in the answer to question 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's an overstatement to say that no research exists, but it's also the case that research overall does not demonstrate it, as opposed to saying that research overall sort-of but doesn't really demonstrate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Question 1 asks about research "demonstrating" it. Maybe it would be better to talk about research "concluding" it. That way, we can differentiate better between sources that "conclude" legitimately, and those that do not. But once we start saying that something has been "demonstrated", then it gets difficult to say that it's not really demonstrated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If we have to have this question

And I accept that we do, since it is frequently asked, but does it have to come first? Of course there will still be cherry-pickers but do we have to make it easy for them by putting the cherry in the first sentence of the first reply?

I remain very dissatisfied with that reply as it stands. It still fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of research has been done on very limited population samples in the US particularly, that are highly anomalous because of unnatural selection by slavery, and are entirely unrepresentative of Africans in general. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

But I can't see how to phrase it so that it doesn't just provide a different cherry – a justification for racial discrimination in the US specifically. Sigh. Belief and evidence-based science are orthogonal: the have no common ground where logic might illuminate. so maybe we can only hope to educate high-schoolers before their beliefs are set in concrete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Q: Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ scores?

... and the proposed text still says A: yes (!)

The correct answer surely should be A: nobody knows. It is true that some studies, which sampled limited populations in a limited number of countries, found a small difference. But since it is impossible to define 'race' with any confidence, and because it is scientifically illiterate to extrapolate from these limited studies to reach any valid conclusion about world-wide populations, it is impossible to say.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer a different approach, which is what I pursued in my recent rewrite. My understanding is that the data is rather robust here, and that "race" in this context refers to self-identification, i.e. which box you check when presented with various racial options. This is of course entirely consistent with race being 100% socially constructed. But here's the crucial thing, in my view: even if we concede, e.g. that there is a (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States (to quote the Nature editorial [3]), this does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means –– i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence (as the Nature editorial also makes clear). I think the point of this item should be to explain that. Generalrelative (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection based on JMF's points, I've added a bit of nuance to my suggested text: Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. I've also added the word test to the question. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your revision is a lot better, thank you. I recognise that flat denial of the research would be counterproductive.

I had planned to ask whether we need a Q&A on environmental factors (I was thinking of childhood malnutrition and brain development) but I think maybe that your embedded link does the trick – otherwise it would mean a very large increase in scope and so risk tldr for the whole thing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense. Yeah I've been concerned about tldr as well. At least the Q&A format is helpful in that regard. Generalrelative (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey Q&A

Overall I think your FYI is very good. But there's some unclarity in the answer to the "What about X survey..." question. That answer can be read as conceding a lot, such as a close relation between IQ and "being smart", and the possibility of a very small (such as less than half an IQ point) genetic component in the white minus Black average IQ. (BTW, Hunt says perhaps 3%, but other racial hereditarians, such as Jensen, make claims way outside the 1-5% range.) But in the event that there's such a difference (too small for any scientific evidence to have yet detected), why assume that it would be in favor of whites? According to a recent source, "It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood." Since a genetic component in group IQ differences is a matter of speculation rather than science, one can equally speculate that, if whites had been treated over the last 350 years as badly as Blacks have been and if Blacks had enjoyed the privileges that whites did, then the Black-over-white IQ gap would be more than 15 points. In other words, the FYI should make it clear that there is no scientific evidence for a genetic racial difference in IQ or in intelligence. The notion that there might be a very small, as yet undetectable difference cannot be disproved. But such a difference, if it existed, could equally well favor Blacks. The racial hereditarians reject that possibility out of hand, and the racial hereditarian POV-pushers on Wikipedia get angry at the suggestion that Blacks could have a small genetic superiority to whites in intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe a new question which directly asks that question and answers it would address that. I've made exactly that edit here, let me know what you think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good, clearly written question and answer that I think was needed. Concerning the answer to the "What about survey X..." question, I don't think the part "Even assuming there's some rational basis for these estimates,... is smarter than any other" helps answer the question about the surveys. Besides the objection to the surveys that you give at the beginning of that answer, another objection is that they were conducted by people (Rindermann & coauthors) who are strong advocates of racial hereditarianism. Their obvious purpose was to "prove" that most "experts" agree with them about it. They got to choose who to consider "experts" (i.e., intelligence researchers, mainly ISIR members), what questions to ask, and how to interpret the results. Also, the response rates were low. It's likely that most of the people receiving a survey knew who the authors of the survey were, knew their purpose in sending out the survey, and would be more likely to fill it out if they agreed with that purpose than if they had a low opinion of the authors. From the standpoint of survey methodology, the surveys were badly flawed. NightHeron (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good, clearly written question and answer that I think was needed. Concerning the answer to the "What about survey X..." question, I don't think the part "Even assuming there's some rational basis for these estimates,... is smarter than any other" helps answer the question about the surveys. Yeah, I think that would do better as an addendum at the end, and be better phrased as "even if they were right, that still wouldn't constitute a link between race and intelligence. Probably trimmed down, too. It seems like a concession, when it's really just an explanation of why these guys don't understand the genetics.

