![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I've been suggesting that we create a prototype article where we can try to reach a consensus in realtime, while this article is protected. I've created User:Kevin murray IQ draft.
I'm inviting participation; however, I will revert all changes which are made without my determination that consensus is reached. I've trimmed out a lot of text, but certainly we can add back if needed. The goal is to create a simpler more readable trext at the encyclopedic level, which presents balance without propaganda. I would prefer to see summary paragraphs referencing details at other articles.
Please let me know what you think.
-- Kevin Murray 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to participate with your proposed draft and mediation if WRN is willing to. Without his buy-in, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. -- JereKrischel 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think this is going to work-- if you are going to try to take control of this process, by first making changes yourself then reverting any changes you don't like, I don't see how this will be helpful. Adding the curves is a comparatively non-controversial change. If you want to work with a 'prototype,' why not work with the one I've created? Why not make some suggestions about that prototype?
What do you think of the new intro? If you don't think it works, please explain why.
Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07
Frankly, I think that things are moving along rather well here-- It's going to take a long time but we almost have a compromise on one of the bullet points.
I agree with a lot of the things you removed at your draft-- but I don't think this method of working is going to be a good idea-- I don't want people to go off in some hard to find place to edit-- and I want see all of the comments right here on the talk page.
Could you outline what you deleted and why so other users can weigh in on it? futurebird 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Maybe I'm being too hasty here-- what do others think? Can this work? Please weigh in... futurebird 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that deletion is perfectly reasonable when dealing with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and that simply injecting counter-points, counter-counter-points, and counter-counter-counter-points is not a way to reach NPOV. Furthermore, deletion of information that is not directly related to race and intelligence seems like a fairly good way to keep us from engaging in too much scope creep. I'm afraid that just because WRN, or anyone else, has managed to put text in the article does not make such text sacrosanct - there are many reasonable grounds for pruning.
That being said, deletion of an entire POV is not reasonable. We should not remove the entire POV that race is an invalid proxy for genetics, just as we shouldn't remove the entire POV that heritability is misused when applied to differences between groups. If there are 20 sources for a certain POV, we are in no way obliged to list every source, or to be uncritical in our selection of sources to find the most reliable. We can find a balance, if we're willing to entertain the idea of change. -- JereKrischel 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."
Can we agree to change it to--
"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined terms used to classify and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of study and speculation for western science, sociology, and philosophy since the 19th century."
Making this change right now would give me a lot more confidence in the process. It is one of the biggest problems I have with the article at present. Please comment. 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Xpanzion 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for JK and FB: what is so wrong about not starting with re-writing the intro, and instead trying to work from the existing material? Once we have reorganized the article, we will need to rewrite the intro anyway. I think it's a given, and from what I've read here, WRN agrees the intro will need rewriting at some point. It looks to me like we more or less all agree on what to do, but now we can't find agreement on where to start... I don't know about you, but I'm a bit embarrassed.-- Ramdrake 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, with a new intro, other revisions later in the article will become less critical since we'll have the proper context. futurebird 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
JK wrote If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. -- Coincidently, that's what I was coming here to suggest. All of the suggested editing can be done in a talk sub page if that's acceptable to people. It avoids the 'mess' problem of merging, etc. Second, my insistence is that presently deleted material must be considered in such a process, not that its previous form must be preserved in a final edit. The only way I know to do this is to restore what's been deleted as a first step. If the merging and editing is done on a talk sub page, then "restoring" can be as well and no one has to touch the locked articles in the meantime. -- W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If that suggestion is adopted I have a few parliamentary-type principles to suggest to keep things productive. -- W.R.N. 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Okay. Here are my final thoughts on the move to merge everything. I will be willing to do this and participate, if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake and SLR and WD is happy with the process and if the issues that are currently up in the air on this page are resolved. I and a few other users have made a number of concrete proposals, both large and small, can we work these out before we do anything drastic?
The proposals are:
I'd like to see some change happen soon-- I feel as if I'm being ignored at times, and this process has been long and disorganized. In any case I'm trying to be cooprative and listen to the ideas and feedback of others. Could we just do this first and then move on to the major plan for this meerger-- that is if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake approve... futurebird 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."
