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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Paragraphs like this seem to lower the articles credibility:
Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups (see Arithmetic mean). For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:
First of all it appears to be original research. You cite no well known expert of any kind making that claim. It reduces the complex field of genetics to a simple formula, and it's presented in a way that implies it contradicts Jensen. Could you please leave your own arguments out and stick to citing experts? Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not making original arguments.
The Flynn Effect is mentioned as a devestating challenge to Rushton, but when a cogent reply complete with an actual quotes to frequently cited experts was added, you edited the whole thing out. Why are you trying to show only one side of debate, and the side of the debate you show is not attributed to any experts. Why was all this edited out?
However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:
1. We do not know what causes the test score changes over time.
2. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence.
3. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same.
4. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.
5. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin.
Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic. Critics claim that the genetic difference between males and females is an order of magnitude greater than any observed difference between "races".
Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkely writes:
If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.'''''''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 ( talk • contribs)
Actually the faulty syllogism is a direct quote from Robert C. Nichols and the quote from Jensen can be found in his book. The argument in between originated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
You write:
One will note that at the same time Jensen defends the idea of race, his self-described analysis undercuts the 3-"race" hierarchy Rushton supports, and instead notes a 4-"race" distribution.
He doesn't undercut Rushton. Rushton never said there were ONLY 3 races. But his study is focused on the 3 broadest population groups. The existence of a fourth race (which btw is probably a mix of races) does not undercut the idea of 3 MAIN races. Again can we please just stick to reporting facts and quotes and leave our own personal interpretations out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 ( talk • contribs)
But Rushton's study is precisely focused on the three largest racial categories. How does the existence of a smaller racial categroy in anyway contradict his research? That's like someone doing a study on the 3 major cities in a country and then others complaining that they ignored the rural towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
The selection of a number of groups to divide people into is (in general) arbitrary (but there are heuristics for such a selection). It doesn't follow necessarily that one person's view that people should be divided into 4 groups for analysis A is contradictory with another's view that people should be divided into 3 groups for analysis B. -- Rikurzhen 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know those groups don't fall into the lines he draws? You have to start evolutionary research somewhere and so it makes sense to start with three largest genetic clusters of human-kind. Rushton is only one man. It's hard enough for one researcher to analyze hundreds of studies on 60 different variables when comparing the 3 largest races, but the existences of smaller races, along with divisions within races, is a challenges he leaves to future scholars. The existence of a 4th race would only undercut Rushton if Rushton theory was dependent on there being only 3 races, OR if the 4th race could be shown to somehow contradict his data. In neither case that's true, so your statement should be removed. Even if if you were right your statement should still be removed since your editorializing. It's hard enough to agree on an edit when we just report the facts. Adding original analysis and interpretation will make it impossible. And your statement about isolated groups evolving in parallel in no way contradicts the fact that throughout evolution, a populations that branch off earlier tend to be less K selected than populations that branch off later. Within primates, monkeys branched off earliest and are much less K selected than Hominoids branched off last and are the most K selected. Apes are intermediate in both K selection and splitting off date. This clearly contradicts your claim that parallel evolution makes splitting off dates irrelevant. In fact the pattern can be extended all through evolution, and not just within the primate branch which itself branched off later than others orders of mammals which are less K selected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 ( talk • contribs)
Instead of saying things like "The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't" can you please try to be a little more open-minded on this issue? The point is you can point to the existence of a fourth race, independent of the three largest races Rushton studies, without making the biased assertion that such a finding undercuts Rushton's research. Why do you have so much difficulty adhearing to Wikipedia's neutral perspective policy? In fact Rushton knew from the outset, that the 3 race model does not include all humans, but only the 3 largest populations which seems a good place to start. The existence of a 4th race, or even a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th race is in no way a logical fallacy on Rushton's part since he's studying only the 3 largest races. Does the existence of xyy people undercut all the research finding differences between men (xy) and women (xx)? Does the existence of bisexual people undercut research on the two main sexual orientations (homosexual & heterosexual). Does the existence of additional kingdoms undercut research of biologists comparing the animal kingdom with the plant kingdom? If the sasquatch is suddenly discovered, does that undercut research done comparing known primates? And of course there are case of earlier branches that eventually go on to outdistance branches that were once higher. However if you're on the first branch, and you don't do any more branching, then by definition you're less evolved than higher branches. As for inter-species/intra-species comparisons, I think that's discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
AFAIK Rushton has never implied "all humans" can be ordered into these 3 groups, but is just referring to a pattern in 3 of the main groups. A single sentence giving this caveat is probably fine, maybe along the lines of: Some other branches in human history, such as the SE Asian and Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans may not have direct relevance to Rushton's model. (These look like the major branches not discussed, according to the trees in Cavalla-Sforza's 1994 book. p. 78) -- Nectar 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because Rushton believes that there are divisions within the 3 races in no way implies a denial of races outside the 3 races. Indeed I can quote a section from his book that makes clear he recognizes the existence of races outside the big 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
On page 235 of his book he writes "Of course it is simplified to divide all the world's people into just three major races. This ignores 'Negritoes' and 'Australoids', but also subdivisions within the macro races." Note that Negritoes are believed by many to be the original people of South East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
Please stop working your own opinions into the article. Wikipedia articles must remain neutral and asserting something as a "contradiction" or constantly putting your own spin on things, and interpreting the facts for the reader represents an unwelcome bias. And Rushton never used the term "linear evolution" that's just your interpretaion. And in my opinion the existence of other races outside the big 3 call nothing into question. Feel free to quote experts criticising his theory but working your own interpretations into the article is wholly unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
Who said anything about "linear"? Let's not put words into Rushton's mouth.