Besides the objection to the surveys that you give at the beginning of that answer, another objection is that they were conducted by people (Rindermann & coauthors) who are strong advocates of racial hereditarianism. That's the objection I give at the beginning. If it doesn't seem that way to you, can you describe what the first objection seems to be? It would help me re-write it to be more clear.

Also, the response rates were low. That's a good point. I can't think of a single one that broke 100 responses, and the POV pushers have linked to dozens of them over the years.

It's likely that most of the people receiving a survey knew who the authors of the survey were, knew their purpose in sending out the survey, and would be more likely to fill it out if they agreed with that purpose than if they had a low opinion of the authors. From the standpoint of survey methodology, the surveys were badly flawed. I'm pretty sure I've typed this exact passage before, on the talk page, lol.

What I'm thinking right now are bullet pointed responses to it. I'm gonna give it a shot, let me know what you think (no link because it'll take me a little time to get it worked out). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed responses. That's the objection I give at the beginning. If it doesn't seem that way to you, can you describe what the first objection seems to be? When I read it, it seemed you were talking about the people surveyed, not the people conducting the survey. Of course, what you're saying applies to both, but it's two separate issues, that is, two separate fallacies in the surveys. (It's analogous to an opinion poll on an issue that's placed on a Fox News website by the Republican National Committee -- there are two things wrong there.) NightHeron (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

When I read it, it seemed you were talking about the people surveyed, not the people conducting the survey. Ahh, gotcha. You're absolutely right, that wasn't a failure to write well, but a failure to write it out completely. I'm working on it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I made the changes. Let me know what you think, and feel free to make edits yourself. I'm not trying to own this just because it's in my userspace right now: the plan is to move it to article space soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Latest look

I really like the addition of a summary question at the beginning. I think we're going to have to hide the answers to aid page navigation, but other than that, I'm really pleased with the way this looks right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, yeah I thought it would be good to answer the "but is there really a consensus?" question off the top, since it's been a frequent one on the talk page. Also I noticed that letter from 143 geneticists on Wade actually addressed the "no evidence" issue head-on. Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As I said above, I didn't like the grudging admission from the get go. Moving it down to Q2 is better but I'd still prefer to see it slide well down (but not last, that is probably worse!). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race?

• Rather than say "see the current article", could we {{excerpt}} its lead?
• I believe that Wikipedia consensus needs its own Q, so I split it off. Feel free to revert if you don't think it is an improvement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  John Maynard Friedman, No, I agree that's an improvement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Should this be called an FAQ rather than an FYI?

This is a minor point, but since this is organized in a question-and-answer format, shouldn't we refer to it as an FAQ rather than an FYI? Talk:Fascism, for example, also has an FAQ linked at the top of its header. I think that something similar would be good here, with a banner statement saying The scientific consensus is that no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence exists. Generalrelative (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I was just stupid when I named it, so now I keep waffling between properly calling it an FAQ and calling it an FYI out of the same stupid instinct that made me name it that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not stupid at all! This entire initiative was your good idea, for which I thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere between LOL and facepalm, I've been reading it as an FAQ all along without realizing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, Even a smart idea can have a dumbfuck execution, and my typing in the name of this page was nothing short of dumbfuck execution. lol I appreciate the support, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Relentless parade of confab

Misinformed efforts to push this FAQ in a direction that runs contrary to the oft-expressed consensus of the scientific and Wikipedia communities.