Can we agree to change it to--
"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined ambiguous terms used to describe and measure human beings. Both the definitions of, and the relationship between race and intelligence have been a topic of considerable study, speculation and debate since the 19th century."
This takes out the "classify" word, eliminates the separation of fields of study, and adds the important caveat that both definitions and relationships have been a matter of study, speculation and debate. Comments? -- JereKrischel 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
FB, I'm really busy right now, but here's a change to consider based on what you left on my talk page. b/c this article is about humans, the first sentence should be fine, but those terms also describe/measure many animals. One sentence about definitions should be sufficient, as the definitions don't figure that prominently in the debate. I'm not sure about the 19th century thing, which you left off of my talk page entry. -- W.R.N. 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate[, especially since the 19th century]. The contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes
, and practical consequencesof racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores.and other measures of cognitive ability.
Reasons for changes:
futurebird 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your first two comments are a problem. (1) Practical consequences - everyone recognizes the practical consequences, if for nothing else than school achievement, college admissions, etc. Read the relevant section - Race_and_intelligence#Significance_of_group_IQ_differences. IQ tests have equal practical validity for all English-speaking Americans, meaning that all of the practical consequences of within-group variation in IQ port over to the between-group differences in IQ (barring confounding by non-IQ group differences). (2) The debate about what IQ tests measure is at a level of abstraction that it doesn't show up in this article except in a few sentences. (Notably, there are competing models of the sub-g factor structure.) See IQ and intelligence and read the APA report. Unless you mean something else by that comment? -- W.R.N. 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.
futurebird 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that differences in say college/grad school admission, income, and job performance are not a product of IQ differences (which are measured prior to these outcomes and are often selection criteria -- e.g. SAT/GRE)? Either way, the material is part of the article -- the consequences section is a pretty big part of the current article, and should be mentioned in that context. The policy section is included in the controversy section, which I think we're agreeing should be separate from the simple description of consequences. -- W.R.N. 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the current section:
Some researchers argue media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. Snyderman and Rothman conducted a study of this phenomenon in 1988, drawing from their 1987 survey of expert opinion of intelligence-related topics. Media attention given to William Shockley in the mid 1980's often cited his Nobel Laureate status, but frequently omitted that the prize was given for physics, not medicine.[citation needed]
Can we change it to this?
Race and intelligence are sometimes portrayed as related in media. People of various races have been portrayed as more or less intelligent in media such as films, books, and newspapers. Likewise, reporting on research into race and intelligence has been criticized: either for giving scientific theories of race too much credit, or for rejecting the theories of some researchers in the name of racial harmony.
I think this section of the main article should be expanded to include some examples, however for now can we at least change it to reflect the revsions made by Jamal and I at
Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) ?
futurebird 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be more appropriate to put somewhere in the article a reference to Race and Genetics? I'd also like to see that article worked on a bit by folks in this group, as it seems a little lopsided, perhaps more inappropriately so. Schwael 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we replace the current text in the utility of research section? There have been a number of updates to Race and intelligence (Utility of research) and the text there should reflect what is in the sub-page. futurebird 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As it stands this section is too much like a little debate, if you have ideas to revise this new proposed text... please post away! futurebird 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
One criticism of race and intelligence research, regardless of whether racial differences are genetic or not, questions its utility.
