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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to move forward I propose that we establish a criterion to evaluate the ideal sources on which to depend for establishing notability, status and relative weight of different viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature. The proposal has been modeled on WP:MEDRS. Following this general proposal for a decision regarding quality of sourcing, we will be able to make decisions about specific sources, about how they should be weighed in determining the weight of arguments. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
When establishing notability and relative balance of viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature should we give priority to the following kinds of sources: "1.) recent, general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable psychological and anthropological journals, 2.) widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in either the fields of intelligence, and/or Race and human biological variation, and 3.) professional guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"?
For each of the following sources please give your opinion on whether the following sources should be considered highly reliable mainstream sources that should receive priority in establishing balance and notability of different viewpoints. In your evaluation try to asses whether a source should have Highest, High, Medium, Low or No weight.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_first2=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_last2=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The question is whether it is a widely held mainstream view that the entire IQ test score gap is likely to be explainable by environmental effects. Note that the question is not whether it is the only mainstream view, nor whether it has been proven to account for the entire gap, but only about whether it is considered a probable explanation by a wide selection of mainstream scholars.
The question is whether Rushton as a person and a scholar is generally considered to be within the mainstream of the field of Psychology. The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.
The consensus is that this RfC is garbage and uses two mutually exclusive definitions of mainstream: "multiple mainstreams" for the author's preferred minority view, and "single mainstream" for the author's personally disliked minority view. Shall we open another RfC and switch it around? No, that would be transparently disingenuous wouldn't it. Did the closer even read it? 27.1.214.45 ( talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.So the question was one of the application of WP:DUE. Whatever definition of "mainstream" being used here seems less relevant than responding to this question. Accusations that words were intentionally twisted to suit the proposer or my close doesn't appear to be based on anything factual (also, I've never edited this article), so I see no reason to reconsider my close. I suggest you go to WP:AN if you want a more formal reconsideration. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this article should be moved to "race and IQ" as that is more scientific (and most of this article is pretty scientific) and most of this article is talking about IQ tests achieved by individuals from different races.-- MrEpsilon ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Aaaaand I just realized race and IQ redirects here anyway. Okay, nevermind.-- MrEpsilon ( talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Should the Boskop skulls be mentioned? They were large neotenic skulls found in southern Africa(the cranial capacity was around 1700cc, larger than even the neanderthals). I found an article about them in discover. The author argues that based on their size they would have had an IQ average of 150. Interesting as they are believed to be the ancestors of the modern khoisan people http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us and here on John Hawks blog http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/return-amazing-boskops-lynch-granger-2009.html Turtire ( talk) 03:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why this statement is valid. Do you need some of the hundreds of sources and studies? Sombe19 ( talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Ontario Institute of Technology/Critical Race Theory (Winter 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
AndrewHamsha ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC) HamshaAndrew ( talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Is in no way a reliable source for this topic. He has no expertise in any area of research that is relevant for this article. His blog is not peer reviewed. And finally the blog post is not about the topic of race and intelligence, which is of course the first requirement for being used in the article. The fact that African and African American populations are at much higher risk for many environmental conditions that affect cognitive development is already mentioned based on the many reliable sources that make this point. Consensus so far has been to build this article based only on high quality sources. Let's keep doing that, the opposite is a bad spiral to get into. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That section is about improper nutrition causing lower intelligence. This fact shows just how common of a problem it is in the world. And Bill Gates is an expert on this, since he he runs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which he has donated 28 billion of his own money to. More opinions please, should we have that edit in there or not? Dream Focus 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)One in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. [Gates, Bill (2014-08-01). "Why Does Hunger Still Exist in Africa? | Bill Gates". Gatesnotes.com. Retrieved 2014-08-22.]
