![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
That does not look like an advertisement, and why would the WSJ even publish an advert like that. This is what Gottfredson said about the origin of the statement [1]:
The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme. I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts on what knowledge they do, in fact, consider to be mainstream in the study of intelligence. Timeliness required that any statement be submitted within 2 weeks.
It seems that unless Gottfredson is lying, Serpell is wrong.
As to the Garrett business, I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis as there was no mention that it was Winston who makes the argument. It's OK.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the anti-hereditarian establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted disruptive campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen's article, the Berkeley chapter of the militant student organization Students for a Democratic Society staged protests against Arthur Jensen on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, chanting "Fight racism. Fire Jensen!"[56][67] Jensen himself states that he even lost his employment at Berkeley because of the controversy.[47] Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behavior through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the left wing organization Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.[68][69] In 1972 50 academics, including the psychologists Jensen, Eysenck and Herrnstein as well as five Nobel laureates, signed a statement entitled "Resolution on Scientific Freedom Regarding Human Behavior and Heredity", criticizing the climate of "suppression, punishment and defamation of scientists who emphasized the role of heredity in human behavior". In October 1973 a half-page advertisement entitled "Resolution Against Racism" appeared in the New York Times. With over 1000 academic signatories, including Lewontin, it condemned "racist research", denouncing in particular Jensen, Shockley and Herrnstein.[70][71]
Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial links to the reliable sources on the history of the formation and publication of that document. This was all discussed on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article or on one of the talk pages of the ArbCom case on that article or perhaps in more than one place recently, and anyway is fully sourced in Mainstream Science on Intelligence. That editorial was not a paid advertisement. It was also not a review article. The editor of the journal Intelligence—I have the exact issue at hand in my office—noted that that writing was reprinted "as an editorial." It has as much weight as any joint editorial—no more and no less. It is out of date on several factual issues, and it would be a violation of the biography of living persons policy to assert that its living signatories still agree with all its propositions without citing such an assertion to their own recent writings or interviews. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In the continuing discussion of Charles Murray's "Bell Curve" on human intelligence, you have displayed the views of 50 professors, "all experts in intelligence and related fields," ("Mainstream Science on Intelligence," editorial page, Dec. 13) as if to say "case closed." In fact, the only reason there is controversy about the Murray thesis is his assertion that intelligence is partly inherited, perhaps as much as 60%. This leads to the logical conclusion that the clear disparity in IQ between white and black Americans, along the bell curve, can be offset only through many generations of miscegenation.
Yes, calling "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" a "statement" seems perfectly acceptable to me. As long as it's clear that its signatories may have changed their mind in years since (as some plainly have, which triggers BLP policy), then describing the editorial as the joint statement of the signers at the time seems uncontentious. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the placing of the two textbook references used to describe the publication of Mainstream Science on Intelligence and to give a brief description of its content. For convenience I have also added in the footnotes for the citations the precise pieces of text used. In the paragaph on this topic prior to Victor Chmara's edits, all the content came from secondary sources. There is already an article on The Bell Curve, which is why the book is not treated in detail in this article. It is a book however with 872 pages. Mainstream Science on Intelligence was one page long in the WSJ and also has its own wikipedia article, summarising the 25 points in the article using a secondary source. In these circumstances it seems WP:UNDUE for a wikipedian to make his own pick of the points from the WSJ article that he thinks are relevant to the history. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless there is some other source, not by the co-signatories which makes such a summary or selection, that kind of material seems to be against WP edit policy. Wikipedians cannot write as if they themselves are historians, using primary sources. I have tagged the sentence leading to the quote. The citation there is just to the primary source. Mathsci ( talk) 01:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this picture is sort of offensive. We do not actually know the IQ of the persons pictured, but the cutline makes it look as if they persons pitured should serve as an example of low Bushman-IQ. May be the persons pictured where geniuses, a mean IQ does not say anything about a single person. The picture is old and the persons pictured may be dead by now, but may be their descendants are still alive. How would you feel if you looked up "race and intelligence" may be in Chinese Wikipedia and you found a picture of your grandfather underlined "whites tend to have lower IQs than Chinese"?-- Greatgreenwhale ( talk) 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This article does not point out the purpose of the debate, or even make any explanation to why people care. What would be different if one hypothesis emerges victorious? It's not like anything will change-- people will still be treated the same way (I hope) regardless of which theory is correct. No one's intending to change anything depending on the results, no one's (admitting to be) planning on committing any more Holocausts on the matter, so this controversy could be classified as a curiosity controversy, such as a furious debate on whether dung flies can stay in flight for more than 10 minutes.
BTW, any moron who thinks flies can magically hover for a whole 10 minutes straight is clearly paranoid, and in deep need to go see a psychiatrist, or otherwise go to hell. There has been absolutely no crumb of evidence that a fly which feasts upon dung can fly for 10 minutes straight. Naturally selection clearly would never even think about having a dung loving fly stay in air for 10 minutes. Idiotic sympathizers for such the most fringe urban legend need to learn to read a friggen book, because none of them shows any possibility of a fly not touching the ground for 600 seconds. There isn't a single real expert who believes so. A fly can't even fly for 10 minutes on the moon (although critics argued it is due to the lack of an aerodynamic propulsion medium). Stop the nonsense and open your blind eyes to the dam truth. A fly CANNOT fly for 10 minutes without rest. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
See [18]. This research has been much quoted by many independent researchers in numerous scholarly papers. Please explain the removal. Miradre ( talk) 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this image from the article for several reasons. The caption of the image was: San bushmen from the Kalahari desert. According to Lynn, their mean IQ is 54, corresponding to the "low end of mild mental retardation in economically developed nations, ... the mental age of an average eight-year old European child." In the 1990s, hereditarian researchers started writing about the genetic causes and socioeconomic effects of intelligence rates in sub-Saharan Africa
First, I checked Mackintosh and he doesn't seem to mention the Bushmen. He does, very briefly and very much in passing, mention the Kalahari hunter gatherers but there the only reason he is brining them up (among others) is to make the point that "We have no grounds for assuming that the modes of thought or reasoning that we take for granted as evidence of intelligence, will be the same as those to be found in an illiterate peasant society.". There's nothing about IQ or mental retardation or anything like that in there so I have no idea what that citation was doing there.
Second, I guess some of it's in Lynn. But then why was THIS PARTICULAR group chosen? Why not have a image of a group of Belgians and give their IQs? The tack-on last sentence is a pretty weak excuse for the inclusion of this image.