Descriptions of research into group differences in intelligence (especially genetic hypotheses) have been treated as self-evidently harmful to society by many writers, including references references to slavery, intolerance [1], and eugenics [2]. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports [3], for which they have been criticized [4]
The Southern Poverty Law Center has stated: "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this 'science' to legitimize racial hatred." [5]
Another cricism is that it "causes major psychological harm to millions of black children and adults (with respect to self-esteem, career expectations, interracial relationships, etc.)". [6] For example, in response to The Bell Curve Ashley Montagu, who famously stated the ideology of race is "man's most dangerous myth," wrote:
It is generally held that anyone who cries "Fire" in a crowded theatre should be held responsible for the consequences of his conduct. The same rule should apply to anyone who, motivated by racism, publishes inflammatory falsehoods concerning others, whether they be individuals, groups, or populations; they should by law be held responsible for their conduct. More than 200 years of racism, libel and slander, are enough, and so it is with use of IQ tests, which in a very real sense represent demeaning falsehoods, whether they maliciously intended or not. [7]
Some scientists, including evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, argue that suppressing race and intelligence research is actually more harmful than dealing with it honestly. [8] Linda Gottfredson, a prominent professor whose work has been influential in U.S. workplace policy and who's also a Pioneer fund grantee argues:
Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpability, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy. [9]
Theories of race and intelligence that conclude the average gaps in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites are significantly due to genetic differences between Blacks and Whites have been challenged on grounds of their utility. Critics want to know what purpose such research could serve and why it has been an intense an area of focus for a few researchers. Some defend the research, saying it has egalitarian aims or that it is
pure science, others say that the true motivation for the reserch is the same as that of the
eugenics movement and other forms of
scientific racism.
[10]
[11]. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports
[12].
As to whether research in this area is desirable,
John C. Loehlin wrote in 1992, "Research on racial differences in intelligence is desirable if the research is appropriately motivated, honestly done, and adequately communicated." [emphasis original] Defenders of the research suggest that both scientific curiosity and a desire to draw benefits from the research are appropriate motivations. Some of the proponents of the research, such as
Chris Brand feel it is important to maintain a perspective of
race realism.
[13] The term "
race realism" describes the theory that racial distinctions areenduringly important because racial groups differ by nature (genetically) with regard to such important behavioral tendencies as intelligence and impulsiveness. Reachers such as
Richard Lynn have suggested that conclusions from the research can help make political decisions, such as the type of educational opportunities and expectations of achievement policy makers should have for people of different races. Researchers such as
Charles Murray have used their conclusions to criticize social programs based on racial equality that fail in Murray's eyes to recognize the realities of racial differences.
Sociologist and demographer Reanne Frank says that some race and intelligence research has been abused "The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)" [14]
From their very earliest school experiences, our students
draw life-shaping conclusions about themselves as learners the basis of the information we provide to them as a result their teachers’ classroom assessments. As that evidence accumulates over time, they decide if they are capable succeeding or not. They decide whether the learning is the commitment it will take to attain it. They decide if should have confidence in themselves as learners and in teachers—that is, whether to risk investing in the schooling experience. These decisions are crucial to their academic well-being. Depending on how they decide, their teachers
may or may not be able to influence their learning lives.
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.
Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (Steele CM and Aronson J. 1995)
Steele then talked about his findings in many studies that when a person’s social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype. [1]
It works on white people too: When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat J Aronson, MJ Lustina, C Good, K Keough, CM Steele … - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999
I think this will work, it shows how stating there are fixed differences based on race can cause people to fit those profiles. Can you suggest a few sentences to work these ideas in to the body of this text? The best way to do that is to simply edit Race and intelligence (Utility of research) I'm watching that page and I'll duplicate the changes you make here. futurebird 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this project is somewhat of a waste of time. It would be more efficient to recompile the material in the super-section "Public debate and policy implications" and make that into a single sub-article, rather than having it be a section with many sub-articles. Partitioning material between the sub-articles is a problem. I have several issues with the way its been done now. Rather than raising them individually, however, I think the move to a single sub-article would be much easier. -- W.R.N. 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a small change that has nothing to do with adding new text or revising anything. So I hope we can all agree on this change. The templates:
contain a listing for "Public controversy", it redirects to Race and intelligence (explanations). Could we remove this link, since anyone can get to the explanations sub-article by clicking on "Explanations"? It's really confusing... futurebird 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made these changes, since the page is now unlocked (I requested that it be unlocked late last night, all of the debate in here was getting silly) Let's all be rational and not get in to edit wars OK? Otherwise it will be locked again... and we know how much fun that is.
