![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
All of the above complicate the (purely scientific) task of objectively determining what the relationship has been, is, or could be - between " race" and " intelligence".
That's my two cents. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC)
Patrick wrote:
Well, why don't we say in the introductory paragraphs that the article examines the question of how race and intelligence may or may not be related? I would suggest:
We might even go so far as to say:
Okay, we can leave out the sports heroes, but that's how i would like to start things off. Nobody could possibly misconstrue it, anyway. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:13 (UTC)
Why can't we put it this way? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC)
If you only state or describe an issue one way it makes it too easy for a propagandist to come along latter and confuse description with cause (repetition is used to do this), alternative causes can't get a fair or neutral presentation of the issue if it is only ever stated in terms of "race". From the way you and the article carefully construct sentences it seems you never want to allow for the thought or the possibility that race is not a cause at all? zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)
I have re-reverted Zen's changes again. Zen, I said it further up already: the "suspicious emphasis" you are claiming to remove is the common boldfacing of terms that appear in the title. That is standard Wikipedia style, see our Style Guide. The article on Race and intelligence is forced to boldface the first appearance of the terms (as it does). Since both terms are known to be controversial, the present article takes them up again in the Background section and gives a somewhat more elaborate definition of both nouns. That has nothing to do with emphasis. You also continue to remove a lot of italic Wikilinks. For example, you haved changed "people labeled Blacks" into "people labeled blacks". First, please don't destroy Wiki infrastructure by removing hyperlinks. Second, the italics in Blacks here is because the word appears "as a word". Again, the style guide forces us to set it in italic type. (Read section 4.2 of WP:MOS, the section called Words as words.) Your energy might be spent on better things than removing markup that follows typographical conventions in this encyclopedia, instead of assuming what you call "suspicious emphasis". Arbor 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, the article and title should reflect where the lack of consensus begins, which in this case is the "IQ" and other tests. Repeated emphasis on a dubious correlation to only one bit of information about the test taker ("race") is the next level of error as far as this alleged scientific research goes. zen master T 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
I propose the following language to properly contextualize the information about test scores and so-called races.
Even though there is a correspondence between racial groups as commonly defined in American society and intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests and similar instruments, that correspondence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that race determines intelligence. Presumably there are genetic factors that are responsible for some of the characteristics categorized as racial traits. Presumably there are other genetic factors that are responsible for native intelligence and that serve as a foundation for achieved scores on intelligence test instruments. There is, however, no necessary connection between groups of genetic traits, and in fact the exact recipes of genetic characteristics that determine all individuals are different (except in the case of identical twins). Furthermore, successful expression of genetic potentials for traits such as intelligence may depend on contingent factors pertinent to individuals or related groups of individuals. just as some kinds of vegetation thrive in one environment that another kind of vegetation may find unsuitable.
Please help me polish the language. P0M 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
I agree with the this edit: [2]. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Zen-master: As long as you repeat what you have said before and do not respond to attempts to get a point by point clarification going, we will get nowhere. Look at what you just said:
Every time you state your objections you should avoid "virtual blank" expressions like "the issue", "the discrepancy", etc. In a series of articles that would take the possible influences on intelligence one by one for examination there would be a place for examining whether there is any correlation between genetic heritage and intelligence. I think that must be what you mean by "the issue" -- either that or you have ignored my attempts to fill in some of these virtual blanks above. Assuming that I've got that part right, then your question becomes:
So you want a "non-race" way of examining whether there is a correlation between race and intelligence?
Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe you're assuming that it does? You maybe want to deny that [race] determines [intelligence] by refusing to look at the fact that [race] correlates with [intelligence]. But even if you can prove that malnutrition limits intelligence, that brain trauma limits intelligence, etc., etc. (which shouldn't be any problem to do at all), that will not change the fact that [race] is correlated to [intelligence] if (after you've qualified things as carefully as I did above -- and I checked with a university biology professor to make sure I was making no beginner's mistakes) you get that kind of test results. Sure, your opponent says, all these things limit intelligence.
But here is what you should be looking at (and it's been pointed out by somebody before): It may be that the genetics of intelligence are fine and some intervening factor pertinent to one [race] mucks things up. It could be that Anglo type people reduce the intelligence of their children because they deprive them of some element of nurture. Perhaps Anglo types are so moralistic and legalistic about alchohol consumption that they absolutely never give kids any alcohol before their teens. Jewish people and Chinese people are more intelligent, not because of any genetic superiority but because both cultures are cool about letting even the little kids have a thimblefull of wine every once in a while. (Crazy example, but who knows, at least the part about wine consumption is true.) Or maybe some [races] need ten times as much of some trace mineral as other [races] in order to let the brain develope fully. The genetic potential is there, but they need the extra chromium and it's not in their diets. Once you notice that that [racial] group is not doing well on IQ tests you poke around, make your discovery, and start advising them to take chelated chromium pills. Suddenly IQ tests go up -- but only if you face facts.
Unless you actually look at the question of whether [race] correlates with [intelligence], and then look at the question of whether different genetic characteristics cause different levels of intelligence, you cannot fight those conclusions (which, I am sure you will agree, are already out there). It's like monster man comes on the scene and Batman says, "I won't fight you. I will go off and fight the numbers runner over there." P0M 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Race and intelligence refers to the controversy surrounding the findings of many studies that racial groups show differences in average cognitive ability test scores...