Third, there's nothing in actual article text that refers to the Bushman. There's a bit about Rushton's views on Africa which he included in the infamous pamphlet that led to to him being dropped by his publisher. But that's a different thing.
Fourth, the way the caption is worded is problematic. While in text we could address the potential criticisms of these kinds of statements (which is sort of what Mackintosh is doing in fact) here, as an image caption, this presented as some kind of fact, with the sneaky implication that "The Africans are mentally retarded". Hence the caption is both offensive and violates POV. Again, the tack on last sentence of the caption appears to be come kind of justification the inclusion of the quote from Lynn but it's OR. In fact white Europeans were making racist claims about African intellectual inferiority long before the 1990s "hereditarians" (and, if one can be optimistic, the prevalence of such claims has declined over time).
Removed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Aprock:
What permission do you wish that I obtain from you? Let me know, which FACTS are in your way?
Hi. I created this article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and see that there is a great deal of relevant material in this history. (The same is also true here. I am planning to move a lot of that material around and otherwise clean things up. Does that seem sensible? Any advice? I can see that this topic is fraught with conflict. Thanks. Yfever ( talk) 14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
People who watch this page ought to comment hre Slrubenstein | Talk 08:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We quote Wooldridge quoting Jensen: "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education" but Wooldridge contains a typo which is irritating. "technique" should be "techniques." The Jensen quote can be found in
I'd like to clear up the irritating bad grammar but (i) it would involve inserting a second 1969 Jensen reference, so does that require re-dating them 1969a and 1969b? and (ii) I don't know whether that Wooldridge citation supports more than just the Jensen quote in that paragraph, so don't know whether to replace it or just add the Jensen cite. Hence, I'm not touching it. Perhaps someone more familiar with the article and this citation style would like to look at it. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
HUGE problem with the following: The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mostly psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization often described as racist organization.[1]
1. Mostly psychologists - define mostly 2. Define "some". If it's 1 of 1000, then who cares? 3. "often" - define often
Not to mention the reference is dubious. I think AT THE VERY LEAST, the dubious"an organization often described as racist organization" should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:Label "racist"; WP:weasel "some"; WP:Claim "described". Plus it's from a reference over a decade old and a source not easily accessible. This quote, in the introduction, biases the reader. "Pioneer" appears 17 more times in the article, so fixing the NPOV in the intro is not really removing ANYTHING. Are you seriously suggesting the pioneer fund has had that much on the influence on the WHOLE HISTORY of the subject? Not to mention the pioneer fund does not support ANY INDIVIDUALS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
When citing style guidelines, the appropriate action is to improve the style, not delete the content. If there is some question about the continuing nature of the research, that can be handled by requesting verification or citation. As this is the lead, the body should be checked as well. With respect to the well established reputation of the Pioneer Fund, I'm not sure what the point is. With respect to who you are: [21], that's not relevant. aprock ( talk) 05:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-- 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I raised 7 valid arguments. Marek responded to (maybe) one and lobbed 2 ad hominem attacks (inviolation of WP:Talk guidlines). Professor failed to respond to the point re: relevency of Pioneer fund in the lead. STILL the text was changed without discussion in talk. Please let me know if WP editors are planning to be bullies on this topic and I won't waste my time. I will revert until my issues are at least DISCUSSED.-- 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
<-- The only problem with the original sentence was the "mostly psychologists" part, which has been removed. Other than that the statement is accurate and ,pertinent. You are removing sourced text. VolunteerMarek 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE protect this article and get rid of all this sock puppeting banned user IPs? VolunteerMarek 06:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing that the source provided is not reliable because it's a decade old is incredibly weak. If there is evidence that the source is wrong - not original research, but another source saying something different - provide it. The above discussion is fruitless. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The volume to noise ratio isn't helping. Nor is bolstering one's arguments with non sequitur and "IDONTLIKEITS". This is a "History of", so getting carried away by a relatively recent study someplace won't erase 4+ decades of PF influence. Sources...getting more of those should help us gain headway. Professor marginalia ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think the lead of this article was bad, you should check out the second paragraph of
Mankind Quarterly. It calls MQ racist six ways in one sentence, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.64.30.8 (
talk)
00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't think that is analogous to the issue with this article.--
24.42.159.214 (
talk)
01:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) thread before "another biased lead" above, would now be off track... There are two questions here. One, the degree to which heredity plays a role in intelligence. The other, specific mainly to America, where most of the studies and controversy reside, is that standardized intelligence measurement scores correlate along what are socially identified racial lines. I agree that the issue can be presented in a more nuanced manner. The controversy is around the conflation of:
Where this breaks down is that #3 is a leap of association between #1 and #2
#2 alone can be explained by social and cultural super-function (highly effective) or dysfunction (ineffective) with regard to the value of learning. That heredity is involved from individual to individual is not required to explain the statistical variance between groups. Having grown up in New York, the ultimate melting pot, of parents who got off the boat and had no preconceptions of any "race" having never met any, who I've experienced as "smart" and "stupid", if/when correlated to "race", has had everything to do with the culture someone grew up in and what that culture values (and parents in particular) than anything having to do with breeding and genetics. (And this is where one can make the argument that intelligence tests are inherently biased, as they contain many elements which have nothing to do with innate reasoning skills and are therefore more a measurement of practical learning achievement than of innate learning potential. But another conversation.)
Ultimately, the search for the elusive "X" factor continues (my expounding above merely being one personal opinion). As long as that search continues, so will the controversy.
That said, considering that the study of the human genome has shown that those characteristics of humans which we associate with race are the most superficial of our genes, it's unlikely that we'll ever find a genetic basis for intelligence. And, as a society, even if that exists, is that something to be pursued? Nothing creates inferiority like slapping the "inferior" label on someone and then setting out to "help" them. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the following accounts of contemporary non-hereditarian views on race and intelligence:
I believe that the list is highly representative of current non-hereditarian views. However, none of them even mention the Pioneer Fund, let alone attribute to it a central role in contemporary discussions. By discussing Pioneer in the lead section and branding it and by proxy its grantees as racist, this article gives one particular minority viewpoint a prominence that it does not have in reliable sources. Most anti-hereditarian researchers have not voiced any criticisms of the (relatively meager) funds that some hereditarians have received from Pioneer. Attacking the fund in the lead section is not acceptable as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines about due and undue weight, living persons, and lead sections.