Regarding these nav. boxes. I've added Stereotype threat to the box-- I feel it would be a good subsection under "explanations" in the main article... however I'm wary of adding any more content to this article as it is too long. What are your thoughts on this? futurebird 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the controversy article? The nav box was originally meant to join together the sub-articles of this article. It has now grown to include tangentially related articles. If we're doing the latter, there are many more articles to include and the box will greatly grow, substituting for the see-also section. I don't think that's a particular good idea. Which is it going to be? -- W.R.N. 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ultra seems to have merged in in to another article...
[2]
I wonder if anything was lost in that process... there are edit summaries for this, but even when I think the text is "wrong" it bugs me when people just delete things... I think that nothing was deleted, though, I trust Ultra's edits, but you'd better check to see if you are okay with this whole process...Me? I need a wiki break, this page just got protected again. futurebird 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
A quick read through article shows only one mention (Footnote 86. Aristotle) of the uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put. Slavery, genocide, aparthied, segregated schooling, non-enfranchisement, and racial streaming spring to mind as prhaps having been justified/excused/explanained/necessitated on these grounds. Is this article the place to mention this aspect of "Race and intelligence"? What confidence can we have that this is not a current use of this topic? SmithBlue 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you suggest some sources to help us meet this goal? I would simply start adding content, if I was you. It's OK that the article is too big, we're in the process of moving bits to subarticles, even now. I'd like to see a few hefty paragraphs on this topic. futurebird 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
only 1 bell curve was featured on the cover of TBC, not two. the relation of TBC to the lead image appears tenuous -- they both talk about IQ, which has a normal distribution of scores. is there a reason to mention it there? also, the claim that comparing IQ scores of different groups is tantamount to scientific racism is not one expressed by, for example, psychologists when writing the APA report. is there any evidence it is a significant opinion among scholars? if so, which groups can it be attributed to? historians??? -- W.R.N. 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
ramdrake suggested a modification to the lead image. here's my attempt at that suggestion. if we aren't going to have four curves, then probably shouldn't single out any particular groups. -- W.R.N. 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the existing image is better, as it is simpler to grasp the nature of the issue from it. The above suggested image is a bit to technical and abstract. Romper 00:12, 16 February 2007 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I've been suggesting that we create a prototype article where we can try to reach a consensus in realtime, while this article is protected. I've created User:Kevin murray IQ draft.
I'm inviting participation; however, I will revert all changes which are made without my determination that consensus is reached. I've trimmed out a lot of text, but certainly we can add back if needed. The goal is to create a simpler more readable trext at the encyclopedic level, which presents balance without propaganda. I would prefer to see summary paragraphs referencing details at other articles.
Please let me know what you think.
-- Kevin Murray 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to participate with your proposed draft and mediation if WRN is willing to. Without his buy-in, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. -- JereKrischel 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think this is going to work-- if you are going to try to take control of this process, by first making changes yourself then reverting any changes you don't like, I don't see how this will be helpful. Adding the curves is a comparatively non-controversial change. If you want to work with a 'prototype,' why not work with the one I've created? Why not make some suggestions about that prototype?
What do you think of the new intro? If you don't think it works, please explain why.
Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07
Frankly, I think that things are moving along rather well here-- It's going to take a long time but we almost have a compromise on one of the bullet points.
I agree with a lot of the things you removed at your draft-- but I don't think this method of working is going to be a good idea-- I don't want people to go off in some hard to find place to edit-- and I want see all of the comments right here on the talk page.
Could you outline what you deleted and why so other users can weigh in on it? futurebird 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Maybe I'm being too hasty here-- what do others think? Can this work? Please weigh in... futurebird 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that deletion is perfectly reasonable when dealing with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and that simply injecting counter-points, counter-counter-points, and counter-counter-counter-points is not a way to reach NPOV. Furthermore, deletion of information that is not directly related to race and intelligence seems like a fairly good way to keep us from engaging in too much scope creep. I'm afraid that just because WRN, or anyone else, has managed to put text in the article does not make such text sacrosanct - there are many reasonable grounds for pruning.