I concur: Gatesnotes.com -- Bill Gates's blog -- is not an acceptable source. BCorr| Брайен 12:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify the meaning of this sentence: "Lynn and Vanhanen argue that due to genetic limitations in intelligence particularly in African populations, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48]"
Does this mean the following? "Lynn and Vanhanen claim that populations in the third world, particularly populations in Africa, tend to have limited intelligence because of their genetic composition and that, consequently, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48] CarlosChio ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that the helpful discussion of reliable sources from an earlier RfC has once again aged off this article talk page. After I reposted the previous discussion, which is still in the talk page archive, an I.P. editor visited my user talk page to suggest starting a fresh discussion here. Fair enough. So pretending that we are starting from the beginning today, but possibly informed by previous discussion of sources, let's discuss here what current, reliable sources of the highest scholarly quality would be useful for further improvement of this article, which has generated a huge archive of talk page discussion but is still only an article of moderate quality so far. I look forward to hearing everyone's suggestions of good sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics". My question is, how is that statement reconcilable with essentially the entire article on race and health? The entire sub-section on the validity of race is centred around two things: genetics and statements made by certain organizations and scientists. I would like to see discussion on the practical applications of 'race' (along with the aforementioned medicine, this would also include things like forensics). The main fallacy here is that the only way for race to be a valid construct or have any scientific significance is for races to be discrete, when, of course, this is an absurd requirement (an analogy may be made with light; different colours are certainly on a continuum, so there is no particular point where one colour becomes another, but no one can seriously claim that "yellow" and "blue" are social constructs). JDiala ( talk) 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, information about the race of patients will be useless as soon as we discover and can type cheaply the underlying genes that are responsible for the associations. Can races be enumerated in any unambiguous way? Of course not, and this is well known not only to scientists but also to anyone on the street.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help) --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit)
11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Species is also a social construct human made up for something that is actually a continous sprectum. ParanoidLemmings ( talk) 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's important to point out that everything is a social construct. Unfortunately the stupid mass media will interpret that as biologically and scientifically meaningless, but what can one do. I'm fixing the other biological classification articles. By the way color is a bad example since it a perfect continuum, while the topography of genetic space has maxima and minima, and can be divided as an objective natural kind. But the word race is a social construct, so we can put it in the first sentence of all articles. Captain JT Verity MBA ( talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I hate to encourage certain people, but [5] is bound to perk up some ears around these parts. Please be careful in your interpretation. Wnt ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This paper is used here and on Heritability of IQ by way of the 2012 paper for the finding that in low SES families heritability of IQ falls down. Yet, this finding has been contradicted by a lot more research since, especially Hanscombe et al. 2012. I want other editors to chime in on this, but the fact remains that Turkheimer's paper doesn't remain unchallenged. Wajajad ( talk) 02:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Until editors here understand what heritability means and what heritability doesn't mean (for which topic I also recommend another review article, namely Johnson, Wendy; Penke, Lars; Spinath, Frank M. (2011).
"Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 25 (4): 287–294.
doi:
10.1002/per.835.
ISSN
0890-2070. Archived from
the original on 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) ), it will be hard to produce improvements in the article text of this article, which I hope is something we are all here to do. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
Watch my talk,
How I edit)
10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)A few points:
1) "It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences."
The phenotypic and, especially, non-genetic variance of IQ is what may be higher in low SES families. "Higher variance in SES" doesn't mean anything.
Moreover, Kirkpatrick et al. [7] found lower IQ variance in low-SES families, in contradiction with Turkheimer. They also found that heritability does not vary as a function of trait level (low IQ and high IQ are equally due to genes).
2) "in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects"
Nope. The method used in these studies only estimates how those genetic and environmental main effects on IQ that are NOT shared with SES are moderated by SES.
3) Turkheimer's study is underpowered and its conclusions are not consistent, in terms of the magnitude of moderation, with other studies. Hanscombe et al. 2012 did find a moderation effect but it's very small compared to Turkheimer's.
4) "I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES"
The TEDS sample is representative of the UK population in terms of SES. Turkheimer's sample is highly unrepresentative (and old).-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I did a routine linking to the United States, thanked by one user, then another user reverted saying not only the US. Fine but in that case we must remove the mention of the US in the opening. I dont care which but we either dont include American or we include it with a link to the US. American can, esp outside the US, refer to people in the Americas but I dont believe the text referred to that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A copy of this discussion should also be made on the Heritability of IQ page, considering this source has relevant data pertaining to several topics.