The contradiction is in your head. All Rushton is saying is that the 3 largest races branched off at very different times and these splitting-off dates correlate with his r-K continuum. It's fine to mention the existences of races outside the big 3, but the existence of a 4th race in no way contradicts the existence of the 3 largest races, nor does it contradict the chronological correlates he found among them. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over again. Perhaps the page should just stay protected so that we can both move on.
This article needs to be totally rewritten, preferably by someone who is not biased against rushton. First of all this article should be about rushton and his ideas. Instead it is basically an essay on why rushton is wrong. Each point made by rushton is followed by a comment as to why the point is incorrect. The job of this article is not to prove rushton right or wrong, it is only to tell about his ideas. All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary. The article is also full of words which are not subjective and is worded to make rushton's ideas seem false. That is your opinion, it has no place in a wikipedia article. JereKrischel you have shown by the way you answer other peoples questions that you are not objective on this subject and should not have a hand in writing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 ( talk • contribs)
I didn't say criticism couldn't be included, I just said it should be at the end of the article instead of a point for point critique of his view. The essay is completely against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 ( talk • contribs)
Ok there is at least a few things which i think should be changed: "Foreshadowing the massive controversy that would erupt over his later racial theories" The word "massive" is a subjective term that i don't think should be included in this article. (unsigned by 205.188.117.69)
Any edit wars ocurring seem to have been cooled. Unprotecting the page would make things easier.-- Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why your so against changing words to make the article seem more professional and less like an opinion article. That should be the goal of wikipedia.
I think you are missing the point. All I am saying is that the language of the article should be more neutral, you are being too nit-picking of everything I say. If rushton is a racist, let the FACTS speak for themselves. Let's not spoonfeed the readers the opinion of the author. That is not what wikipedia is about. "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data on IQ scores " You see how the word "devastating" is not neutral. It's an opinion. You can just say a "challenge to Rushton's viewpoint is". You see how that is more neutral but still retains the information. I don't understand why you are so attached to these words that are not neutral. These words make the article look amateurish. I have looked at other articles about controversial figures, and they do not use the kind of opinionated terminology.
As for the britannica article, you are bound to find poorly worded phrasing in some parts. I know for a fact that there are also spelling mistakes and factual errors in britannica articles so saying that doesn't mean anything.
To all the unsigned users: It would be nice of you to create yourselves an ID in Wikipedia and start signing your comments. Otherwise, this will get to be a mess very soon. No weasel words here, just stating the obvious.
You see your doing it again. You are just nit-picking. You don't see my point at all? I just think that the article should state facts. If a prominent scientist says "rushton is a racist" you can put it in as long as you quote him.
I used the encyclopedia britanica as an example by mistake. I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head.
Ok maybe "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss" isn't a weasel word. I just quickly cobbled together a few quotes to make a point. Do I have to laboriously go over the entire article?
What about "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data". Is "devastating" not a weasel word. Come on now. At least give me that one.
I think we can state the facts without having these unattributed opinions.
Whoa, i think your way too sensitive Pete Hurd. I just didn't expect someone to be able to quote from the encyclopedia that's all.
And Ramdrake, "most serious challenge" is good. That's exactly the kind of change I think would make this a better article.