That being said, deletion of an entire POV is not reasonable. We should not remove the entire POV that race is an invalid proxy for genetics, just as we shouldn't remove the entire POV that heritability is misused when applied to differences between groups. If there are 20 sources for a certain POV, we are in no way obliged to list every source, or to be uncritical in our selection of sources to find the most reliable. We can find a balance, if we're willing to entertain the idea of change. -- JereKrischel 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."
Can we agree to change it to--
"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined terms used to classify and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of study and speculation for western science, sociology, and philosophy since the 19th century."
Making this change right now would give me a lot more confidence in the process. It is one of the biggest problems I have with the article at present. Please comment. 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Xpanzion 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for JK and FB: what is so wrong about not starting with re-writing the intro, and instead trying to work from the existing material? Once we have reorganized the article, we will need to rewrite the intro anyway. I think it's a given, and from what I've read here, WRN agrees the intro will need rewriting at some point. It looks to me like we more or less all agree on what to do, but now we can't find agreement on where to start... I don't know about you, but I'm a bit embarrassed.-- Ramdrake 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, with a new intro, other revisions later in the article will become less critical since we'll have the proper context. futurebird 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
JK wrote If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. -- Coincidently, that's what I was coming here to suggest. All of the suggested editing can be done in a talk sub page if that's acceptable to people. It avoids the 'mess' problem of merging, etc. Second, my insistence is that presently deleted material must be considered in such a process, not that its previous form must be preserved in a final edit. The only way I know to do this is to restore what's been deleted as a first step. If the merging and editing is done on a talk sub page, then "restoring" can be as well and no one has to touch the locked articles in the meantime. -- W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If that suggestion is adopted I have a few parliamentary-type principles to suggest to keep things productive. -- W.R.N. 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Okay. Here are my final thoughts on the move to merge everything. I will be willing to do this and participate, if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake and SLR and WD is happy with the process and if the issues that are currently up in the air on this page are resolved. I and a few other users have made a number of concrete proposals, both large and small, can we work these out before we do anything drastic?
The proposals are:
I'd like to see some change happen soon-- I feel as if I'm being ignored at times, and this process has been long and disorganized. In any case I'm trying to be cooprative and listen to the ideas and feedback of others. Could we just do this first and then move on to the major plan for this meerger-- that is if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake approve... futurebird 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."
Can we agree to change it to--
"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined ambiguous terms used to describe and measure human beings. Both the definitions of, and the relationship between race and intelligence have been a topic of considerable study, speculation and debate since the 19th century."
This takes out the "classify" word, eliminates the separation of fields of study, and adds the important caveat that both definitions and relationships have been a matter of study, speculation and debate. Comments? -- JereKrischel 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
FB, I'm really busy right now, but here's a change to consider based on what you left on my talk page. b/c this article is about humans, the first sentence should be fine, but those terms also describe/measure many animals. One sentence about definitions should be sufficient, as the definitions don't figure that prominently in the debate. I'm not sure about the 19th century thing, which you left off of my talk page entry. -- W.R.N. 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate[, especially since the 19th century]. The contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes
, and practical consequencesof racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores.and other measures of cognitive ability.
Reasons for changes:
futurebird 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your first two comments are a problem. (1) Practical consequences - everyone recognizes the practical consequences, if for nothing else than school achievement, college admissions, etc. Read the relevant section - Race_and_intelligence#Significance_of_group_IQ_differences. IQ tests have equal practical validity for all English-speaking Americans, meaning that all of the practical consequences of within-group variation in IQ port over to the between-group differences in IQ (barring confounding by non-IQ group differences). (2) The debate about what IQ tests measure is at a level of abstraction that it doesn't show up in this article except in a few sentences. (Notably, there are competing models of the sub-g factor structure.) See IQ and intelligence and read the APA report. Unless you mean something else by that comment? -- W.R.N. 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.
futurebird 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that differences in say college/grad school admission, income, and job performance are not a product of IQ differences (which are measured prior to these outcomes and are often selection criteria -- e.g. SAT/GRE)? Either way, the material is part of the article -- the consequences section is a pretty big part of the current article, and should be mentioned in that context. The policy section is included in the controversy section, which I think we're agreeing should be separate from the simple description of consequences. -- W.R.N. 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the current section:
Some researchers argue media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. Snyderman and Rothman conducted a study of this phenomenon in 1988, drawing from their 1987 survey of expert opinion of intelligence-related topics. Media attention given to William Shockley in the mid 1980's often cited his Nobel Laureate status, but frequently omitted that the prize was given for physics, not medicine.[citation needed]
Can we change it to this?