The paper is available to read here and is published in Intelligence, a notable journal for this topic area.
What's most relevant is the discussion of GWAS hits for various education attainment parameters (and said hits are also associated with g) and that these hits have been replicated (contrary to the belief that GWAS hits for cognitive traits won't replicate or haven't thus far replicated.)
The frequencies for these alleles also differ across populations, and were found to reflect national differences in IQ.
I urge editors to look into this new review and figure out how the findings can be used to improve this and other articles. Wajajad ( talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Might be worth looking at Talk:Eugenics#Marian Van Court. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You are infringing on copyright by using Google Drive to store and disseminate those papers.
I was reading through your copyright-violating papers and I found this interesting tidbit: "Most histories of mathematics devote only a few pages to ancient Egypt and to northern Africa during the 'Middle Ages.' Generally they ignore the history of mathematics in sub-Saharan Africa and give the impression either that this history is not knowable/traceable, or even stronger still, that there was no mathematics at all south of the Sahara." [emphasis mine]
Fringe Afrocentric pseudohistory (one of your papers asserted that Euclid was a Black Egyptian) should receive less attention on Wikipedia than the mainstream opinion. Who should be weighted more prominently, the Afrocentrists, or "most histories of mathematics"?
Instead of reverting my edit you could have expanded the section to summarize the disagreement as to the extent to which mathematics existed in sub-Saharan Africa (if Gerdes and the other Afrocentric academics should be mentioned at all)
And what about the Galton quotes and my section on life history variables? Sombe19 ( talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek:Regarding this: [8]. Can you please explain what you are talking about? Sombe19 ( talk) 14:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Maunus I suppose you are saying that because the subject is tangential and no other reason? Caballero//Historiador ☊ 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that people keep accusing me of promoting a "fringe" hereditarian POV. It is not a fringe POV, but rather the mainstream POV subscribed to by the majority of scholars and experts. Take a look at this (cut and pasted from the old set of Wikipedia articles on race and intelligence)
A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars (65% replied) in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. Political and social opinions, reported in the same survey, accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. (Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically.) Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses.
One question was "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.?" (emphasis original). [10] The responses were divided into five categories:
Question | Responses |
---|---|
What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the White population? | Average estimate of 60 (± 17) percent. |
What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the Black population? | Average estimate of 57 (± 18) percent. |
Are intelligence tests biased against Blacks? | On a scale of 1 (not at all or insignificantly) to 4 (extremely), mean response of 2 (somewhat). |
What is the source of the average Black-White difference in IQ? | Both genetic and environmental (45%, or 52% of those responding). |
The age of the survey and the anonymity of the respondents could constrain its interpretation.
In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" (Snyderman and Rothman,1988)
Group | Entirely Environment | Entirely Genetic | Both | Data Are Insufficient |
---|---|---|---|---|
Journalists | 34% | 1% | 27% | 38% |
Editors | 47% | 2% | 23% | 28% |
IQ Experts | 17% | 1% | 53% | 28% |
I assert that it is the opposition's viewpoint that represents the fringe (Marxist) POV, that has been endlessly promoted to the point where it appears to represent mainstream opinion (but it doesn't). Sombe19 ( talk) 07:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks for the quick response. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: [12] Can you explain what is wrong with those edits? Sombe19 ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And how could consensus ever be established on a controversial topic such as this? Sombe19 ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Rindermann H, Coyle T R, Becker D. 2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.
Presented at the 14th ISIR conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12-14, 2013
It has surveyed
It was emailed the 1237 persons, 228(18%) completed or partially completed.
Results:
Sources for U.S. black-white differences in IQ (74% of their experts having an opinion)
differences due to genes | proportion |
0% | 17% |
0-40% | 42% |
50% | 18% |
50-100% | 39% |
100% | 5% |
M = 47% SD =31% |
-- The Master ( talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(Regarding this: [13])
Please don't blanket revert all those edits. There were many good and unbiased edits in there. Fix what you think needs fixing - don't just blanket revert. Sombe19 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You do the same thing in the next sentence, where you changed "Racial thinkers such as Arthur de Gobineau relied crucially on the assumption that black people were innately inferior to Whites" to the POV "relied crucially on the findings that Blacks were innately inferior to Whites". In other words you changed what was stated to be a (racist) assumption into a claim of fact. Sorry, no way.