Even though some U.S. racial groups show differences in average measured cognitive ability, racial ancestry itself may not influence cognitive ability. Genetic factors produce some racial traits; genetic factors are believed to influence measured cognitive ability. However, these two types of factors may be entirely distinct. Furthermore, genetic factors may guide but never fully determine any individual's realized ability, because other factors (such as culture, status and upbringing) pertaining to individuals or groups also influence cognitive development.
I've attempted to address the central problem with the use of the term "IQ" in this article, which is that IQ is too specialized. The AFQT, for example, which has been endlessly mined for cognitive ability data, is not recognized as an IQ test, yet it's g-loaded and is a valid measure of cognitive ability. Generally, no cognitive ability score can be turned into an IQ score without loss. In my experience, "cognitive ability" or "general mental ability" is preferentially used in the literature. To compromise, since some people have expressed an affinity for IQ despite its shortcomings, I've indicated that IQ will be used in a general way to encompass all cognitive ability measures. -- DAD 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
Look, you guys (especially Patrick this time), I've told you to avoid personal remarks before. And just as Zen-master had made a really good statement summing up his criticisms of the article, you went right back to talking about him. That is NOT ALLOWED.
Stop playing innocent, stop pretending it's all the other guy's fault. Get back to discussing the ARTICLE and how to improve it.
Start by apologizing (unconditionally!) to each other for your personal remarks. Not here, I've locked the page; I'll look for the diffs on the D/P/Z talk pages.
There's enough bickering and squabbling in the academic and political realms about this matter. I won't allow that to spill over into this discussion. Not as long as I have the power to squelch it.
Think about the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
Thanks, Drummond and Patrick. Page unlocked. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
The new compromised intro succeeds in:
I don't think this is what was meant to be the end result, and this article should probably focus on being a science article, subject to the same standards as other science articles. This probably means focusing primarily on describing the area of scientific research, and doing so without advocating views, such as defining the findings of the area as being tied to Nazi eugenics practices. If you want to differentiate this article from being a science article, it could be moved to "Race and intelligence controversy" instead. Best, Nectarflowed T 2 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
Man, I like the current into (as of 09:46, 2 July 2005)! I have tried to click through its evolution over the past many edits -- thanks to everybody who contributed. Stellar work. The only thing I would want to tweak is the following passage:
Could we reword "fear" or "shun the research" to something more neutral? It paints the owners of this POV as hypocritical. Also, maybe one could motivate the POV of that group, just as the first sentence motivates the opposing POV. I have tried to write that second sentence myself, but my prose isn't good enough for that. Here are some attempts:
One reason to be opposed to the second explanation is that it is not balanced. For examle, I happen to think that cognitive differences between groups is a very strong argument for social democracy, so the research presented here is my own basis for a left-wing/high taxes/high social security argument. (And a pretty strong one, I believe.) We are ignoring that POV by only mentioning the utility of these results to further a racist political agenda. To make this clear, I could agitate for including the following paragraph:
See? Apart from being deliberately facetious, this is actually my political POV; the reason I am not pushing for something like this is that I don't want the current article to become more political. I am a scientist, this is a scientific subject, and needs a scientific article. Not politics. (Maybe we want an article about Politics of race and intelligence; I'll be happy to contribute.)
The gist of this is that I am a bit concerned about stating only one valid political POV on this article. (Namely, that people who are against racism sometimes also are against research into cognitive differences between races.) I would prefer to remove the political motivations completely, and focus on epistemological questions. Arbor 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
Comments? zen master T 30 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)
Zen, you cannot do this. We have debated the title at length over the last few weeks. The article has been through a VfD. There was nothing even approaching consensus for renaming, changing, or moving this article to Race and IQ. You are POV-pushing and violating WP etiquette. It is difficult to view this as an act of good faith, and I will revert you.
To reiterate the main reason to oppose the name change: the article is not only about IQ. It is also about SAT, g, brain size, and reaction time. Race and IQ is a misleading title. Arbor 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Zen, but you are breaking Wikiquette, not me. We have discussed this article at length here, and in the VfD. To make a substantial change (like moving the article's title and making it be only about IQ, not about other measures of intelligence) you need consensus among Wikipedia editors. You don't have that. Quite the contrary, actually. So you are out of line, from an administrative point of view. Lacking consensus for a major change, the status quo is to be maintained. That's how we do it here.
You are also wrong about your repeated allegations of us being unscientific. There is a scientific journal (peer-reviewed) called Intelligence. It is not called “Intelligence” (in quotes) not IQ nor Intelligence measures nor anything like that. It's called Intelligence. That is the term used by the scientific community to discuss the topics pertaining to this article. (Studies of Race and IQ are a subfield of this line of inquiry.) You may not like that. You may think it's misguided, racist, stupid, inflammatory, and whatnot. But it is strictly scientific. (Again, I urge you to have a look at Mainstream science on intelligence or the APA report.) So please stop labelling our endeavors as unscientific. Indeed, it would be welcome if you yourself increased the level of scientific reliability in your contributions. So far, you have posted web pages. Stop doing that, and refer us to peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict what is said in this article, preferably some that are not already mentioned here. Your scientific method so far has been google. The rest of the editors use peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.