The Pioneer issue may be discussed elsewhere in the article in proportion to its (small) significance, but all accusations about racism etc. should be attributed to named persons; no weasel words. Citations to literature should include page numbers to enable verification. Tucker's 300-page book is currently cited without page numbers. Moreover, Tucker's book may be the primary source for some claims in it; secondary sources should be used for those claims.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not an anthropologist here but... The section titled "Early History" starts with the phrase "In the 18th century" Did we just ignore over 6.000 years? The folk wisdom, superstition and ignorant racism of earlier civilizations is real history even if it makes people uncomfortable.
Maybe modern stereotypes should be added? Like: Women and blacks are bad at computer/board games... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.37.240 ( talk) 18:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this article does a pretty good job of delineating the content of the thought of various theorists who have treated of the topic of race and intelligence. What it lacks, in large measure, is any context for the emergence of this issue as a scientific object and its various formulations through time. While some sections are considerably better than others, often the text simply introduces a notable advocate for the position that race and intelligence are linked and then gives a brief precis of their position. There's little discussion of eugenics, imperialism, anxieties about racial purity and decline, the rise of IQ, the impact of the civil-rights movement, desegregation and the entry of African-Americans into higher education, the impact of WWII (some on this), the policy implications in regard to welfare provision, etc. I'm not advocating a reductive reading of the intellectual content of the theories as necessarily wholly determined by social, cultural or political factors but it is quite important to their meaning, resonance and reception, I think, and also to the preoccupation with the issue itself. FiachraByrne ( talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The source used for this comment is not written by historians of any sort, and the data presented in the source itself is in dispute by others, so I don't consider this yet to be a very credible statement. Someone who declares the exact opposite, Stephen Murdoch, wrote the book "IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea" Which states that not only didn't Hitler ban IQ tests, but he used them. He himself can be seen giving a lecture about this point on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0.
Also, Murdoch is a far more recent source than the 1979 source being used for the statement, leading me to believe there is data he is privy to that the original source is not. So I propose we keep that comment out until further evidence is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.4.185 ( talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is better sourced that most articles on Wikipedia, but efforts to keep the sources up to date have relaxed for a while as other edits have gone back and forth. I think I'll read through this article from top to bottom strictly for proofreading to refamiliarize myself with the current overall structure of the article, and then update the references (with appropriate revision of article text to match what the references say) thereafter. I can already see that I have at hand several new publications directly on point for sourcing this article that aren't listed in the article bibliography yet, including new editions of some of the books already cited. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The lede here (and the end of the article, summing up the history to date) hadn't caught up yet with some of the latest publications on the topic of the article.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)These are worth a read to see what the latest claims and counterclaims are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article blatantly conflates the topic of intelligence with IQ. Intelligence by many, if not most accounts, is a more complicated quality, and there is a plethora of resources to attest to this. Nobody has a monopoly on the topic of Intelligence. The article should be re-titled "History of the Race and IQ controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:45B:830D:FB59:7FFC ( talk) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the race and intelligence controversy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nature.com":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't this also normalize violence? In general, disabled people are exposed to more violence. And some neurodivergent people have strobe sensitivities, which can expose us to additional endangerment. At the very least, scare quotes might be an improvement. 173.66.5.216 ( talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Still trying to think of a slur that starts with M ... 125.254.38.168 ( talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020.
Levivich
dubious –
discuss
04:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest trimming some out since there appears to be too many images for the prose. Orangejuicedude ( talk) 09:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done a bunch of edits recently and had two reverted. These reverts restored images I had cut so I'd like to explain my rationale for cutting them.
1) The first image I cut was of a document which is apparently a page from an address Arthur Jensen gave in 1967. My edit summary stated: "Cut image of document as uninformative / uninteresting / only serving to give this document WP:UNDUE status relative to other papers discussed here". That seems pretty clear to me, and no reason was given for reverting.
2) The second image is of controversial English psychologist Richard Lynn. Over at Talk:Richard_Lynn#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead we've reached a consensus that he needs to be referred to as "a controversial English psychologist" rather than simply "an English psychologist" because of the overwhelming balance of sources that describe him this way. If the image is to remain here its caption should be updated to reflect this.
The editor who restored these images also restored a snippet of text on Lynn which I think contains WP:UNDUE/ WP:PUFFERY but I will be happy to remove only those clauses and retain the factual information there. In my view the current version:
should be trimmed down to:
It would also be appropriate here to introduce a descriptor of Mankind Quarterly to make clear that it is widely considered to be a white supremacist journal, as stated in the lead of its WP article, and to mention some of the criticisms of Lynn's work here. Some of these criticisms are discussed below but it is best for each section to have proper WP:WEIGHT, especially in a long article like this.
Thanks, and of course I'll be happy to discuss each of these points as necessary. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
Despite the profusion of words here, it seems we're left with a simple conclusion: 3-1 in favor of removing the image in question (and a solid consensus for the compromise language suggested in my OP). I'll hold off for a couple days in case anyone else would like to weigh in, and if nothing changes here I'll then make the edits. We can continue to discuss possible solutions to WP:BALANCE issues with the images in a separate thread if necessary. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Since 2008, book reviews of the Richard Lynn's books have been used in this article and other related articles. Those reviews should be sourced; sometimes editors have produced their own commentary on controversial content without sources.