Also, your edit history shows that you're a single purpose account with a style and interest very similar to a couple of indef banned editors. Wanna tell us which one you're a sockpuppet of? I'm guessing at least this one but there's probably a few others. So.... I'm not going to waste my time on this. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Sorry to step in out of the blue on an old article, but whoever the original poster was was absolutely correct. The reverts in the histories they linked to showed a butchering attempt at agenda peddling by 'Volunteer Marek' (jesus christ dude, did you just step out of Stalinist Russia with that absurd name?) and it appears that their edit history has a consistent agenda peddling history. Why one user is banned and the other isn't when their agenda is as based on fallacious nonsense and fantasy is beyond me. They even removed sourced material. Idiocy for good intentions is still idiocy. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia used to have an excellent set of articles on race and intelligence which I have recently stumbled upon. Take a look at this:
Sombe19 ( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There was also a bunch of very comprehensive graphics compiling heaps of empirical research which kept getting blanket deleted also. It appears that this article has two kinds of agenda peddlers, both absolutely opposed to science and empirical evidence based reasoning, and it appears both think they're somehow doing good for their narrative by spouting nonsense and ultimately vandalizing what was a functional normal non-controversial article. For many years the mere whisper of inbreeding between h. neanderthalensis would get one in strife, but now post human genome project our view is very different. Unfortunately it appears that some people just write off the human genome project entirely because it doesn't suit their narrative. Cultural Marxism may work in an environment where one's opinion is worth a pinch of shit, but in a world where citations and evidence are more important than one's feelings it doesn't really have a place here. PS: Where DID those graphics go this time? Last time I was here a guy named Marek was constantly deleting them, and now there's a guy named 'Volunteer Marek' who seems to be peddling the same agenda as Marek was, same Marek I assume? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
New editors won't know this, old ones may have forgotten it.
By motion [15] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.
The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides: banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia; the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor; any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.
To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor: which was posted within the R&I topic or which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
The topic area is the articles in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
Given that most of the vandalization I have seen since my last visit to this article, which I believe was for a mediation, it appears that the problem isn't the nutzi party but the goose stepping equally heinous polar opposite on the spectrum (both literally and figuratively 'on the spectrum' one could argue) who have removed considerable amounts of sourced material and collations of data into graphics. Why aren't these equally batshit insane and equally vandalizing nuseansaces banned from editing too? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The intro is too long IMHO. Ben Finn ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
To return to SageRad's original question:
This is about a measurable thing which, according to empirical evidence, may be either zero or not, but in any case so close to zero that nobody can conclusively tell both apart. In other words, the null hypothesis has not been refuted. Usually, such cases are described as "no evidence for such an effect". This wording is logically equivalent to "It is still not resolved" but it makes the logic of such a research situation clearer. Examples are easily found:
So I suggest to change the sentence into something like "No evidence for a relation between group differences in IQ and race has been found despite an intensive search for it." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.
The above sentence makes little sense and seems counterfactual. In other words, there is raw data. The question is the interpretation. The important aspect is that group differences in IQ test scores does not mean that there are group differences in intelligence. The sentence above doesn't add to the opening paragraph and seems to only muddy it. SageRad ( talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps:
would cover the problems clearly? Noting that IQ != "intelligence" therefore need not appear in the single sentence. Collect ( talk) 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The opening para is currently:
The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.
To my read, this leaves the question completely open. "It is still not resolved..." I find this troubling. I find it troubling especially in light of the way that many topics that may have validity are so often strongly argues for Wikivoice to represent as "bogus" or "quackery" or "fad diet" or "fringe" etc.... and yet this one in particular is left as an open question? I'll be keeping an eye on this page and thinking more about it. SageRad ( talk) 12:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:Well feel free to show us where the question was resolved. Presumably "all humans are exactly the same" is something we can just assume. Consistent patterns of cognitive difference are caused by the mysterious forces of racism, which is the only force known to increase with distance. Genes don't exist.