As to your changes, some of them I quite liked and I will be happy to put them back (you write good prose, and some of the bumpier passages improved from your attention). But the majority were either heavily POV, or simply bad Wikipedia style. For example, you removed a lot of wikilinks and boldface on title terms. You also boldly removed a few paragraphs whose removal you must have assumed were controversial. You need to take these things up in talk first. Arbor 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)
Ed, I need to cut in here. That's simply not what the main POVs are. No paper I have ever seen on this topic even comes close to claiming (1). I understand that your description above is well-intentioned, but you are simply wrong. If you want to give a simplified explanation at all, there are 2 POVs: (1) this topic is a non-topic (e.g., because it's taboo, or a linguistic trick, or dangerous, or neither of the terms race or intelligence is meaningful) (2) the question is meaningful, and there is a corellation between race and intelligence. The first POV is seen in the public debate (for example, The Mismeasure of Man is the best-known exposition). The second POV is consensus in the scientific community (for example, see the APA report or Mainstream science on intelligence, both of which attempt to give laymen an overview of what "science thinks"). The 2nd POV can be subdivided into two: (2a) the correlation is caused entirely by environmental factors, and (2b) the correlation is not entirely caused by environmental factors. I hope this helps. To repeat: absolutely nobody in the scholarly debate would ever postulate the completely ridiculous idea that race determines intelligence. (But there may be a correlation.) Arbor 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I found this after only a few seconds of googling:
Is this what you're referring to, Zen-master? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
I didn't say the statement was true. But I mention it because it seems to resonate with a repeated comment by ZM.
Also, there seems to be a considerable controversy over the correlation between skin color or race, and scores on IQ tests. So I have started a new article on race and IQ.
I hope Wikipedia's series of articles on human intelligence will cover the broad scope of academic and social views.
And I'd still like to hear from Z. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
The citations on this talk page prove the methods and results of intelligence research studies are very much in dispute, why won't some users allow acknowledgement of this in the intro? Also, why does the second paragraph repeatedly mention "racial categorization" or "genetics" while describing the environmental possibility? What specifically is wrong with this suggested intro: [4] zen master T 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
The second paragraph (and the entire article) was not constructed with NPOV in mind and is very unclear on its own. Why don't you want to state it simply as "environment and/or genetics is the cause"? If environmental factors are the cause then it would be wrong to classify the issue as a "racial disparity"? zen master T 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
Okay. Your first sentence equates two concepts (through '/'): a question, and a scientific hypothesis. In science, these are distinct: a question poses the problem to be solved, and a hypothesis proposes a solution. The question does not presuppose any hypothesis. Does that make sense? -- DAD T 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Most criticisms of the movement are fundamental to the way "intelligence researchers" may be abusing science by using presumption inducing language, see the citations listed above or see scientific racism or see [5]. Though I have never advocated the exclusion of considering "race" vs "IQ", but that does not mean it gets to have its very own article (would be non neutral to ignore the other ways of looking at the issue). zen master T 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
Bear with me; I've now re-scrutinized your primary references. Summary: I disagree that they substantiate your positions that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research, that racial disparity in IQ cannot be treated as a standalone subject no matter what hypotheses are advanced, and that these positions reflect anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs. Moreover, most of these references do not meet WP standards. Here are the references:
I can find no statement in this source to substantiate the position that inquiring about racial IQ disparity a) presupposes a cause, or b) is untenable no matter what hypotheses are advanced. It uses The Mismeasure of Man almost exclusively as the basis for its argument. This reference is an article in Z Magazine, a non-peer-reviewed magazine which is openly radical [7]:
While we do our best to reach as wide an audience as possible, we think we a lot more people could use our radical message of activism and alternatives. [emphasis mine]
I conclude that this reference does not support your specific position, and that the reference itself does not reflect either a scientific or a mainstream viewpoint. Speaking candidly, the reference appears to be a pure screed, with accusations of racism appearing every few sentences for its entire length. It is intensely inflammatory and in no way meets WP standards for NPOV.
The article explicitly recognizes the priority of scientific findings. The general thrust of the article is that 1) races do not exist, and 2) IQ is a fraud. Despite its claim to address pseudoscience with science, the article does not expose controversy in the scientific community; instead, it is almost entirely Gil-White's arguments. The only quoted passage is that "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of...'race'"; this is an unsubstantiated claim about the motivations of researchers which, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of scientific findings.
The source of the article is, like the previous reference, a non-peer-reviewed online magazine with an activist bent:
Emperor's Clothes is unusual. Our "mission purpose" is the exposure of lies, especially media lies, but also the lies of would-be leaders, including those who claim to be opposing Establishment policies. We tell the truth as we see it even when telling the truth contradicts preconceptions, even the preconceptions of our readers or ourselves. In this age of super-conformity we refuse to subject our views to political correctness as defined by *any* camp.