I copied the article to a sub-page in the talk space: Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Draft 1. Why not take a shot at working on a compromise text on that page? You might make more progress that way. -- Rikurzhen 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Rikurzhen. I've gone ahead and did my best to rephrase most of the objectionable passages that user (unsigned) listed. Here's hoping this helped move the article in the right direction. -- Ramdrake 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, has anyone noticed that two of the pro-Rushton reference are by Rushton himself? Not sure that's quite approriate. -- Ramdrake 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Is race a valid concept?" portion and the "Critiques" paragraph that's right after the "Genetic similarity hypothesis" are both basically about the same thing. I think they should be merged together somehow. M314abc 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"First, he asserts that Mongoloid populations could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasoid populations of the Western world. Second, he also argues that Negroid populations with their allegedly more reproductively-minded behavior were especially at risk for AIDS."
I changed a few things and I will tell you why. First what does rushton mean by outdistance? I am pretty sure he means technologically, but if you know differently i think that should be clarified. Using the word "outdistance" is vague and does not mean anything by itself. I think there needs to be another word their clarifying what is being "outdistanced". If you can think of something better than technologically then put it in. I'm also pretty sure rushton thinks that "mongoloids" are more intelligent than "caucasians" and that is the reason for the "outdistancing". I think the "reproductively-minded" is a little too P.C., "promiscous" is a better term. Finally I changed alleged because it is a non-neutral term. Seems like a word to avoid (like claim, believes etc.).
M314abc 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Second, Rushton is very careful not to use the word promiscuous anywhere in his description of Negroids, so I wouldn't put that word in his mouth. What he does say is that their behavioral strategy is geared towards reproduction based on numbers rather than intensive rearing. And lastly, if you were going to use "promiscuous", I can't see how you would balk at using "alleged". Rushton says Negroids are this way and that, and to prove it, he has only statistical circumstantial evidence that his detractors have long since torn to pieces. So, yes he is asserting something without solid evidence, and in English, that's an allegation. -- Ramdrake 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll explain some of the changes I made. I just moved the Cavalli-Sforza part from the "genetic similarity theory" critiques section to the "Is race a valid concept".
Changed "Population geneticists, such as
Cavalli-Sforza, have found that genetic differences " to "has argued that genetic differences". (more neutral wording)
Changed "identifiable groups (various "races") are in fact of much greater" to the sentence "(i.e. "races") are of much greater magnitude than genetic differences" (fact not a very objective term)
Took out "Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory is based on the assumption that individuals can discern genetic similarities and differences." (sentence is not very neutral and unecessary.)
Took out "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " (not a neutral sentence and unecessary)
M314abc 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well alledge is one of those words that make rushton's opinions seem highly dubious. It is the same problem I have with the word claim (a word to avoid). It's not that I necessarily think rushton is right in what he says. I just think that "say" is a better word because it doesn't have a negative (or positive for that matter) connotation. I just think we should let the facts speak for themselves and let the readers judge on their own whether he is a racist or not (a lot of evidence indicates that he may in fact be racist). It's the same reason I took out the dubious sounding sentences below. M314abc 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my edits. I think I did too many at once. I will try to do one edit at a time and explain why. M314abc 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I took out the following sentence again "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " I think this is a bad sentence because for one, it is unecessary. If you read the sentences that precede it you can basically infer that information already. Second, this article doesn't need to tell us what to think. You have to ask yourself who is saying this sentence. Is it an expert opinion, or is it the person who wrote this sentence. I think we should stick to quoting of actual scientists. M314abc 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This article's language can probably be improved to avoid pov-pushing. That would generally look like:
-- Nectar 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Cavalli-Sforza's results are not hypothesis, but fact. Previous version led to believe it was two competing hypotheses. Not." I'm not so sure about saying that something is a fact. I don't think we should be indicating that what he says is an absolute truth. Sforza interprets his results one way, but if you read his wikipedia article, other researchers interpret it differently. I mean there is a whole other wiki article on the validity of "race" as a concept. There is by no means a consesus among scientists. Sforza should be included in this article, however , mainly because Rushton uses data taken from him. You have to realize though that there are critics of Sforza's work too. (look at the end of his wiki article). "In a paper published in 1997, Shomarka Keita and Rick A. Kittles have criticized the primary methodology used by Cavalli-Sforza" M314abc 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll think about how to change the above sentence, but will leave it like it is for now. I personally think we should move that part down to the "Is race a valid concept" category. To me it seems obvious that the genetic similarity hypothesis hinges on whether or not the concept of race is valid. So i don't think it necessarily has to be in the paragraph right after the "genetic similarity.." section. It seems likes its just a little repititous. I realize that it is slightly different. I think it would be better if all the Cavalli-Sforza stuff was in one section instead of being split up. M314abc 