:::Nor do we throw out theories because editors find them "troubling". Please work on your argument.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
12:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think the popular idea that everybody is exactly the same and that we can't estimate cognitive ability or describe human variation and correlate them is fringe in academia. I know that hurts people's precious feelings. Would you like to extract some scholarly references from your magazine? I notice Turkheimer was referenced.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Many people have biases. For example some people find the idea of racial genetic differences "troubling". Feel free to edit the article. I suggest using something better than a popular magazine though.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
13:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
While it would be nice to ignore the fact that statistics exist which have caused much debate, the problem is that Wikipedia has the idea that that which is given as fact in reliable scholarly sources is generally accorded o be "reliably sourced." "Race and Intelligence" is and has been an area of some substantial controversy, but simply deleting one of the primary factors in the controversy does not excise the factor from existence. Best practice is to follow policy, and present statements of fact as given in the proper sources as fact, and positions in controversies with the weight accorded those positions in proper sources. Should Wikipedia change the policies? If so, then change them. Until them, we follow them. Collect ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
::You said the article was at odds with some magazine you looked at. Feel free to make sourced suggestions other than filling the talk page with how triggered you are.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
14:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Struck through (and deleted the last post as there was no reply) posts by CU confirmed sock of Tiny Dancer 48 who was almost certainly Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is a source that refutes the premise that there are inherent racial differences in intelligence. This source is over one year old and is not cited in this article yet. Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep? by Gavin Evans. This source refutes, for instance, the Nicholas Wade articles. We need to integrate this source and its content in the article. To quote Evans:
And yet the widespread combination of misplaced faith in the immutability of IQ and misplaced faith in the ability of genes to determine behaviour has allowed their claims to fester away, unchallenged in the public arena. The problem in not challenging these bad ideas promptly and vigorously goes way beyond their flawed science. If the public and its opinion makers come to accept notions like Wade’s – such as that Africans are, by nature, none-too-bright tribalists – we’ll be in danger of returning to the dangerous mentality that formed the ballast for colonialism and slavery.
Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker:
An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are.
this New York Times opinion piece by Richard Nisbett.
the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic
Supported by these sources and others like them, i have removed two sentences from the lede that said nothing specific but were weasely in that they mislead the reader to think that the question is still entirely open, whereas reliable review sources seem to say that environmental factors and mismeasure of intelligence by IQ or other tests do or probably do in fact explain the whole effect. My edits are here and here. Please discuss adequately before reverting. SageRad ( talk) 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Deleet ( talk) 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC) (Could not figure out how to indent a list.)
Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
[...]
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[24] costs, and risks versus benefits,[25] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[26] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[27] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources.
Please give the actual text about Nisbett if you would from Hunt p 434. Is your contention that the premise that there are genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups is an open question then? Is your contention that they're is NOT a general consensus that it's a false premise? That's what I seem to be getting here. Anyway, MEDRS is not a requirement and I think the sources I name are reasonably reliable and suitable for this article as sources and for further reading. Sure let's include other sources as well but not exclude these. And if there is a consensus as reported in these sources then we don't present a false "balance" as if they're all equal. We present one a fringe and the other as reliable and accepted. SageRad ( talk) 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
To parse some of the above... someone would like to dismiss totally the Gavin Evans book saying that he's "a journalist who is also an anti-racism political activist" as if that makes his book unreliable, whereas the Amazon bio says "Gavin Evans was born in London but grew up in South Africa where he became involved in the anti-apartheid campaign while working as a journalist and completing degrees in economic history, law and a PhD in politics. He returned to London 22 years ago and teaches at Birkbeck College while writing for several UK newspapers. This is his fifth book." That does not make his book unreliable. That makes him a human being who has followed his interests and written a book on a topic of interest. You may also note the widely favorable reception of his book among scholars and others. Why did it take two go-rounds to get you to note that it's a book, not a blog too? Anyway... SageRad ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Nisbett, it seems the argument made above, via the quote by Hunt, is that Nisbett is wrong because it's not viable to say that absolutely none of variability in testing results across groups comes from genetics. That's a pretty obvious strawman argument because Nisbett to my knowledge doesn't generally claim that there is absolutely no effect of genetics on testing results across groups. In other words, making a falsely extreme claim attributed to someone and then knocking it down is the definition of strawman fallacy. Here is a report from the APA that says:
After analyzing decades of intelligence research, Nisbett maintains that past studies give too much credit to heritability's role in intelligence. Culture, social class and education, he argues, matter more, and explain racial gaps in IQ.