I conclude that the reference provides rhetorical support for the claim that IQ is a fraud and that race is, too. However, the reference does not even approximate scientific criticism (peer review, exposed analytical techniques). It is far beneath WP standards for a reference.
The review raises questions about The Bell Curve either through argument or by referencing other works. Again, it clearly does not reflect mainstream science (and shows dubious editorial control):
For over 15 fourchy years, Go Inside Magazine has served as your premier, unbiased, independent, international, resource for information: We Are Everywhere, We Are Jederman. We refuse all advertising. None of us are paid. We are owned by no one. We are purposefully as plain text as possible to support the widest range of readers. If you need blunt, insightful and ringing commentary on the world at large, then you need to Go Inside or get left behind! [10]
The review has almost nothing to add to the scholarly debate; significant space, for example, explores the Pioneer Fund and its funding of various researchers. In particular, I can find no support for the claim that racial disparity in IQ can only be treated in the context of all other IQ disparities.
Overall, despite the context in which they were provided, these references provide little or no support for the POVs being advanced (that racial disparity in IQ cannot be addressed as a standalone question, no matter what hypotheses are considered; that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research; and that these positions are anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs -- or simply your views alone).
Moreover, these references offer no new material to the scientific debate. They are never peer-reviewed and make no claim to be works of science, even as they recruit various scientific findings to their cause. Most often, these references act as tertiary sources which quote secondary sources ( The Bell Curve, The Mismeasure of Man). They show no evidence of awareness of the scientific debate's current state as reflected in scientific journals.
Finally, these references are virulently POV and openly embrace their non-mainstream status as their self-descriptions show. Wikipedia can do much better. Look to the reference list in the actual article for an alternative.
Editorially speaking, the posts containing and referring to these online-magazine sources reflect a deep confusion between 1) controversy within mainstream science and 2) controversy surrounding mainstream science. The controversy within science is notably mild, such as Dolan's critique of Jensen's use of correlated vectors. The controversy surrounding the science is notably shrill and has little to say about the state of the art (see all your above references).
ZM, kindly provide some better references than book reviews, screeds and opinion pieces. Best, -- DAD T 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
The citations are reputable and numerous, there is even an entire scientific racism article which is very relevant here. It doesn't take a scientist to see that politically motivated "researchers" are using unsound methods. Scientists still have to present the issue using the scientific method. How do you justify the presumption inducing language and method of presentation for the subject? zen master T 4 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
As Rikurzhen and Arbor and maybe others have pointed out, there are precedents on Wikipedia for dealing with controversial science topics.
Note that the intro of Evolution doesn't refer to it as a "controversial theory," even though only 12% of the US population actually believes in it [I haven't seen stats for other countries]. Evolution doesn't link to eugenics, even though eugenicists drew heavily from it.
Note that at Stem cells, embryonic stem cell research is always spoken of first as an area of science. -- Nectarflowed T 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Zen-master, let your questions be answered on the talk page. An edit-war is a counter-productive way to further your argument and may make people less interested in what you have to say. It may also lead to you being the subject of an arbitration comittee. Just talk about your concerns here. -- Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Hi, a new observer here. It's possible that I'm going to rehash some previous discussion, but I'm going to take that risk, because this article remains fundamentally, deeply flawed.
The vast majority of content and citations in this article discuss the subject from a psychological viewpoint. Here, "intelligence" is described in the terminology preferred by that field; IQ, g, and the like. The problem is, psychology does not have a monopoly on these issues. Even staying within the academy, other fields and literatures including - but not limited to - anthropology, sociology, philosophy, education and history have had much to say about ideas of intelligence and race. These concerns are briefly mentioned in the "background information" section, but only in passing, but then are followed by the critical paragraph:
Here, we're barely one screenfull into a long article about a complex, contentious issue, and we've already cast away fundamental questions about its entire framework by briefly mentioning them and then relegating them to linked articles. Potential questions about the entire epistemology used by the studies described later in the article are separated out, and shortchanged in terms of the overall volume of content as well.
In fact, though, the game really was up even sooner. As others have noted, that graph at the top of the article makes the argument before we even start reading. Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity, couched in the quantitative language of science.
All this is related to a broader issue; Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. While I have respect for both the scientific method and for peer review, and have experience with both, they are not guarantees of truth, only two useful indicators of credibility. Almost any contemporary historian or philosopher of science will tell you the myriad ways that science has established itself as an arbiter of the one true answer, from framing the debate, to shutting out voices from outside of science. I'm afraid I've seen examples of both on this talk page.
Finally, a concrete suggestion. I'd suggest that those who are most closely involved here aggressively seek out input from far more people. I see that there was an RFC a while back - that's good, but it was a while ago and things are still contentious. Do we think it's okay to rewrite the synopsis on that page, make it snappy and fun, and move it to the top of the list? It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, Talk:Race and similar requesting comments from interested people as well. I'm not going to do either of these things right now, as I haven't been here long, but maybe someone else will? Further, if some new folks turn up, maybe those who have been butting heads would like to take a break for a bit? CDC (talk) 4 July 2005 04:23 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
All of the above complicate the (purely scientific) task of objectively determining what the relationship has been, is, or could be - between " race" and " intelligence".