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So, we're talking about the detection of specific similar traits. I believe Rushton's hypothesis was that association was based on overall genetic similarity. I see a difference here. The first might work, but the second is disproved; however, re-reading Rushton, it seems pretty clear to me he meant the second. -- Ramdrake 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you happen to know who "Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:" who is this guy. His name appears under the "validity of race as a concept" column. The article though doesn't seem to say who he is. I think we need to make that addition. M314abc 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Gil-White isn't a minor player in the field because nobody has read his website except for Wikipedia editors and his former students. The above interpretation of Gil-White's and his department's description of why his course was rejected clearly goes against the actual quotes. If you're saying Gil-White's above quote is the opposite of what really happened, why would we want to cite someone who can't be relied upon instead of respected scientists? If you want to cite Coroebus's opinion, it would be better to cite his conclusion (quoted in my last comment) rather than a comment made half-way through the conversation. Some WP editors have never come to bipartisan agreements, but it's not uncommon for more reasonable editors to do so. If you can convince Coroebus to withdraw his opposition then we can continue this conversation.-- Nectar 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess this doesn't really matter anyway; the current quotes of Gil-White are a red herring in that section. As long as populations are genetically non-identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection.-- Nectar 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to contribute Nectar then go to the draft (below).
M314abc 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.
Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results. [11] -- Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should unprotect this article? I think it's time to let other people contribute. 64.12.116.69 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We should incorporate information from sources like this one: [12] Ultramarine 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, Nectar, but stating the undisputed fact (not simply an accusation), that he was raised in South Africa during a period of white-dominance and apartheid is not a criticism. If we were to assert he was a racist because of that, that would be an accusation and criticism.
I believe we can probably find direct criticisms like that to cite in a later section, but it seems relevant, informative, and neutral to make it clear under which system of government he was raised. If anything, it may give him a more sympathetic light. -- JereKrischel 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but the sentence "was raised there under the race-based apartheid system controlled by a white minority" is even worse than the sentence it replaced. I still don't see how apartheid needs to mentioned at all. I think most people already know that South Africa had an apartheid system. The readers don't need us to spoon feed them. If we have that sentence why don't we also say "Rushton was born in England, a country that had a large empire that exploited native people". Or you could say "Rushton was born in England, a country that embraces multiculturalism and does not restrict immigration based on race. We could also add "He moved to Canada, a majority white country". Or "He moved to Canada, a country that guarantees rights to citizens of any race". See how these sentences state facts yet are either unecessary or not NPOV. (There are other sentences in this article that could use some work too) I mean take any subject and you can follow that subject by a factual statement giving it a certain connotation. For instance we could write "Gil-White, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania until his contract was "denied renewal" in 2006". This type of thing needs to be avoided in general. Even if I personallly don't change these types of sentences, someone else eventually will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.28.71 ( talk • contribs)
Hmm.. well, I think if Stephen Jay Gould's family had moved to Cuba when he was young, it wouldn't be necessary to say "moved to communist Cuba" instead of "moved to Cuba." (Some critics see Marxist influence on his scientific positions.)-- Nectar 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Mongoloid, Caucasoid, or Negroid have become obsolete since Rushton wrote his 2000 book, and his more recent articles have primarily used other terms. (The US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), for example, were changed in 2004, deleting terms like "Black," "White," and the -oids in favor of "African Continental Ancestry Group" etc. ctrl f ethnic) I think Asian, Caucasian, and African are what we should use, including a note clarifying what they refer to in this context.-- Nectar 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's Rushton and Jensen's treatment of race in Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.
It seemed more appropriate to use the specific MeSH terminology (2004), if the point is to end the use of "obsolete" terms. From the NLM site:
Ethnic Groups and Geographic Origins—Categories I and M: The MeSH descriptor Racial Stocks,and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004 along with Blacks and Whites. Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.
The use of "Africans/Caucasians/Asians" seems just as obsolete as "Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid". -- JereKrischel 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in the discussion above, Rushton actually uses Mongoloid/Negroid/Caucasoid in most of his writing. If we'd like to move away from the NLM terminology, back to the "oids" that Rushton uses, we can move in that direction. -- JereKrischel 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Paragraphs like this seem to lower the articles credibility:
Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups (see Arithmetic mean). For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:
First of all it appears to be original research. You cite no well known expert of any kind making that claim. It reduces the complex field of genetics to a simple formula, and it's presented in a way that implies it contradicts Jensen. Could you please leave your own arguments out and stick to citing experts? Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not making original arguments.