Race and intelligence are sometimes portrayed as related in media. People of various races have been portrayed as more or less intelligent in media such as films, books, and newspapers. Likewise, reporting on research into race and intelligence has been criticized: either for giving scientific theories of race too much credit, or for rejecting the theories of some researchers in the name of racial harmony.
I think this section of the main article should be expanded to include some examples, however for now can we at least change it to reflect the revsions made by Jamal and I at
Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) ?
futurebird 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be more appropriate to put somewhere in the article a reference to Race and Genetics? I'd also like to see that article worked on a bit by folks in this group, as it seems a little lopsided, perhaps more inappropriately so. Schwael 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we replace the current text in the utility of research section? There have been a number of updates to Race and intelligence (Utility of research) and the text there should reflect what is in the sub-page. futurebird 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As it stands this section is too much like a little debate, if you have ideas to revise this new proposed text... please post away! futurebird 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
One criticism of race and intelligence research, regardless of whether racial differences are genetic or not, questions its utility.
Descriptions of research into group differences in intelligence (especially genetic hypotheses) have been treated as self-evidently harmful to society by many writers, including references references to slavery, intolerance [1], and eugenics [2]. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports [3], for which they have been criticized [4]
The Southern Poverty Law Center has stated: "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this 'science' to legitimize racial hatred." [5]
Another cricism is that it "causes major psychological harm to millions of black children and adults (with respect to self-esteem, career expectations, interracial relationships, etc.)". [6] For example, in response to The Bell Curve Ashley Montagu, who famously stated the ideology of race is "man's most dangerous myth," wrote:
It is generally held that anyone who cries "Fire" in a crowded theatre should be held responsible for the consequences of his conduct. The same rule should apply to anyone who, motivated by racism, publishes inflammatory falsehoods concerning others, whether they be individuals, groups, or populations; they should by law be held responsible for their conduct. More than 200 years of racism, libel and slander, are enough, and so it is with use of IQ tests, which in a very real sense represent demeaning falsehoods, whether they maliciously intended or not. [7]
Some scientists, including evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, argue that suppressing race and intelligence research is actually more harmful than dealing with it honestly. [8] Linda Gottfredson, a prominent professor whose work has been influential in U.S. workplace policy and who's also a Pioneer fund grantee argues:
Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpability, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy. [9]
Theories of race and intelligence that conclude the average gaps in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites are significantly due to genetic differences between Blacks and Whites have been challenged on grounds of their utility. Critics want to know what purpose such research could serve and why it has been an intense an area of focus for a few researchers. Some defend the research, saying it has egalitarian aims or that it is
pure science, others say that the true motivation for the reserch is the same as that of the
eugenics movement and other forms of
scientific racism.
[10]
[11]. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports
[12].
As to whether research in this area is desirable,
John C. Loehlin wrote in 1992, "Research on racial differences in intelligence is desirable if the research is appropriately motivated, honestly done, and adequately communicated." [emphasis original] Defenders of the research suggest that both scientific curiosity and a desire to draw benefits from the research are appropriate motivations. Some of the proponents of the research, such as
Chris Brand feel it is important to maintain a perspective of
race realism.
[13] The term "
race realism" describes the theory that racial distinctions areenduringly important because racial groups differ by nature (genetically) with regard to such important behavioral tendencies as intelligence and impulsiveness. Reachers such as
Richard Lynn have suggested that conclusions from the research can help make political decisions, such as the type of educational opportunities and expectations of achievement policy makers should have for people of different races. Researchers such as
Charles Murray have used their conclusions to criticize social programs based on racial equality that fail in Murray's eyes to recognize the realities of racial differences.