That's my two cents. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC)
Patrick wrote:
Well, why don't we say in the introductory paragraphs that the article examines the question of how race and intelligence may or may not be related? I would suggest:
We might even go so far as to say:
Okay, we can leave out the sports heroes, but that's how i would like to start things off. Nobody could possibly misconstrue it, anyway. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:13 (UTC)
Why can't we put it this way? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC)
If you only state or describe an issue one way it makes it too easy for a propagandist to come along latter and confuse description with cause (repetition is used to do this), alternative causes can't get a fair or neutral presentation of the issue if it is only ever stated in terms of "race". From the way you and the article carefully construct sentences it seems you never want to allow for the thought or the possibility that race is not a cause at all? zen master T 30 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)
I have re-reverted Zen's changes again. Zen, I said it further up already: the "suspicious emphasis" you are claiming to remove is the common boldfacing of terms that appear in the title. That is standard Wikipedia style, see our Style Guide. The article on Race and intelligence is forced to boldface the first appearance of the terms (as it does). Since both terms are known to be controversial, the present article takes them up again in the Background section and gives a somewhat more elaborate definition of both nouns. That has nothing to do with emphasis. You also continue to remove a lot of italic Wikilinks. For example, you haved changed "people labeled Blacks" into "people labeled blacks". First, please don't destroy Wiki infrastructure by removing hyperlinks. Second, the italics in Blacks here is because the word appears "as a word". Again, the style guide forces us to set it in italic type. (Read section 4.2 of WP:MOS, the section called Words as words.) Your energy might be spent on better things than removing markup that follows typographical conventions in this encyclopedia, instead of assuming what you call "suspicious emphasis". Arbor 30 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, the article and title should reflect where the lack of consensus begins, which in this case is the "IQ" and other tests. Repeated emphasis on a dubious correlation to only one bit of information about the test taker ("race") is the next level of error as far as this alleged scientific research goes. zen master T 1 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
I propose the following language to properly contextualize the information about test scores and so-called races.
Even though there is a correspondence between racial groups as commonly defined in American society and intelligence as measured by standard IQ tests and similar instruments, that correspondence is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that race determines intelligence. Presumably there are genetic factors that are responsible for some of the characteristics categorized as racial traits. Presumably there are other genetic factors that are responsible for native intelligence and that serve as a foundation for achieved scores on intelligence test instruments. There is, however, no necessary connection between groups of genetic traits, and in fact the exact recipes of genetic characteristics that determine all individuals are different (except in the case of identical twins). Furthermore, successful expression of genetic potentials for traits such as intelligence may depend on contingent factors pertinent to individuals or related groups of individuals. just as some kinds of vegetation thrive in one environment that another kind of vegetation may find unsuitable.
Please help me polish the language. P0M 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
I agree with the this edit: [2]. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Zen-master: As long as you repeat what you have said before and do not respond to attempts to get a point by point clarification going, we will get nowhere. Look at what you just said:
Every time you state your objections you should avoid "virtual blank" expressions like "the issue", "the discrepancy", etc. In a series of articles that would take the possible influences on intelligence one by one for examination there would be a place for examining whether there is any correlation between genetic heritage and intelligence. I think that must be what you mean by "the issue" -- either that or you have ignored my attempts to fill in some of these virtual blanks above. Assuming that I've got that part right, then your question becomes:
So you want a "non-race" way of examining whether there is a correlation between race and intelligence?
Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe you're assuming that it does? You maybe want to deny that [race] determines [intelligence] by refusing to look at the fact that [race] correlates with [intelligence]. But even if you can prove that malnutrition limits intelligence, that brain trauma limits intelligence, etc., etc. (which shouldn't be any problem to do at all), that will not change the fact that [race] is correlated to [intelligence] if (after you've qualified things as carefully as I did above -- and I checked with a university biology professor to make sure I was making no beginner's mistakes) you get that kind of test results. Sure, your opponent says, all these things limit intelligence.
But here is what you should be looking at (and it's been pointed out by somebody before): It may be that the genetics of intelligence are fine and some intervening factor pertinent to one [race] mucks things up. It could be that Anglo type people reduce the intelligence of their children because they deprive them of some element of nurture. Perhaps Anglo types are so moralistic and legalistic about alchohol consumption that they absolutely never give kids any alcohol before their teens. Jewish people and Chinese people are more intelligent, not because of any genetic superiority but because both cultures are cool about letting even the little kids have a thimblefull of wine every once in a while. (Crazy example, but who knows, at least the part about wine consumption is true.) Or maybe some [races] need ten times as much of some trace mineral as other [races] in order to let the brain develope fully. The genetic potential is there, but they need the extra chromium and it's not in their diets. Once you notice that that [racial] group is not doing well on IQ tests you poke around, make your discovery, and start advising them to take chelated chromium pills. Suddenly IQ tests go up -- but only if you face facts.
Unless you actually look at the question of whether [race] correlates with [intelligence], and then look at the question of whether different genetic characteristics cause different levels of intelligence, you cannot fight those conclusions (which, I am sure you will agree, are already out there). It's like monster man comes on the scene and Batman says, "I won't fight you. I will go off and fight the numbers runner over there." P0M 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Race and intelligence refers to the controversy surrounding the findings of many studies that racial groups show differences in average cognitive ability test scores...