Originally the content had, Lynn "has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as 'the truth that dares not speak its name'." The last sentence is a summary from Richardson. It took a while to access and check 4 or 5 sources for content on eugenics: Tucker turned out to be the wrong source. Since it came from Richardson, which apparently Generalrelative has not read, the sentence should probably be rewritten, using WP:RS and WP:V. In this case WP:DUE means that a relevant and longish paragraph (see above) should be paraphrased/summarised in a way that properly represents the content. The concluding quote of Richardson, which precedes Lynn's grim vision of the future, is completely apt. In the absence of Richardson as a source, the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI and not on a careful reading. Mathsci ( talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote is verifiable but WP:UNDUE. It's also nonsensical in this context because eugenics is not a proposition that can be "true" or "false". Please refer to WP:ONUS before restoring disputed content.I did not say that I had verified it myself but rather that it was verifiable. Indeed, I was taking it on faith that you were not misstating (or misremembering as the case may be) the source for this quote: [39]
the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI, when I have given the substantive edit summary quoted above, is entirely inappropriate. The same goes for Mathsci's recourse to ad hominem ("arbitrary", "fighting to right great wrongs") in the previous thread. I very much hope that this will be the one and only time I need to raise this issue here, and that we can now WP:FOC. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As a reminder, we should generally avoid citing individual studies for anything on a page like this, especially relatively recent ones. From
WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
If a study is worth including, it will generally pick up secondary sources pretty quickly; but since the study of intelligence, genetics, and the brain definitely falls under the "complex and abstruse fields" warning, we need to avoid citing individual papers unless they're very well-established (and if they are, we should be able to find secondary sources and use those.) --
Aquillion (
talk)
22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is just not true. One does not need to go far to know that. This page even references a paper, more specifically an expert survey that directly contradicts this statement. Only 17% of the participants of the survey hold a completely environmentalist view on the black-white IQ gap, even though 32% of the participants identified as very liberal. David Reich, notorious liberal-leaning geneticist, has admitted that we should expect science to prove cognitive differences in the population of genetic origin in an article he published on The New York Times in 2018. The environmentalist view is currently as weak as ever. Hot Twink 69 ( talk) 13:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This paragraph should be included:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher intelligence are not evenly distributed across races. [2] [3]
The science behind it is undeniable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
None of this is original research, they are all peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious academic journals and all the sources explicitly say exactly what the paragraph says. The first article says more than 1200 SNPs were discovered in the study. The second article says "Allelefrequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phe-notypic intelligence." The third is an article from the Wall Street Journal that says the gene variants discovered are more common outside Subsaharan Africa than inside Maybe if people were allowed to see this information that consensus would crumble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Piffer's article was published in the mainstream journal Intelligence. I have also independently confirmed his results using this database: https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/
By the consensus crumbling I meant the consensus among wikipedia editors and the general public.
Most scientists who would respond to a survey on the matter already acknowledge that there is a genetic component to the gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy against quoting the journal Intelligence. Further, given that this information is publicly available and easily verifiable from a number of databases from respected academic institutions, I fail to see how any of it can be considered "pseudoscience". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
That applies to you as much as it applies to me. Further, it does nothing to show that the Journal Intelligence or the WSJ are not sources that should be allowed on Wikipedia. The paragraph clearly has important and relevant information that people looking at the article would certainly be interested in knowing. The sources comply with Wikipedia's policy. The information is accurate. Please stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
a number: yes, a very small number, most notably a verbose sockpuppet and yourself.
evidenced by this recent New Yorker article: this does not look like evidence to me. Instead, perhaps take a look at the the citations which actually appear in the FAQ?
I insist it is important that this is included somewhere in the article. It will make it more balanced. Most importantly, the paragraph is accurate. I await a sound counter argument that leads to the conclusion that this paragraph should not be on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The answer was an ad hominem against Piffer and an assertion that Intelligence publishes racist pseudoscience. The fact that a journal publishes information that appears to you to be "racist" to you does not make it pseudoscience. Is the information factually correct, yes or no? Is Piffer's methodology sound, yes or no? No one is even denying that it is true that the genetic variants for IQ are not evenly distributed across races. If you really do not like Intelligence just keep the WSJ and a link to Bruce Lahn's Wikipedia article and that is that. I know I am meant to assume good faith, but I cannot help but think that the exclusion of this paragraph is motivated by politics, not the science or even Wikipedia's policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Piffer can think and say whatever, he could be a talking dog for all I care. There is no Wikipedia citing policy precluding citations from people who have made racists or extreme comments in other contexts. All that matters is for Wikipedia, was his article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and the answer is yes. If you guys don't like the Piffer reference, drop it and stick with the WSJ one.
These are important scientific results that lie at the heart of the topic of this article. Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia in the world, its readers should not be kept from this information for brazen political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Well if you look into what happened with Lahn, he stopped doing his research in this area because it was getting "too controversial". How is this an extraordinary claim? Is the WSJ not a reliable secondary source? As I said earlier, you can corroborate Piffer's results for yourself by simply inputting the SNPs from his study in this database: https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
We have already determined that this is NOT original research. The RS policy explicitly says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)", the WSJ is one of the largest news papers in the US.
I am sure you will say the thing about the consensus has been litigated time and time again, but I have not seen any persuasive evidence that there is such a consensus, I have seen contradictory surveys on the matter. One where most intelligence researchers who responded (albeit with a low response rate) agreed that there is a genetic component to the gap, [5] others that, while not asking specifically about IQ, showed that there may be a consensus that race does not exist among Western anthropologists. [6] the issue is far more contentious among geneticists. [7]
I did read in the FAQ that it said "Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.", however, I did not find any references to any surveys that according to them, had better methodologies. If you can provide them, that would be good.
What this surveys do show however, at the very least, is that this constitutes AT LEAST a significant minority opinion among the experts. Wikipedia explicitly says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
Finally, I invite you to read the GWAS themselves, and see that these SNPs do cause variations in educational attainment. And then to go to the https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/ data base and see how the proportions differ by population. And see that this is, as a matter of fact, true. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI I have mentioned this discussion at WP:ANI#IP_editing_at_Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy MrOllie ( talk) 14:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Other sources say it is a good predictor of IQ at the population level. [8]
There is no reason to hide this information from people reading this article. It is important, relevant, well-sourced, and, most importantly, accurate. Please include the paragraph. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, we can rephrase the paragraph:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher educational attainment and brain size and development are not evenly distributed across races.
Piffer accounts for educational attainment, Lahn accounts for brain size and development, without saying or implying this has anything to do with IQ.
Heiner Rindermann is a hereditarian and contributor to Mankind Quarterly... so what? James Flynn was an environmentalist, and a socialist. Yet he is referenced here.
Intelligence is, according to the very sources you use to criticize it, one of the most respected journals in its field. The fact that they publish material that supports the hereditarian hypothesis does not make it pseudoscience. Since the sources did not care to mention any specific articles that would qualify as "pseudoscience", nor did it care to point to inaccuracies in their data or errors in their statistical methods that are not merely part of a reasonable scientific disagreement, but actually on a pair with astrology and homeopathy in the world of "pseudoscience", perhaps you can direct us to said articles? 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 18:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
How about instead of blocking me you a) provide the better surveys that show the alleged consensus against hereditarianism in the scientific community b) provide a few articles that qualify as pseudoscience published on Intelligence 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Fine, clearly those surveys and papers do not actually exist. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 13:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
That does not look like an advertisement, and why would the WSJ even publish an advert like that. This is what Gottfredson said about the origin of the statement [1]:
The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme. I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts on what knowledge they do, in fact, consider to be mainstream in the study of intelligence. Timeliness required that any statement be submitted within 2 weeks.