Sociologist and demographer Reanne Frank says that some race and intelligence research has been abused "The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)" [14]
From their very earliest school experiences, our students
draw life-shaping conclusions about themselves as learners the basis of the information we provide to them as a result their teachers’ classroom assessments. As that evidence accumulates over time, they decide if they are capable succeeding or not. They decide whether the learning is the commitment it will take to attain it. They decide if should have confidence in themselves as learners and in teachers—that is, whether to risk investing in the schooling experience. These decisions are crucial to their academic well-being. Depending on how they decide, their teachers
may or may not be able to influence their learning lives.
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.
Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (Steele CM and Aronson J. 1995)
Steele then talked about his findings in many studies that when a person’s social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype. [1]
It works on white people too: When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat J Aronson, MJ Lustina, C Good, K Keough, CM Steele … - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999
I think this will work, it shows how stating there are fixed differences based on race can cause people to fit those profiles. Can you suggest a few sentences to work these ideas in to the body of this text? The best way to do that is to simply edit Race and intelligence (Utility of research) I'm watching that page and I'll duplicate the changes you make here. futurebird 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this project is somewhat of a waste of time. It would be more efficient to recompile the material in the super-section "Public debate and policy implications" and make that into a single sub-article, rather than having it be a section with many sub-articles. Partitioning material between the sub-articles is a problem. I have several issues with the way its been done now. Rather than raising them individually, however, I think the move to a single sub-article would be much easier. -- W.R.N. 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a small change that has nothing to do with adding new text or revising anything. So I hope we can all agree on this change. The templates:
contain a listing for "Public controversy", it redirects to Race and intelligence (explanations). Could we remove this link, since anyone can get to the explanations sub-article by clicking on "Explanations"? It's really confusing... futurebird 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made these changes, since the page is now unlocked (I requested that it be unlocked late last night, all of the debate in here was getting silly) Let's all be rational and not get in to edit wars OK? Otherwise it will be locked again... and we know how much fun that is.
Regarding these nav. boxes. I've added Stereotype threat to the box-- I feel it would be a good subsection under "explanations" in the main article... however I'm wary of adding any more content to this article as it is too long. What are your thoughts on this? futurebird 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the controversy article? The nav box was originally meant to join together the sub-articles of this article. It has now grown to include tangentially related articles. If we're doing the latter, there are many more articles to include and the box will greatly grow, substituting for the see-also section. I don't think that's a particular good idea. Which is it going to be? -- W.R.N. 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ultra seems to have merged in in to another article...
[2]
I wonder if anything was lost in that process... there are edit summaries for this, but even when I think the text is "wrong" it bugs me when people just delete things... I think that nothing was deleted, though, I trust Ultra's edits, but you'd better check to see if you are okay with this whole process...Me? I need a wiki break, this page just got protected again. futurebird 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
A quick read through article shows only one mention (Footnote 86. Aristotle) of the uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put. Slavery, genocide, aparthied, segregated schooling, non-enfranchisement, and racial streaming spring to mind as prhaps having been justified/excused/explanained/necessitated on these grounds. Is this article the place to mention this aspect of "Race and intelligence"? What confidence can we have that this is not a current use of this topic? SmithBlue 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you suggest some sources to help us meet this goal? I would simply start adding content, if I was you. It's OK that the article is too big, we're in the process of moving bits to subarticles, even now. I'd like to see a few hefty paragraphs on this topic. futurebird 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
only 1 bell curve was featured on the cover of TBC, not two. the relation of TBC to the lead image appears tenuous -- they both talk about IQ, which has a normal distribution of scores. is there a reason to mention it there? also, the claim that comparing IQ scores of different groups is tantamount to scientific racism is not one expressed by, for example, psychologists when writing the APA report. is there any evidence it is a significant opinion among scholars? if so, which groups can it be attributed to? historians??? -- W.R.N. 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
ramdrake suggested a modification to the lead image. here's my attempt at that suggestion. if we aren't going to have four curves, then probably shouldn't single out any particular groups. -- W.R.N. 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the existing image is better, as it is simpler to grasp the nature of the issue from it. The above suggested image is a bit to technical and abstract. Romper 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)