Section by section and sentence by sentence, most of this FAQ is wrong, irrelevant and unsourced. Where sourced, it fabricates statements much stronger than what the authors actually said, so as to support confabulations of what "most" geneticists and scientists think, and an imaginary consensus that is not actually apparent (because it doesn't exist) in the literature. I'll give a few examples but the problems pervade the entire document so much that it would miss the point to go through them one by one without addressing why the document is needed and whether the people writing it are highly partisan editors (on this topic) who should not be constructing FAQs about it, either at all or without extensive input from "the other side". This is long, so feel free to add replies under the bulleted paragraphs rather than after the entire set. The locus of expertise relevant to settling the question of whether race and IQ scores are likely to be genetically linked is not genetics, certainly not population genetics, but rather behavioral genetics, which despite the name is (for IQ) a branch of quantitative psychometrics, basically pure statistics. It is logically exactly the same as the demonstrations that a microbe of some sort causes cholera, smoking causes lung cancer, or the elevated risk of certain cancers in some race/ethnic group is caused by genes. In each case the cause was determined by epidemiological (ie, statistical) techniques independent of any particular medical details. Finding out how the causation works comes afterward and is a non-statistical problem of experimental science, involving medicine, genetics, bacteriology, etc. But merely determining whether genes are involved, which is the whole hereditarian-environmentalist dispute, is a simpler layer of explanation than decoding intelligence biologically, and the whole point of behavior genetics is that it takes place at this simpler statistical level that stands apart from what geneticists do. No evidence for such a connection has ever been published. Plenty of evidence has been published, the question is the strength of that evidence in its own right and in comparison to other evidence and alternative explanations. For several decades there has been an evidentiary impasse between the hereditarian and environmentalist camps, with evidence and counterarguments for both and nothing like a clear victory where one side refutes the evidence for the other. The "scientific consensus" (since Jensen's time if not earlier) has never been that there is no evidence for hereditarianism, but rather that the origin of group differences in IQ is very much an open question. How Wikipedia editors wish to treat the topic can be (and quite apparently is!) somewhat independent of what the expert literature says, but not to the point of fabricating a nonexistent consensus that the question has been essentially settled. "A statement signed by 143 senior human population geneticists states categorically that genetics research in no way supports the view that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results". This isn't the refutation you think it is. For the reasons just explained, pop-gen is not the relevant expertise for the general question of where IQ differences come from. The geneticists who signed the note were talking about a specific book by Nicholas Wade rather than the general question, and even concerning the book, the letter was carefully weasel-worded to avoid making the kind of broad claims you are trying to extract (and likely motivated by CYA panic at facing the kind of funding loss that happened to intelligence research after Jensen). The letter was entirely free of specifics, did not state that Wade's conclusions were wrong or that he made any material errors about population genetics that affect his arguments, and the only specific criticism that did eventually appear (by Marcus Feldman) was weak. The only other critics to allege specific inaccuracies in the book were Orr, Coop, and Tishkoff, whose claimed examples of error were either obviously-didn't-read-the-book falsehoods, or barely relevant. "As understanding of the human genome and the science of population genetics advances, it has become increasingly clear that race is not a biologically meaningful way to categorize human population groups." No expert has specified a functional difference, other than a superficial change of terminology, between the geneticists' clines-and-clusters, and the folk notion of races (and sub-races, sub-sub-races, and mixed ancestry from of such groups), or how accounting for such (possibly nonexistent) distinctions could materially affect any empirical question about the genetics of group differences in intelligence. "Even if we take ancestral population groups to be proxies for race, most subject-matter experts agree that cognitive differences between such such groups are unlikely to exist. A group of prominent geneticists explains why here." Nothing at that source says that "most" (or many, or some other quantifier about the population of experts) agree with that statement. "Most researchers view the idea of a genetic connection between race and intelligence as scientifically obsolete. See e.g. this statement by the editorial board of Nature." --- The source said nothing about "most" or "obsolete" and in any case does not support the idea of total rejection that your wording implies. "Extensive evidence has been published which indicates that observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups are environmental in origin. A group of leading psychologists summarizes some of these findings here." Lots of environmental and hereditarian evidence has been published, with neither side scoring a crushing blow against the other. The review you cite ignored most of the hereditarian evidence and was extremely cursory about the sliver it did consider. Citing only some cherry-picked anti-hereditarian sources that themselves are very selective in the evidence they allow might work for the article but for a talk page FAQ we are under no constraint to pretend not to know these things. Flynn effect is a red herring as it lifts all groups by very similar amounts, so has no known relevance to differences between groups, which it barely changes. It seems to be the result of worldwide changes such as vaccination, pre-school, medical/nutritional improvements, children's television or other widespread innovations that affect different groups (within one nation) at more or less the same time to approximately the same extent. "most geneticists believe that the genes which determine intelligence are likely to be evenly distributed across existing ancestral population groups, with similar patterns of variation between families and individuals within these groups.