It seems that unless Gottfredson is lying, Serpell is wrong.
As to the Garrett business, I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis as there was no mention that it was Winston who makes the argument. It's OK.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the anti-hereditarian establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted disruptive campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen's article, the Berkeley chapter of the militant student organization Students for a Democratic Society staged protests against Arthur Jensen on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, chanting "Fight racism. Fire Jensen!"[56][67] Jensen himself states that he even lost his employment at Berkeley because of the controversy.[47] Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behavior through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the left wing organization Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.[68][69] In 1972 50 academics, including the psychologists Jensen, Eysenck and Herrnstein as well as five Nobel laureates, signed a statement entitled "Resolution on Scientific Freedom Regarding Human Behavior and Heredity", criticizing the climate of "suppression, punishment and defamation of scientists who emphasized the role of heredity in human behavior". In October 1973 a half-page advertisement entitled "Resolution Against Racism" appeared in the New York Times. With over 1000 academic signatories, including Lewontin, it condemned "racist research", denouncing in particular Jensen, Shockley and Herrnstein.[70][71]
Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial links to the reliable sources on the history of the formation and publication of that document. This was all discussed on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article or on one of the talk pages of the ArbCom case on that article or perhaps in more than one place recently, and anyway is fully sourced in Mainstream Science on Intelligence. That editorial was not a paid advertisement. It was also not a review article. The editor of the journal Intelligence—I have the exact issue at hand in my office—noted that that writing was reprinted "as an editorial." It has as much weight as any joint editorial—no more and no less. It is out of date on several factual issues, and it would be a violation of the biography of living persons policy to assert that its living signatories still agree with all its propositions without citing such an assertion to their own recent writings or interviews. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In the continuing discussion of Charles Murray's "Bell Curve" on human intelligence, you have displayed the views of 50 professors, "all experts in intelligence and related fields," ("Mainstream Science on Intelligence," editorial page, Dec. 13) as if to say "case closed." In fact, the only reason there is controversy about the Murray thesis is his assertion that intelligence is partly inherited, perhaps as much as 60%. This leads to the logical conclusion that the clear disparity in IQ between white and black Americans, along the bell curve, can be offset only through many generations of miscegenation.
Yes, calling "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" a "statement" seems perfectly acceptable to me. As long as it's clear that its signatories may have changed their mind in years since (as some plainly have, which triggers BLP policy), then describing the editorial as the joint statement of the signers at the time seems uncontentious. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the placing of the two textbook references used to describe the publication of Mainstream Science on Intelligence and to give a brief description of its content. For convenience I have also added in the footnotes for the citations the precise pieces of text used. In the paragaph on this topic prior to Victor Chmara's edits, all the content came from secondary sources. There is already an article on The Bell Curve, which is why the book is not treated in detail in this article. It is a book however with 872 pages. Mainstream Science on Intelligence was one page long in the WSJ and also has its own wikipedia article, summarising the 25 points in the article using a secondary source. In these circumstances it seems WP:UNDUE for a wikipedian to make his own pick of the points from the WSJ article that he thinks are relevant to the history. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless there is some other source, not by the co-signatories which makes such a summary or selection, that kind of material seems to be against WP edit policy. Wikipedians cannot write as if they themselves are historians, using primary sources. I have tagged the sentence leading to the quote. The citation there is just to the primary source. Mathsci ( talk) 01:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this picture is sort of offensive. We do not actually know the IQ of the persons pictured, but the cutline makes it look as if they persons pitured should serve as an example of low Bushman-IQ. May be the persons pictured where geniuses, a mean IQ does not say anything about a single person. The picture is old and the persons pictured may be dead by now, but may be their descendants are still alive. How would you feel if you looked up "race and intelligence" may be in Chinese Wikipedia and you found a picture of your grandfather underlined "whites tend to have lower IQs than Chinese"?-- Greatgreenwhale ( talk) 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This article does not point out the purpose of the debate, or even make any explanation to why people care. What would be different if one hypothesis emerges victorious? It's not like anything will change-- people will still be treated the same way (I hope) regardless of which theory is correct. No one's intending to change anything depending on the results, no one's (admitting to be) planning on committing any more Holocausts on the matter, so this controversy could be classified as a curiosity controversy, such as a furious debate on whether dung flies can stay in flight for more than 10 minutes.
BTW, any moron who thinks flies can magically hover for a whole 10 minutes straight is clearly paranoid, and in deep need to go see a psychiatrist, or otherwise go to hell. There has been absolutely no crumb of evidence that a fly which feasts upon dung can fly for 10 minutes straight. Naturally selection clearly would never even think about having a dung loving fly stay in air for 10 minutes. Idiotic sympathizers for such the most fringe urban legend need to learn to read a friggen book, because none of them shows any possibility of a fly not touching the ground for 600 seconds. There isn't a single real expert who believes so. A fly can't even fly for 10 minutes on the moon (although critics argued it is due to the lack of an aerodynamic propulsion medium). Stop the nonsense and open your blind eyes to the dam truth. A fly CANNOT fly for 10 minutes without rest. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
See [18]. This research has been much quoted by many independent researchers in numerous scholarly papers. Please explain the removal. Miradre ( talk) 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this image from the article for several reasons. The caption of the image was: San bushmen from the Kalahari desert. According to Lynn, their mean IQ is 54, corresponding to the "low end of mild mental retardation in economically developed nations, ... the mental age of an average eight-year old European child." In the 1990s, hereditarian researchers started writing about the genetic causes and socioeconomic effects of intelligence rates in sub-Saharan Africa
First, I checked Mackintosh and he doesn't seem to mention the Bushmen. He does, very briefly and very much in passing, mention the Kalahari hunter gatherers but there the only reason he is brining them up (among others) is to make the point that "We have no grounds for assuming that the modes of thought or reasoning that we take for granted as evidence of intelligence, will be the same as those to be found in an illiterate peasant society.". There's nothing about IQ or mental retardation or anything like that in there so I have no idea what that citation was doing there.
Second, I guess some of it's in Lynn. But then why was THIS PARTICULAR group chosen? Why not have a image of a group of Belgians and give their IQs? The tack-on last sentence is a pretty weak excuse for the inclusion of this image.