Even though some U.S. racial groups show differences in average measured cognitive ability, racial ancestry itself may not influence cognitive ability. Genetic factors produce some racial traits; genetic factors are believed to influence measured cognitive ability. However, these two types of factors may be entirely distinct. Furthermore, genetic factors may guide but never fully determine any individual's realized ability, because other factors (such as culture, status and upbringing) pertaining to individuals or groups also influence cognitive development.
I've attempted to address the central problem with the use of the term "IQ" in this article, which is that IQ is too specialized. The AFQT, for example, which has been endlessly mined for cognitive ability data, is not recognized as an IQ test, yet it's g-loaded and is a valid measure of cognitive ability. Generally, no cognitive ability score can be turned into an IQ score without loss. In my experience, "cognitive ability" or "general mental ability" is preferentially used in the literature. To compromise, since some people have expressed an affinity for IQ despite its shortcomings, I've indicated that IQ will be used in a general way to encompass all cognitive ability measures. -- DAD 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
Look, you guys (especially Patrick this time), I've told you to avoid personal remarks before. And just as Zen-master had made a really good statement summing up his criticisms of the article, you went right back to talking about him. That is NOT ALLOWED.
Stop playing innocent, stop pretending it's all the other guy's fault. Get back to discussing the ARTICLE and how to improve it.
Start by apologizing (unconditionally!) to each other for your personal remarks. Not here, I've locked the page; I'll look for the diffs on the D/P/Z talk pages.
There's enough bickering and squabbling in the academic and political realms about this matter. I won't allow that to spill over into this discussion. Not as long as I have the power to squelch it.
Think about the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
Thanks, Drummond and Patrick. Page unlocked. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
The new compromised intro succeeds in:
I don't think this is what was meant to be the end result, and this article should probably focus on being a science article, subject to the same standards as other science articles. This probably means focusing primarily on describing the area of scientific research, and doing so without advocating views, such as defining the findings of the area as being tied to Nazi eugenics practices. If you want to differentiate this article from being a science article, it could be moved to "Race and intelligence controversy" instead. Best, Nectarflowed T 2 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
Man, I like the current into (as of 09:46, 2 July 2005)! I have tried to click through its evolution over the past many edits -- thanks to everybody who contributed. Stellar work. The only thing I would want to tweak is the following passage:
Could we reword "fear" or "shun the research" to something more neutral? It paints the owners of this POV as hypocritical. Also, maybe one could motivate the POV of that group, just as the first sentence motivates the opposing POV. I have tried to write that second sentence myself, but my prose isn't good enough for that. Here are some attempts:
One reason to be opposed to the second explanation is that it is not balanced. For examle, I happen to think that cognitive differences between groups is a very strong argument for social democracy, so the research presented here is my own basis for a left-wing/high taxes/high social security argument. (And a pretty strong one, I believe.) We are ignoring that POV by only mentioning the utility of these results to further a racist political agenda. To make this clear, I could agitate for including the following paragraph:
See? Apart from being deliberately facetious, this is actually my political POV; the reason I am not pushing for something like this is that I don't want the current article to become more political. I am a scientist, this is a scientific subject, and needs a scientific article. Not politics. (Maybe we want an article about Politics of race and intelligence; I'll be happy to contribute.)
The gist of this is that I am a bit concerned about stating only one valid political POV on this article. (Namely, that people who are against racism sometimes also are against research into cognitive differences between races.) I would prefer to remove the political motivations completely, and focus on epistemological questions. Arbor 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
Comments? zen master T 30 June 2005 06:06 (UTC)
Zen, you cannot do this. We have debated the title at length over the last few weeks. The article has been through a VfD. There was nothing even approaching consensus for renaming, changing, or moving this article to Race and IQ. You are POV-pushing and violating WP etiquette. It is difficult to view this as an act of good faith, and I will revert you.
To reiterate the main reason to oppose the name change: the article is not only about IQ. It is also about SAT, g, brain size, and reaction time. Race and IQ is a misleading title. Arbor 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Zen, but you are breaking Wikiquette, not me. We have discussed this article at length here, and in the VfD. To make a substantial change (like moving the article's title and making it be only about IQ, not about other measures of intelligence) you need consensus among Wikipedia editors. You don't have that. Quite the contrary, actually. So you are out of line, from an administrative point of view. Lacking consensus for a major change, the status quo is to be maintained. That's how we do it here.
You are also wrong about your repeated allegations of us being unscientific. There is a scientific journal (peer-reviewed) called Intelligence. It is not called “Intelligence” (in quotes) not IQ nor Intelligence measures nor anything like that. It's called Intelligence. That is the term used by the scientific community to discuss the topics pertaining to this article. (Studies of Race and IQ are a subfield of this line of inquiry.) You may not like that. You may think it's misguided, racist, stupid, inflammatory, and whatnot. But it is strictly scientific. (Again, I urge you to have a look at Mainstream science on intelligence or the APA report.) So please stop labelling our endeavors as unscientific. Indeed, it would be welcome if you yourself increased the level of scientific reliability in your contributions. So far, you have posted web pages. Stop doing that, and refer us to peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict what is said in this article, preferably some that are not already mentioned here. Your scientific method so far has been google. The rest of the editors use peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.