And further, Nisbett's own words in this interview:
Genetics influences IQ. People with genes for high IQ pass them on to their children. Their children will be smarter than other children on average. The question is: How much of the variation in IQ in a given population is accounted for by genes? Estimates have run as high as 80 percent. This is not the same thing as saying that your IQ is 80 percent determined by genes. That's quite wrong. In any case, a number of errors of the kind I detail in my book have resulted in estimates of heritability that are too high.
I hope this suffices to eliminate that opposition to using Nisbett as a reliable source based on this argument from authority of the Hunt textbook. SageRad ( talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
studying brain region differences is more important, East Asians are more inhibited due to a more well functioning either bigger cingulum (cingulate cortex). We have to analyze functionality. Also different races sometimes not only have they brain part differences, but there is a small statistical difference on the subparts of a region. The smaller a difference is, the least the statistical significance, thus we shouldn't metaphysically claim ideas based on pure fantasy . We need more analytical data. Some people claim science is nazi. This isn't true. We simply have to be very analytical and to reveal actual data and also mention their statistical significance also if they cause a statistical behavioural change. That isn't nazi. Random comments might be perceived as racistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:CF00:1963:F284:B24D:197C ( talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Banned user EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I note that following political correctness in the US the article never uses the word. Instead it uses euphemisms that are vague and misleading. Southern Indians, Australian Aboriginals and Polinesians are all "Black", but not the same all being out of Africa etc. Many Arabs living in America are from Africa, but again that is not what is meant by African Americans (I presume).
It seems sensible to use racial words when talking about race. But if we cannot use the word Negro, then maybe some well define term. Maybe SSAs for sub-Sahara Africans? Tuntable ( talk) 00:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That is some 3,000 generations since we left Africa. Both populations will have evolved to some extent over all that time. But it would seem amazing if after all that time there was no difference in the most critical of human traits, intelligence. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.
Some discussion of this, and why, would be an excellent addition. My guess is that the populations actually inter bred to some extent, with an exception being the Australian Aboriginals. But that is just a guess. Tuntable ( talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly genetic. You can look at the fact that babies adopted by a family of another race grow up to exhibit IQs expected of their own race, and that even when controlling for socioeconomic status there's a 10 point difference between the average IQs of blacks and whites.
Source: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Benjamin ( talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The concept of stereotype threat has received some new attention in the psychological literature given some failures to replicate some studies, and a meta-analysis (by David Geary) that found little evidence for an effect. The full article on stereotype threat mentions this, but it should probably be briefly noted here. Currently the coverage is entirely uncritical. Hoping someone here is a bit more of an expert on the topic and can cover that. But I'll give it a try if no one else does. StoneProphet11 ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I just added the entire mini-essay on the theme of 'controversial proxy' and its many nested dolls. What the article previously lacked was the large leaning tower of controversy regarding the implicit social status judgement [editted]. If my addition is somewhat top heavy, it's because the tower is high. Please factor this into your chainsaw oil. — MaxEnt 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I find it highly suspicious there's no clear chart, table or map that shows average IQ by race, given that's what the article is supposed to be about. I think it's pretty obvious that data is intentionally obfuscated. That runs completely counter to anything I thought Wikipedia was supposed to represent. The entire article is pretty much hand-waving and excuses to undermine any negative interpretation of IQ race data...that's fine, but if Wiki articles attempt to bury and obfuscate facts then Wikipedia is no longer a credible, objective source to find information. I was just curious to know what the current statistical IQ differences were, without inferring or seeking any racist conclusions with that information, but apparently that's not politically-correct enough for this site and I have to scour Google to get the information I should be able to easily find here.