The Flynn Effect is mentioned as a devestating challenge to Rushton, but when a cogent reply complete with an actual quotes to frequently cited experts was added, you edited the whole thing out. Why are you trying to show only one side of debate, and the side of the debate you show is not attributed to any experts. Why was all this edited out?
However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:
1. We do not know what causes the test score changes over time.
2. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence.
3. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same.
4. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.
5. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin.
Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic. Critics claim that the genetic difference between males and females is an order of magnitude greater than any observed difference between "races".
Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkely writes:
If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.'''''''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 ( talk • contribs)
Actually the faulty syllogism is a direct quote from Robert C. Nichols and the quote from Jensen can be found in his book. The argument in between originated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
You write:
One will note that at the same time Jensen defends the idea of race, his self-described analysis undercuts the 3-"race" hierarchy Rushton supports, and instead notes a 4-"race" distribution.
He doesn't undercut Rushton. Rushton never said there were ONLY 3 races. But his study is focused on the 3 broadest population groups. The existence of a fourth race (which btw is probably a mix of races) does not undercut the idea of 3 MAIN races. Again can we please just stick to reporting facts and quotes and leave our own personal interpretations out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 ( talk • contribs)
But Rushton's study is precisely focused on the three largest racial categories. How does the existence of a smaller racial categroy in anyway contradict his research? That's like someone doing a study on the 3 major cities in a country and then others complaining that they ignored the rural towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
The selection of a number of groups to divide people into is (in general) arbitrary (but there are heuristics for such a selection). It doesn't follow necessarily that one person's view that people should be divided into 4 groups for analysis A is contradictory with another's view that people should be divided into 3 groups for analysis B. -- Rikurzhen 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know those groups don't fall into the lines he draws? You have to start evolutionary research somewhere and so it makes sense to start with three largest genetic clusters of human-kind. Rushton is only one man. It's hard enough for one researcher to analyze hundreds of studies on 60 different variables when comparing the 3 largest races, but the existences of smaller races, along with divisions within races, is a challenges he leaves to future scholars. The existence of a 4th race would only undercut Rushton if Rushton theory was dependent on there being only 3 races, OR if the 4th race could be shown to somehow contradict his data. In neither case that's true, so your statement should be removed. Even if if you were right your statement should still be removed since your editorializing. It's hard enough to agree on an edit when we just report the facts. Adding original analysis and interpretation will make it impossible. And your statement about isolated groups evolving in parallel in no way contradicts the fact that throughout evolution, a populations that branch off earlier tend to be less K selected than populations that branch off later. Within primates, monkeys branched off earliest and are much less K selected than Hominoids branched off last and are the most K selected. Apes are intermediate in both K selection and splitting off date. This clearly contradicts your claim that parallel evolution makes splitting off dates irrelevant. In fact the pattern can be extended all through evolution, and not just within the primate branch which itself branched off later than others orders of mammals which are less K selected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 ( talk • contribs)
Instead of saying things like "The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't" can you please try to be a little more open-minded on this issue? The point is you can point to the existence of a fourth race, independent of the three largest races Rushton studies, without making the biased assertion that such a finding undercuts Rushton's research. Why do you have so much difficulty adhearing to Wikipedia's neutral perspective policy? In fact Rushton knew from the outset, that the 3 race model does not include all humans, but only the 3 largest populations which seems a good place to start. The existence of a 4th race, or even a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th race is in no way a logical fallacy on Rushton's part since he's studying only the 3 largest races. Does the existence of xyy people undercut all the research finding differences between men (xy) and women (xx)? Does the existence of bisexual people undercut research on the two main sexual orientations (homosexual & heterosexual). Does the existence of additional kingdoms undercut research of biologists comparing the animal kingdom with the plant kingdom? If the sasquatch is suddenly discovered, does that undercut research done comparing known primates? And of course there are case of earlier branches that eventually go on to outdistance branches that were once higher. However if you're on the first branch, and you don't do any more branching, then by definition you're less evolved than higher branches. As for inter-species/intra-species comparisons, I think that's discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
AFAIK Rushton has never implied "all humans" can be ordered into these 3 groups, but is just referring to a pattern in 3 of the main groups. A single sentence giving this caveat is probably fine, maybe along the lines of: Some other branches in human history, such as the SE Asian and Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans may not have direct relevance to Rushton's model. (These look like the major branches not discussed, according to the trees in Cavalla-Sforza's 1994 book. p. 78) -- Nectar 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because Rushton believes that there are divisions within the 3 races in no way implies a denial of races outside the 3 races. Indeed I can quote a section from his book that makes clear he recognizes the existence of races outside the big 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
On page 235 of his book he writes "Of course it is simplified to divide all the world's people into just three major races. This ignores 'Negritoes' and 'Australoids', but also subdivisions within the macro races." Note that Negritoes are believed by many to be the original people of South East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
Please stop working your own opinions into the article. Wikipedia articles must remain neutral and asserting something as a "contradiction" or constantly putting your own spin on things, and interpreting the facts for the reader represents an unwelcome bias. And Rushton never used the term "linear evolution" that's just your interpretaion. And in my opinion the existence of other races outside the big 3 call nothing into question. Feel free to quote experts criticising his theory but working your own interpretations into the article is wholly unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 ( talk • contribs)
Who said anything about "linear"? Let's not put words into Rushton's mouth.