As to your changes, some of them I quite liked and I will be happy to put them back (you write good prose, and some of the bumpier passages improved from your attention). But the majority were either heavily POV, or simply bad Wikipedia style. For example, you removed a lot of wikilinks and boldface on title terms. You also boldly removed a few paragraphs whose removal you must have assumed were controversial. You need to take these things up in talk first. Arbor 30 June 2005 09:08 (UTC)
Ed, I need to cut in here. That's simply not what the main POVs are. No paper I have ever seen on this topic even comes close to claiming (1). I understand that your description above is well-intentioned, but you are simply wrong. If you want to give a simplified explanation at all, there are 2 POVs: (1) this topic is a non-topic (e.g., because it's taboo, or a linguistic trick, or dangerous, or neither of the terms race or intelligence is meaningful) (2) the question is meaningful, and there is a corellation between race and intelligence. The first POV is seen in the public debate (for example, The Mismeasure of Man is the best-known exposition). The second POV is consensus in the scientific community (for example, see the APA report or Mainstream science on intelligence, both of which attempt to give laymen an overview of what "science thinks"). The 2nd POV can be subdivided into two: (2a) the correlation is caused entirely by environmental factors, and (2b) the correlation is not entirely caused by environmental factors. I hope this helps. To repeat: absolutely nobody in the scholarly debate would ever postulate the completely ridiculous idea that race determines intelligence. (But there may be a correlation.) Arbor 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I found this after only a few seconds of googling:
Is this what you're referring to, Zen-master? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
I didn't say the statement was true. But I mention it because it seems to resonate with a repeated comment by ZM.
Also, there seems to be a considerable controversy over the correlation between skin color or race, and scores on IQ tests. So I have started a new article on race and IQ.
I hope Wikipedia's series of articles on human intelligence will cover the broad scope of academic and social views.
And I'd still like to hear from Z. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
The citations on this talk page prove the methods and results of intelligence research studies are very much in dispute, why won't some users allow acknowledgement of this in the intro? Also, why does the second paragraph repeatedly mention "racial categorization" or "genetics" while describing the environmental possibility? What specifically is wrong with this suggested intro: [4] zen master T 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
The second paragraph (and the entire article) was not constructed with NPOV in mind and is very unclear on its own. Why don't you want to state it simply as "environment and/or genetics is the cause"? If environmental factors are the cause then it would be wrong to classify the issue as a "racial disparity"? zen master T 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
Okay. Your first sentence equates two concepts (through '/'): a question, and a scientific hypothesis. In science, these are distinct: a question poses the problem to be solved, and a hypothesis proposes a solution. The question does not presuppose any hypothesis. Does that make sense? -- DAD T 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
Most criticisms of the movement are fundamental to the way "intelligence researchers" may be abusing science by using presumption inducing language, see the citations listed above or see scientific racism or see [5]. Though I have never advocated the exclusion of considering "race" vs "IQ", but that does not mean it gets to have its very own article (would be non neutral to ignore the other ways of looking at the issue). zen master T 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
Bear with me; I've now re-scrutinized your primary references. Summary: I disagree that they substantiate your positions that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research, that racial disparity in IQ cannot be treated as a standalone subject no matter what hypotheses are advanced, and that these positions reflect anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs. Moreover, most of these references do not meet WP standards. Here are the references:
I can find no statement in this source to substantiate the position that inquiring about racial IQ disparity a) presupposes a cause, or b) is untenable no matter what hypotheses are advanced. It uses The Mismeasure of Man almost exclusively as the basis for its argument. This reference is an article in Z Magazine, a non-peer-reviewed magazine which is openly radical [7]:
While we do our best to reach as wide an audience as possible, we think we a lot more people could use our radical message of activism and alternatives. [emphasis mine]
I conclude that this reference does not support your specific position, and that the reference itself does not reflect either a scientific or a mainstream viewpoint. Speaking candidly, the reference appears to be a pure screed, with accusations of racism appearing every few sentences for its entire length. It is intensely inflammatory and in no way meets WP standards for NPOV.
The article explicitly recognizes the priority of scientific findings. The general thrust of the article is that 1) races do not exist, and 2) IQ is a fraud. Despite its claim to address pseudoscience with science, the article does not expose controversy in the scientific community; instead, it is almost entirely Gil-White's arguments. The only quoted passage is that "The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms of...'race'"; this is an unsubstantiated claim about the motivations of researchers which, even if true, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of scientific findings.
The source of the article is, like the previous reference, a non-peer-reviewed online magazine with an activist bent:
Emperor's Clothes is unusual. Our "mission purpose" is the exposure of lies, especially media lies, but also the lies of would-be leaders, including those who claim to be opposing Establishment policies. We tell the truth as we see it even when telling the truth contradicts preconceptions, even the preconceptions of our readers or ourselves. In this age of super-conformity we refuse to subject our views to political correctness as defined by *any* camp.
I conclude that the reference provides rhetorical support for the claim that IQ is a fraud and that race is, too. However, the reference does not even approximate scientific criticism (peer review, exposed analytical techniques). It is far beneath WP standards for a reference.