Third, there's nothing in actual article text that refers to the Bushman. There's a bit about Rushton's views on Africa which he included in the infamous pamphlet that led to to him being dropped by his publisher. But that's a different thing.
Fourth, the way the caption is worded is problematic. While in text we could address the potential criticisms of these kinds of statements (which is sort of what Mackintosh is doing in fact) here, as an image caption, this presented as some kind of fact, with the sneaky implication that "The Africans are mentally retarded". Hence the caption is both offensive and violates POV. Again, the tack on last sentence of the caption appears to be come kind of justification the inclusion of the quote from Lynn but it's OR. In fact white Europeans were making racist claims about African intellectual inferiority long before the 1990s "hereditarians" (and, if one can be optimistic, the prevalence of such claims has declined over time).
Removed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Aprock:
What permission do you wish that I obtain from you? Let me know, which FACTS are in your way?
Hi. I created this article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and see that there is a great deal of relevant material in this history. (The same is also true here. I am planning to move a lot of that material around and otherwise clean things up. Does that seem sensible? Any advice? I can see that this topic is fraught with conflict. Thanks. Yfever ( talk) 14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
People who watch this page ought to comment hre Slrubenstein | Talk 08:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We quote Wooldridge quoting Jensen: "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education" but Wooldridge contains a typo which is irritating. "technique" should be "techniques." The Jensen quote can be found in
I'd like to clear up the irritating bad grammar but (i) it would involve inserting a second 1969 Jensen reference, so does that require re-dating them 1969a and 1969b? and (ii) I don't know whether that Wooldridge citation supports more than just the Jensen quote in that paragraph, so don't know whether to replace it or just add the Jensen cite. Hence, I'm not touching it. Perhaps someone more familiar with the article and this citation style would like to look at it. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
HUGE problem with the following: The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mostly psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization often described as racist organization.[1]
1. Mostly psychologists - define mostly 2. Define "some". If it's 1 of 1000, then who cares? 3. "often" - define often
Not to mention the reference is dubious. I think AT THE VERY LEAST, the dubious"an organization often described as racist organization" should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:Label "racist"; WP:weasel "some"; WP:Claim "described". Plus it's from a reference over a decade old and a source not easily accessible. This quote, in the introduction, biases the reader. "Pioneer" appears 17 more times in the article, so fixing the NPOV in the intro is not really removing ANYTHING. Are you seriously suggesting the pioneer fund has had that much on the influence on the WHOLE HISTORY of the subject? Not to mention the pioneer fund does not support ANY INDIVIDUALS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
When citing style guidelines, the appropriate action is to improve the style, not delete the content. If there is some question about the continuing nature of the research, that can be handled by requesting verification or citation. As this is the lead, the body should be checked as well. With respect to the well established reputation of the Pioneer Fund, I'm not sure what the point is. With respect to who you are: [21], that's not relevant. aprock ( talk) 05:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-- 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I raised 7 valid arguments. Marek responded to (maybe) one and lobbed 2 ad hominem attacks (inviolation of WP:Talk guidlines). Professor failed to respond to the point re: relevency of Pioneer fund in the lead. STILL the text was changed without discussion in talk. Please let me know if WP editors are planning to be bullies on this topic and I won't waste my time. I will revert until my issues are at least DISCUSSED.-- 24.42.159.214 ( talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
<-- The only problem with the original sentence was the "mostly psychologists" part, which has been removed. Other than that the statement is accurate and ,pertinent. You are removing sourced text. VolunteerMarek 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE protect this article and get rid of all this sock puppeting banned user IPs? VolunteerMarek 06:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing that the source provided is not reliable because it's a decade old is incredibly weak. If there is evidence that the source is wrong - not original research, but another source saying something different - provide it. The above discussion is fruitless. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The volume to noise ratio isn't helping. Nor is bolstering one's arguments with non sequitur and "IDONTLIKEITS". This is a "History of", so getting carried away by a relatively recent study someplace won't erase 4+ decades of PF influence. Sources...getting more of those should help us gain headway. Professor marginalia ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think the lead of this article was bad, you should check out the second paragraph of
Mankind Quarterly. It calls MQ racist six ways in one sentence, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.64.30.8 (
talk)
00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't think that is analogous to the issue with this article.--
24.42.159.214 (
talk)
01:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) thread before "another biased lead" above, would now be off track... There are two questions here. One, the degree to which heredity plays a role in intelligence. The other, specific mainly to America, where most of the studies and controversy reside, is that standardized intelligence measurement scores correlate along what are socially identified racial lines. I agree that the issue can be presented in a more nuanced manner. The controversy is around the conflation of:
Where this breaks down is that #3 is a leap of association between #1 and #2
#2 alone can be explained by social and cultural super-function (highly effective) or dysfunction (ineffective) with regard to the value of learning. That heredity is involved from individual to individual is not required to explain the statistical variance between groups. Having grown up in New York, the ultimate melting pot, of parents who got off the boat and had no preconceptions of any "race" having never met any, who I've experienced as "smart" and "stupid", if/when correlated to "race", has had everything to do with the culture someone grew up in and what that culture values (and parents in particular) than anything having to do with breeding and genetics. (And this is where one can make the argument that intelligence tests are inherently biased, as they contain many elements which have nothing to do with innate reasoning skills and are therefore more a measurement of practical learning achievement than of innate learning potential. But another conversation.)
Ultimately, the search for the elusive "X" factor continues (my expounding above merely being one personal opinion). As long as that search continues, so will the controversy.
That said, considering that the study of the human genome has shown that those characteristics of humans which we associate with race are the most superficial of our genes, it's unlikely that we'll ever find a genetic basis for intelligence. And, as a society, even if that exists, is that something to be pursued? Nothing creates inferiority like slapping the "inferior" label on someone and then setting out to "help" them. VєсrumЬа ► TALK 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the following accounts of contemporary non-hereditarian views on race and intelligence:
I believe that the list is highly representative of current non-hereditarian views. However, none of them even mention the Pioneer Fund, let alone attribute to it a central role in contemporary discussions. By discussing Pioneer in the lead section and branding it and by proxy its grantees as racist, this article gives one particular minority viewpoint a prominence that it does not have in reliable sources. Most anti-hereditarian researchers have not voiced any criticisms of the (relatively meager) funds that some hereditarians have received from Pioneer. Attacking the fund in the lead section is not acceptable as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines about due and undue weight, living persons, and lead sections.