The contradiction is in your head. All Rushton is saying is that the 3 largest races branched off at very different times and these splitting-off dates correlate with his r-K continuum. It's fine to mention the existences of races outside the big 3, but the existence of a 4th race in no way contradicts the existence of the 3 largest races, nor does it contradict the chronological correlates he found among them. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over again. Perhaps the page should just stay protected so that we can both move on.
This article needs to be totally rewritten, preferably by someone who is not biased against rushton. First of all this article should be about rushton and his ideas. Instead it is basically an essay on why rushton is wrong. Each point made by rushton is followed by a comment as to why the point is incorrect. The job of this article is not to prove rushton right or wrong, it is only to tell about his ideas. All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary. The article is also full of words which are not subjective and is worded to make rushton's ideas seem false. That is your opinion, it has no place in a wikipedia article. JereKrischel you have shown by the way you answer other peoples questions that you are not objective on this subject and should not have a hand in writing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 ( talk • contribs)
I didn't say criticism couldn't be included, I just said it should be at the end of the article instead of a point for point critique of his view. The essay is completely against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 ( talk • contribs)
Ok there is at least a few things which i think should be changed: "Foreshadowing the massive controversy that would erupt over his later racial theories" The word "massive" is a subjective term that i don't think should be included in this article. (unsigned by 205.188.117.69)
Any edit wars ocurring seem to have been cooled. Unprotecting the page would make things easier.-- Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why your so against changing words to make the article seem more professional and less like an opinion article. That should be the goal of wikipedia.
I think you are missing the point. All I am saying is that the language of the article should be more neutral, you are being too nit-picking of everything I say. If rushton is a racist, let the FACTS speak for themselves. Let's not spoonfeed the readers the opinion of the author. That is not what wikipedia is about. "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data on IQ scores " You see how the word "devastating" is not neutral. It's an opinion. You can just say a "challenge to Rushton's viewpoint is". You see how that is more neutral but still retains the information. I don't understand why you are so attached to these words that are not neutral. These words make the article look amateurish. I have looked at other articles about controversial figures, and they do not use the kind of opinionated terminology.
As for the britannica article, you are bound to find poorly worded phrasing in some parts. I know for a fact that there are also spelling mistakes and factual errors in britannica articles so saying that doesn't mean anything.
To all the unsigned users: It would be nice of you to create yourselves an ID in Wikipedia and start signing your comments. Otherwise, this will get to be a mess very soon. No weasel words here, just stating the obvious.
You see your doing it again. You are just nit-picking. You don't see my point at all? I just think that the article should state facts. If a prominent scientist says "rushton is a racist" you can put it in as long as you quote him.
I used the encyclopedia britanica as an example by mistake. I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head.
Ok maybe "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss" isn't a weasel word. I just quickly cobbled together a few quotes to make a point. Do I have to laboriously go over the entire article?
What about "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data". Is "devastating" not a weasel word. Come on now. At least give me that one.
I think we can state the facts without having these unattributed opinions.
Whoa, i think your way too sensitive Pete Hurd. I just didn't expect someone to be able to quote from the encyclopedia that's all.
And Ramdrake, "most serious challenge" is good. That's exactly the kind of change I think would make this a better article.