[2]" Once again, the source does not say that. "Among the minority of geneticists who believe that cognitive differences between ancestral populations are likely to exist, the consensus is that such differences must be minuscule and, further, that we currently have no indication which groups are likely to be favored by cognitive advantages." --- No source makes the strong claims in boldface. Equally likely to favor any group is equivalent to no differences in selection for intelligence, which is just repeating the point at issue. The question of whether many experts believe there was no such selection is the same as whether this imaginary consensus actually exists. Just assuming that it does, does not make it into an FAQable fact. that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry. This is circular reasoning popular with R&I Talk page stalwarts (i.e., if Intelligence and ISIR publish hereditarians they are ipso facto PROFRINGE or NAZI), not a well-documented reality. The alternative interpretation is that hereditarianism isn't FRINGE within the relevant domains of expertise, because the data point that way to some extent, so some editors are willing to publish some papers on it. Which is not to say that the parts touching on race are popular, a wise career choice, or don't attract weirdos. But psychometrics of IQ generally has more credibility and certainly more replicability than most other parts of psychology due to being quantitative with large sample sizes and dismissing it all as racism is wishful thinking to avoid the data. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck ... in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years. This is pure fabrication, and for Lynn a BLP violation. Of the people listed, only Burt and Eysenck are accused of fraud, and in neither case were the papers related to race. Burt's twin studies are related to heritability of IQ but his conclusions have been overwhelmingly confirmed by later studies. surveys are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism. Another BLP violation and unsourced R&I Talk page theory pushed as fact. I'm not sure all the surveys were even done by hereditarians (though several were), and I don't know of a single one by a known racist. Of course if you follow the talk page theory that hereditarians are ipso facto "scientific racists" then it's true by definition, but you should at least specify those are the semantics you're using. That was just a sample, the FAQ is pervaded with the same problems everywhere. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC) — Sesquivalent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I've added a note to my user page about this. As NightHeron of all users may remember, I post almost entirely as IP (73.x), and registered this account in the course of a discussion with her on the race and intelligence talk page last year. Having returned to 99.9 percent IP-posting since then, makes this account pretty much by default an SPA, but that's far from true of my personal editing history. In particular, I have not edited the R&I page or voted in NightHeron's various RfC's (because I consider them malformed and likely to cause mischief). To clarify even further, I am much less concerned with the specific content of the race-and-XYZ pages and in which direction they slant (currently: far, far, off-the-cliff left) than the emerging regime of total control by a small group of ideological users over what can be said on these subjects in Wikipedia, and the resulting divergence from consensual reality. If a far-left antihereditarian slant emerges by free and natural processes without the WP:OWNership, wikilawyering and deceptive tactics that would be fine with me, but it's not what has been happening for the past year. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC) In the recent well-publicized RfC on the R&I talk-page, over 35 editors participated. Over 90% of them voted that the scientific consensus against racial hereditarianism is clear. Your conspiracy theory about a "small group" of "far, far, off-the-cliff left" editors somehow seizing "total control" of R&I is absurd. The WP:FRINGE policy, applying to climate change denialism, medical quackery, Holocaust denialism, white supremacy, racial hereditarianism, etc., has the support of most editors. NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC) To clarify even further, Sesquivalent's user and user talk pages clearly state (as they have for nearly a year) Formerly posted from IP 73.xxx, address now defunct, so if she is now insisting that she continues to post almost entirely as IP (73.x), then one of those statements is a deception. The rest of this relentless parade of apparently willful ignorance can safely be ignored. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC) The statement was true at the time posted, and I'm not sure I'm under the obligation to modify it retroactively by dint of having used other IP space since, or to immediately copy every such piece of information I post here to the user page for your personal satisfaction. (Actually, having just checked my user page, I cannot see how anything could be honestly described as "deception" or is even false. The original statement was correct, the added note makes it clear that it is no longer correct, both are displayed. Where's the problem? ) "Safely ignore" is the usual response, and in particular YOUR repeated response over the past year, to material that is apparently correct but not good for the Narrative. I mean, regardless of any facts about me you can quite easily verify that where I state a source fails to say X, it doesn't say X, and if those many X's are left in the FAQ this is simply a falsification. Some of those sources and false FAQ-summaries were, I think, added by you and not MjolnirPants, so it's pretty funny to see you defend actual falsehood by making false claims of dishonesty. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC) To clarify even further, given that her last edits as Sesquivalent earned her stern warnings for personal attacks and battleground behavior from Ian.thomson [4] and Bishonen [5], I am concerned that this reversion to IP editing while keeping up an explicit statement saying that she no longer edits as an IP (for nearly a year!) may represent an attempt to avoid scrutiny and thus a violation of WP:BADSOCK. Generalrelative (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC) There's no merit to these complaints at all. You'd be better served by reading and understanding the FAQ than critiquing it, as you very clearly lack the expertise and knowledge to make such critiques. If you continue to litigate this, I'll request one of the two admins you've recently annoyed to come block you per WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS, WP:DISRUPT, WP:IDHT and WP:STICK, as you're arguing against a consensus held by both the scientific community and the Wikipedia community, both reiterated on multiple occasions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)