The Pioneer issue may be discussed elsewhere in the article in proportion to its (small) significance, but all accusations about racism etc. should be attributed to named persons; no weasel words. Citations to literature should include page numbers to enable verification. Tucker's 300-page book is currently cited without page numbers. Moreover, Tucker's book may be the primary source for some claims in it; secondary sources should be used for those claims.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not an anthropologist here but... The section titled "Early History" starts with the phrase "In the 18th century" Did we just ignore over 6.000 years? The folk wisdom, superstition and ignorant racism of earlier civilizations is real history even if it makes people uncomfortable.
Maybe modern stereotypes should be added? Like: Women and blacks are bad at computer/board games... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.37.240 ( talk) 18:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this article does a pretty good job of delineating the content of the thought of various theorists who have treated of the topic of race and intelligence. What it lacks, in large measure, is any context for the emergence of this issue as a scientific object and its various formulations through time. While some sections are considerably better than others, often the text simply introduces a notable advocate for the position that race and intelligence are linked and then gives a brief precis of their position. There's little discussion of eugenics, imperialism, anxieties about racial purity and decline, the rise of IQ, the impact of the civil-rights movement, desegregation and the entry of African-Americans into higher education, the impact of WWII (some on this), the policy implications in regard to welfare provision, etc. I'm not advocating a reductive reading of the intellectual content of the theories as necessarily wholly determined by social, cultural or political factors but it is quite important to their meaning, resonance and reception, I think, and also to the preoccupation with the issue itself. FiachraByrne ( talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The source used for this comment is not written by historians of any sort, and the data presented in the source itself is in dispute by others, so I don't consider this yet to be a very credible statement. Someone who declares the exact opposite, Stephen Murdoch, wrote the book "IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea" Which states that not only didn't Hitler ban IQ tests, but he used them. He himself can be seen giving a lecture about this point on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0.
Also, Murdoch is a far more recent source than the 1979 source being used for the statement, leading me to believe there is data he is privy to that the original source is not. So I propose we keep that comment out until further evidence is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.4.185 ( talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is better sourced that most articles on Wikipedia, but efforts to keep the sources up to date have relaxed for a while as other edits have gone back and forth. I think I'll read through this article from top to bottom strictly for proofreading to refamiliarize myself with the current overall structure of the article, and then update the references (with appropriate revision of article text to match what the references say) thereafter. I can already see that I have at hand several new publications directly on point for sourcing this article that aren't listed in the article bibliography yet, including new editions of some of the books already cited. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The lede here (and the end of the article, summing up the history to date) hadn't caught up yet with some of the latest publications on the topic of the article.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)These are worth a read to see what the latest claims and counterclaims are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This article blatantly conflates the topic of intelligence with IQ. Intelligence by many, if not most accounts, is a more complicated quality, and there is a plethora of resources to attest to this. Nobody has a monopoly on the topic of Intelligence. The article should be re-titled "History of the Race and IQ controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:45B:830D:FB59:7FFC ( talk) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the race and intelligence controversy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nature.com":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't this also normalize violence? In general, disabled people are exposed to more violence. And some neurodivergent people have strobe sensitivities, which can expose us to additional endangerment. At the very least, scare quotes might be an improvement. 173.66.5.216 ( talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Still trying to think of a slur that starts with M ... 125.254.38.168 ( talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020.
Levivich
dubious –
discuss
04:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest trimming some out since there appears to be too many images for the prose. Orangejuicedude ( talk) 09:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done a bunch of edits recently and had two reverted. These reverts restored images I had cut so I'd like to explain my rationale for cutting them.
1) The first image I cut was of a document which is apparently a page from an address Arthur Jensen gave in 1967. My edit summary stated: "Cut image of document as uninformative / uninteresting / only serving to give this document WP:UNDUE status relative to other papers discussed here". That seems pretty clear to me, and no reason was given for reverting.
2) The second image is of controversial English psychologist Richard Lynn. Over at Talk:Richard_Lynn#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead we've reached a consensus that he needs to be referred to as "a controversial English psychologist" rather than simply "an English psychologist" because of the overwhelming balance of sources that describe him this way. If the image is to remain here its caption should be updated to reflect this.
The editor who restored these images also restored a snippet of text on Lynn which I think contains WP:UNDUE/ WP:PUFFERY but I will be happy to remove only those clauses and retain the factual information there. In my view the current version:
should be trimmed down to:
It would also be appropriate here to introduce a descriptor of Mankind Quarterly to make clear that it is widely considered to be a white supremacist journal, as stated in the lead of its WP article, and to mention some of the criticisms of Lynn's work here. Some of these criticisms are discussed below but it is best for each section to have proper WP:WEIGHT, especially in a long article like this.
Thanks, and of course I'll be happy to discuss each of these points as necessary. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
Despite the profusion of words here, it seems we're left with a simple conclusion: 3-1 in favor of removing the image in question (and a solid consensus for the compromise language suggested in my OP). I'll hold off for a couple days in case anyone else would like to weigh in, and if nothing changes here I'll then make the edits. We can continue to discuss possible solutions to WP:BALANCE issues with the images in a separate thread if necessary. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Since 2008, book reviews of the Richard Lynn's books have been used in this article and other related articles. Those reviews should be sourced; sometimes editors have produced their own commentary on controversial content without sources.