I copied the article to a sub-page in the talk space: Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Draft 1. Why not take a shot at working on a compromise text on that page? You might make more progress that way. -- Rikurzhen 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Rikurzhen. I've gone ahead and did my best to rephrase most of the objectionable passages that user (unsigned) listed. Here's hoping this helped move the article in the right direction. -- Ramdrake 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, has anyone noticed that two of the pro-Rushton reference are by Rushton himself? Not sure that's quite approriate. -- Ramdrake 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Is race a valid concept?" portion and the "Critiques" paragraph that's right after the "Genetic similarity hypothesis" are both basically about the same thing. I think they should be merged together somehow. M314abc 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"First, he asserts that Mongoloid populations could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasoid populations of the Western world. Second, he also argues that Negroid populations with their allegedly more reproductively-minded behavior were especially at risk for AIDS."
I changed a few things and I will tell you why. First what does rushton mean by outdistance? I am pretty sure he means technologically, but if you know differently i think that should be clarified. Using the word "outdistance" is vague and does not mean anything by itself. I think there needs to be another word their clarifying what is being "outdistanced". If you can think of something better than technologically then put it in. I'm also pretty sure rushton thinks that "mongoloids" are more intelligent than "caucasians" and that is the reason for the "outdistancing". I think the "reproductively-minded" is a little too P.C., "promiscous" is a better term. Finally I changed alleged because it is a non-neutral term. Seems like a word to avoid (like claim, believes etc.).
M314abc 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Second, Rushton is very careful not to use the word promiscuous anywhere in his description of Negroids, so I wouldn't put that word in his mouth. What he does say is that their behavioral strategy is geared towards reproduction based on numbers rather than intensive rearing. And lastly, if you were going to use "promiscuous", I can't see how you would balk at using "alleged". Rushton says Negroids are this way and that, and to prove it, he has only statistical circumstantial evidence that his detractors have long since torn to pieces. So, yes he is asserting something without solid evidence, and in English, that's an allegation. -- Ramdrake 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll explain some of the changes I made. I just moved the Cavalli-Sforza part from the "genetic similarity theory" critiques section to the "Is race a valid concept".
Changed "Population geneticists, such as
Cavalli-Sforza, have found that genetic differences " to "has argued that genetic differences". (more neutral wording)
Changed "identifiable groups (various "races") are in fact of much greater" to the sentence "(i.e. "races") are of much greater magnitude than genetic differences" (fact not a very objective term)
Took out "Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory is based on the assumption that individuals can discern genetic similarities and differences." (sentence is not very neutral and unecessary.)
Took out "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " (not a neutral sentence and unecessary)
M314abc 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well alledge is one of those words that make rushton's opinions seem highly dubious. It is the same problem I have with the word claim (a word to avoid). It's not that I necessarily think rushton is right in what he says. I just think that "say" is a better word because it doesn't have a negative (or positive for that matter) connotation. I just think we should let the facts speak for themselves and let the readers judge on their own whether he is a racist or not (a lot of evidence indicates that he may in fact be racist). It's the same reason I took out the dubious sounding sentences below. M314abc 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my edits. I think I did too many at once. I will try to do one edit at a time and explain why. M314abc 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I took out the following sentence again "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " I think this is a bad sentence because for one, it is unecessary. If you read the sentences that precede it you can basically infer that information already. Second, this article doesn't need to tell us what to think. You have to ask yourself who is saying this sentence. Is it an expert opinion, or is it the person who wrote this sentence. I think we should stick to quoting of actual scientists. M314abc 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This article's language can probably be improved to avoid pov-pushing. That would generally look like:
-- Nectar 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Cavalli-Sforza's results are not hypothesis, but fact. Previous version led to believe it was two competing hypotheses. Not." I'm not so sure about saying that something is a fact. I don't think we should be indicating that what he says is an absolute truth. Sforza interprets his results one way, but if you read his wikipedia article, other researchers interpret it differently. I mean there is a whole other wiki article on the validity of "race" as a concept. There is by no means a consesus among scientists. Sforza should be included in this article, however , mainly because Rushton uses data taken from him. You have to realize though that there are critics of Sforza's work too. (look at the end of his wiki article). "In a paper published in 1997, Shomarka Keita and Rick A. Kittles have criticized the primary methodology used by Cavalli-Sforza" M314abc 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll think about how to change the above sentence, but will leave it like it is for now. I personally think we should move that part down to the "Is race a valid concept" category. To me it seems obvious that the genetic similarity hypothesis hinges on whether or not the concept of race is valid. So i don't think it necessarily has to