The review raises questions about The Bell Curve either through argument or by referencing other works. Again, it clearly does not reflect mainstream science (and shows dubious editorial control):
For over 15 fourchy years, Go Inside Magazine has served as your premier, unbiased, independent, international, resource for information: We Are Everywhere, We Are Jederman. We refuse all advertising. None of us are paid. We are owned by no one. We are purposefully as plain text as possible to support the widest range of readers. If you need blunt, insightful and ringing commentary on the world at large, then you need to Go Inside or get left behind! [10]
The review has almost nothing to add to the scholarly debate; significant space, for example, explores the Pioneer Fund and its funding of various researchers. In particular, I can find no support for the claim that racial disparity in IQ can only be treated in the context of all other IQ disparities.
Overall, despite the context in which they were provided, these references provide little or no support for the POVs being advanced (that racial disparity in IQ cannot be addressed as a standalone question, no matter what hypotheses are considered; that questions imply hypotheses and so invalidate research; and that these positions are anything other than non-mainstream, non-scientific POVs -- or simply your views alone).
Moreover, these references offer no new material to the scientific debate. They are never peer-reviewed and make no claim to be works of science, even as they recruit various scientific findings to their cause. Most often, these references act as tertiary sources which quote secondary sources ( The Bell Curve, The Mismeasure of Man). They show no evidence of awareness of the scientific debate's current state as reflected in scientific journals.
Finally, these references are virulently POV and openly embrace their non-mainstream status as their self-descriptions show. Wikipedia can do much better. Look to the reference list in the actual article for an alternative.
Editorially speaking, the posts containing and referring to these online-magazine sources reflect a deep confusion between 1) controversy within mainstream science and 2) controversy surrounding mainstream science. The controversy within science is notably mild, such as Dolan's critique of Jensen's use of correlated vectors. The controversy surrounding the science is notably shrill and has little to say about the state of the art (see all your above references).
ZM, kindly provide some better references than book reviews, screeds and opinion pieces. Best, -- DAD T 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
The citations are reputable and numerous, there is even an entire scientific racism article which is very relevant here. It doesn't take a scientist to see that politically motivated "researchers" are using unsound methods. Scientists still have to present the issue using the scientific method. How do you justify the presumption inducing language and method of presentation for the subject? zen master T 4 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
As Rikurzhen and Arbor and maybe others have pointed out, there are precedents on Wikipedia for dealing with controversial science topics.
Note that the intro of Evolution doesn't refer to it as a "controversial theory," even though only 12% of the US population actually believes in it [I haven't seen stats for other countries]. Evolution doesn't link to eugenics, even though eugenicists drew heavily from it.
Note that at Stem cells, embryonic stem cell research is always spoken of first as an area of science. -- Nectarflowed T 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Zen-master, let your questions be answered on the talk page. An edit-war is a counter-productive way to further your argument and may make people less interested in what you have to say. It may also lead to you being the subject of an arbitration comittee. Just talk about your concerns here. -- Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Hi, a new observer here. It's possible that I'm going to rehash some previous discussion, but I'm going to take that risk, because this article remains fundamentally, deeply flawed.
The vast majority of content and citations in this article discuss the subject from a psychological viewpoint. Here, "intelligence" is described in the terminology preferred by that field; IQ, g, and the like. The problem is, psychology does not have a monopoly on these issues. Even staying within the academy, other fields and literatures including - but not limited to - anthropology, sociology, philosophy, education and history have had much to say about ideas of intelligence and race. These concerns are briefly mentioned in the "background information" section, but only in passing, but then are followed by the critical paragraph:
Here, we're barely one screenfull into a long article about a complex, contentious issue, and we've already cast away fundamental questions about its entire framework by briefly mentioning them and then relegating them to linked articles. Potential questions about the entire epistemology used by the studies described later in the article are separated out, and shortchanged in terms of the overall volume of content as well.
In fact, though, the game really was up even sooner. As others have noted, that graph at the top of the article makes the argument before we even start reading. Stripped of the qualifications and complexity required of the subject, with that graph the article states its position on the existence and nature of a relationship between ethnic background and mental capacity, couched in the quantitative language of science.
All this is related to a broader issue; Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. While I have respect for both the scientific method and for peer review, and have experience with both, they are not guarantees of truth, only two useful indicators of credibility. Almost any contemporary historian or philosopher of science will tell you the myriad ways that science has established itself as an arbiter of the one true answer, from framing the debate, to shutting out voices from outside of science. I'm afraid I've seen examples of both on this talk page.
Finally, a concrete suggestion. I'd suggest that those who are most closely involved here aggressively seek out input from far more people. I see that there was an RFC a while back - that's good, but it was a while ago and things are still contentious. Do we think it's okay to rewrite the synopsis on that page, make it snappy and fun, and move it to the top of the list? It might be appropriate to add a note to, say, Talk:Race and similar requesting comments from interested people as well. I'm not going to do either of these things right now, as I haven't been here long, but maybe someone else will? Further, if some new folks turn up, maybe those who have been butting heads would like to take a break for a bit? CDC (talk) 4 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)