Originally the content had, Lynn "has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as 'the truth that dares not speak its name'." The last sentence is a summary from Richardson. It took a while to access and check 4 or 5 sources for content on eugenics: Tucker turned out to be the wrong source. Since it came from Richardson, which apparently Generalrelative has not read, the sentence should probably be rewritten, using WP:RS and WP:V. In this case WP:DUE means that a relevant and longish paragraph (see above) should be paraphrased/summarised in a way that properly represents the content. The concluding quote of Richardson, which precedes Lynn's grim vision of the future, is completely apt. In the absence of Richardson as a source, the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI and not on a careful reading. Mathsci ( talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote is verifiable but WP:UNDUE. It's also nonsensical in this context because eugenics is not a proposition that can be "true" or "false". Please refer to WP:ONUS before restoring disputed content.I did not say that I had verified it myself but rather that it was verifiable. Indeed, I was taking it on faith that you were not misstating (or misremembering as the case may be) the source for this quote: [39]
the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI, when I have given the substantive edit summary quoted above, is entirely inappropriate. The same goes for Mathsci's recourse to ad hominem ("arbitrary", "fighting to right great wrongs") in the previous thread. I very much hope that this will be the one and only time I need to raise this issue here, and that we can now WP:FOC. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As a reminder, we should generally avoid citing individual studies for anything on a page like this, especially relatively recent ones. From
WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
If a study is worth including, it will generally pick up secondary sources pretty quickly; but since the study of intelligence, genetics, and the brain definitely falls under the "complex and abstruse fields" warning, we need to avoid citing individual papers unless they're very well-established (and if they are, we should be able to find secondary sources and use those.) --
Aquillion (
talk)
22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is just not true. One does not need to go far to know that. This page even references a paper, more specifically an expert survey that directly contradicts this statement. Only 17% of the participants of the survey hold a completely environmentalist view on the black-white IQ gap, even though 32% of the participants identified as very liberal. David Reich, notorious liberal-leaning geneticist, has admitted that we should expect science to prove cognitive differences in the population of genetic origin in an article he published on The New York Times in 2018. The environmentalist view is currently as weak as ever. Hot Twink 69 ( talk) 13:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This paragraph should be included:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher intelligence are not evenly distributed across races. [2] [3]
The science behind it is undeniable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
None of this is original research, they are all peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious academic journals and all the sources explicitly say exactly what the paragraph says. The first article says more than 1200 SNPs were discovered in the study. The second article says "Allelefrequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phe-notypic intelligence." The third is an article from the Wall Street Journal that says the gene variants discovered are more common outside Subsaharan Africa than inside Maybe if people were allowed to see this information that consensus would crumble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Piffer's article was published in the mainstream journal Intelligence. I have also independently confirmed his results using this database: https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/
By the consensus crumbling I meant the consensus among wikipedia editors and the general public.
Most scientists who would respond to a survey on the matter already acknowledge that there is a genetic component to the gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy against quoting the journal Intelligence. Further, given that this information is publicly available and easily verifiable from a number of databases from respected academic institutions, I fail to see how any of it can be considered "pseudoscience". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
That applies to you as much as it applies to me. Further, it does nothing to show that the Journal Intelligence or the WSJ are not sources that should be allowed on Wikipedia. The paragraph clearly has important and relevant information that people looking at the article would certainly be interested in knowing. The sources comply with Wikipedia's policy. The information is accurate. Please stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
a number: yes, a very small number, most notably a verbose sockpuppet and yourself.
evidenced by this recent New Yorker article: this does not look like evidence to me. Instead, perhaps take a look at the the citations which actually appear in the FAQ?
I insist it is important that this is included somewhere in the article. It will make it more balanced. Most importantly, the paragraph is accurate. I await a sound counter argument that leads to the conclusion that this paragraph should not be on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The answer was an ad hominem against Piffer and an assertion that Intelligence publishes racist pseudoscience. The fact that a journal publishes information that appears to you to be "racist" to you does not make it pseudoscience. Is the information factually correct, yes or no? Is Piffer's methodology sound, yes or no? No one is even denying that it is true that the genetic variants for IQ are not evenly distributed across races. If you really do not like Intelligence just keep the WSJ and a link to Bruce Lahn's Wikipedia article and that is that. I know I am meant to assume good faith, but I cannot help but think that the exclusion of this paragraph is motivated by politics, not the science or even Wikipedia's policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Piffer can think and say whatever, he could be a talking dog for all I care. There is no Wikipedia citing policy precluding citations from people who have made racists or extreme comments in other contexts. All that matters is for Wikipedia, was his article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and the answer is yes. If you guys don't like the Piffer reference, drop it and stick with the WSJ one.
These are important scientific results that lie at the heart of the topic of this article. Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia in the world, its readers should not be kept from this information for brazen political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
Well if you look into what happened with Lahn, he stopped doing his research in this area because it was getting "too controversial". How is this an extraordinary claim? Is the WSJ not a reliable secondary source? As I said earlier, you can corroborate Piffer's results for yourself by simply inputting the SNPs from his study in this database: https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 ( talk • contribs)
We have already determined that this is NOT original research. The RS policy explicitly says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)", the WSJ is one of the largest news papers in the US.
I am sure you will say the thing about the consensus has been litigated time and time again, but I have not seen any persuasive evidence that there is such a consensus, I have seen contradictory surveys on the matter. One where most intelligence researchers who responded (albeit with a low response rate) agreed that there is a genetic component to the gap, [5] others that, while not asking specifically about IQ, showed that there may be a consensus that race does not exist among Western anthropologists. [6] the issue is far more contentious among geneticists. [7]
I did read in the FAQ that it said "Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.", however, I did not find any references to any surveys that according to them, had better methodologies. If you can provide them, that would be good.
What this surveys do show however, at the very least, is that this constitutes AT LEAST a significant minority opinion among the experts. Wikipedia explicitly says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
Finally, I invite you to read the GWAS themselves, and see that these SNPs do cause variations in educational attainment. And then to go to the https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/ data base and see how the proportions differ by population. And see that this is, as a matter of fact, true. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI I have mentioned this discussion at WP:ANI#IP_editing_at_Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy MrOllie ( talk) 14:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Other sources say it is a good predictor of IQ at the population level. [8]
There is no reason to hide this information from people reading this article. It is important, relevant, well-sourced, and, most importantly, accurate. Please include the paragraph. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, we can rephrase the paragraph:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher educational attainment and brain size and development are not evenly distributed across races.
Piffer accounts for educational attainment, Lahn accounts for brain size and development, without saying or implying this has anything to do with IQ.
Heiner Rindermann is a hereditarian and contributor to Mankind Quarterly... so what? James Flynn was an environmentalist, and a socialist. Yet he is referenced here.
Intelligence is, according to the very sources you use to criticize it, one of the most respected journals in its field. The fact that they publish material that supports the hereditarian hypothesis does not make it pseudoscience. Since the sources did not care to mention any specific articles that would qualify as "pseudoscience", nor did it care to point to inaccuracies in their data or errors in their statistical methods that are not merely part of a reasonable scientific disagreement, but actually on a pair with astrology and homeopathy in the world of "pseudoscience", perhaps you can direct us to said articles? 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 18:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
How about instead of blocking me you a) provide the better surveys that show the alleged consensus against hereditarianism in the scientific community b) provide a few articles that qualify as pseudoscience published on Intelligence 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 01:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Fine, clearly those surveys and papers do not actually exist. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 13:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
References