be in the paragraph right after the "genetic similarity.." section. It seems likes its just a little repititous. I realize that it is slightly different. I think it would be better if all the Cavalli-Sforza stuff was in one section instead of being split up. M314abc 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So, we're talking about the detection of specific similar traits. I believe Rushton's hypothesis was that association was based on overall genetic similarity. I see a difference here. The first might work, but the second is disproved; however, re-reading Rushton, it seems pretty clear to me he meant the second. -- Ramdrake 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you happen to know who "Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:" who is this guy. His name appears under the "validity of race as a concept" column. The article though doesn't seem to say who he is. I think we need to make that addition. M314abc 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Gil-White isn't a minor player in the field because nobody has read his website except for Wikipedia editors and his former students. The above interpretation of Gil-White's and his department's description of why his course was rejected clearly goes against the actual quotes. If you're saying Gil-White's above quote is the opposite of what really happened, why would we want to cite someone who can't be relied upon instead of respected scientists? If you want to cite Coroebus's opinion, it would be better to cite his conclusion (quoted in my last comment) rather than a comment made half-way through the conversation. Some WP editors have never come to bipartisan agreements, but it's not uncommon for more reasonable editors to do so. If you can convince Coroebus to withdraw his opposition then we can continue this conversation.-- Nectar 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess this doesn't really matter anyway; the current quotes of Gil-White are a red herring in that section. As long as populations are genetically non-identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection.-- Nectar 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to contribute Nectar then go to the draft (below).
M314abc 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.
Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results. [11] -- Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should unprotect this article? I think it's time to let other people contribute. 64.12.116.69 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We should incorporate information from sources like this one: [12] Ultramarine 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, Nectar, but stating the undisputed fact (not simply an accusation), that he was raised in South Africa during a period of white-dominance and apartheid is not a criticism. If we were to assert he was a racist because of that, that would be an accusation and criticism.
I believe we can probably find direct criticisms like that to cite in a later section, but it seems relevant, informative, and neutral to make it clear under which system of government he was raised. If anything, it may give him a more sympathetic light. -- JereKrischel 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but the sentence "was raised there under the race-based apartheid system controlled by a white minority" is even worse than the sentence it replaced. I still don't see how apartheid needs to mentioned at all. I think most people already know that South Africa had an apartheid system. The readers don't need us to spoon feed them. If we have that sentence why don't we also say "Rushton was born in England, a country that had a large empire that exploited native people". Or you could say "Rushton was born in England, a country that embraces multiculturalism and does not restrict immigration based on race. We could also add "He moved to Canada, a majority white country". Or "He moved to Canada, a country that guarantees rights to citizens of any race". See how these sentences state facts yet are either unecessary or not NPOV. (There are other sentences in this article that could use some work too) I mean take any subject and you can follow that subject by a factual statement giving it a certain connotation. For instance we could write "Gil-White, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania until his contract was "denied renewal" in 2006". This type of thing needs to be avoided in general. Even if I personallly don't change these types of sentences, someone else eventually will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.28.71 ( talk • contribs)
Hmm.. well, I think if Stephen Jay Gould's family had moved to Cuba when he was young, it wouldn't be necessary to say "moved to communist Cuba" instead of "moved to Cuba." (Some critics see Marxist influence on his scientific positions.)-- Nectar 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Mongoloid, Caucasoid, or Negroid have become obsolete since Rushton wrote his 2000 book, and his more recent articles have primarily used other terms. (The US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), for example, were changed in 2004, deleting terms like "Black," "White," and the -oids in favor of "African Continental Ancestry Group" etc. ctrl f ethnic) I think Asian, Caucasian, and African are what we should use, including a note clarifying what they refer to in this context.-- Nectar 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's Rushton and Jensen's treatment of race in Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.
It seemed more appropriate to use the specific MeSH terminology (2004), if the point is to end the use of "obsolete" terms. From the NLM site:
Ethnic Groups and Geographic Origins—Categories I and M: The MeSH descriptor Racial Stocks,and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004 along with Blacks and Whites. Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.
The use of "Africans/Caucasians/Asians" seems just as obsolete as "Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid". -- JereKrischel 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in the discussion above, Rushton actually uses Mongoloid/Negroid/Caucasoid in most of his writing. If we'd like to move away from the NLM terminology, back to the "oids" that Rushton uses, we can move in that direction. -- JereKrischel 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)