I agree the title of this page should be renamed to "Race and IQ" vs. "Race and Intelligence". 'Intelligence' is a pretty broad term that is open to a lot of interpretation; Statistical IQ data is an objective, quantitative number that can be fairly and accurately presented without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlook1977 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Under the heading "Race" the claim "However, the mainstream view among biologists is that race is a biological concept, similar to other taxonomic divisions. " Has no source and should be properly cited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnarlesincharge ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Doug Weller talk 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason this section is written so poorly? Why is the fact that tested black IQs are lower than whites only vaguely mentioned at the end when this is clearly the point of the section, and the whole article for that matter? Why is the irrelevance of a guess at the percent of blacks above the median mentioned rather than below? Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean you should attempt to alter them through misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Since someone re-added the graph from several years ago, I suppose we might as well restart the discussion from back then. My objections are more or less the same as the ones people had in the discussion back then; as presented, the graph violates WP:SYNTH - especially in this case, where the representation and interpretation of the data is extremely controversial. We could potentially use a chart from a particular source, citing it specifically as the position of that source, but it would require considerably more context than was given here - it can't just be dropped at the top of the article with no context in the article voice. Charts and graphs are particularly tricky because if not used carefully they are inherently devoid of context, which is why I think the figures are better placed in the text where the exact controversies and context (who, exactly, is saying what about which data at which point in time) can be clearly expressed. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In other words the one coherent representation of actual data is just too controversial for a rambling thread which consists almost entirely of context rather than on topic exposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I came across the lead sentence in this article (which was the same then as it is now) and decided that it was too biased, and so changed it. I edited the page so the lead sentence said "The relationship between race and intelligence has been a controversial subject for hundreds of years." instead of "Establishing a link between race and intelligence has been a primary goal of white supremacist pseudoscience for hundreds of years." [20] In this and other edits made around that time, I also added two studies to the article. Futurebird just effectively reverted these edits, claiming that "You didn't change just the quote you deleted a bunch of citations." (You in this case is me.) This is not true, however: I did not delete any citations; instead I just added 2 studies as citations. Therefore, I think my edits should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to move forward I propose that we establish a criterion to evaluate the ideal sources on which to depend for establishing notability, status and relative weight of different viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature. The proposal has been modeled on WP:MEDRS. Following this general proposal for a decision regarding quality of sourcing, we will be able to make decisions about specific sources, about how they should be weighed in determining the weight of arguments. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
When establishing notability and relative balance of viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature should we give priority to the following kinds of sources: "1.) recent, general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable psychological and anthropological journals, 2.) widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in either the fields of intelligence, and/or Race and human biological variation, and 3.) professional guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"?
For each of the following sources please give your opinion on whether the following sources should be considered highly reliable mainstream sources that should receive priority in establishing balance and notability of different viewpoints. In your evaluation try to asses whether a source should have Highest, High, Medium, Low or No weight.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_first2=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_last2=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The question is whether it is a widely held mainstream view that the entire IQ test score gap is likely to be explainable by environmental effects. Note that the question is not whether it is the only mainstream view, nor whether it has been proven to account for the entire gap, but only about whether it is considered a probable explanation by a wide selection of mainstream scholars.
The question is whether Rushton as a person and a scholar is generally considered to be within the mainstream of the field of Psychology. The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.
The consensus is that this RfC is garbage and uses two mutually exclusive definitions of mainstream: "multiple mainstreams" for the author's preferred minority view, and "single mainstream" for the author's personally disliked minority view. Shall we open another RfC and switch it around? No, that would be transparently disingenuous wouldn't it. Did the closer even read it? 27.1.214.45 ( talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.So the question was one of the application of WP:DUE. Whatever definition of "mainstream" being used here seems less relevant than responding to this question. Accusations that words were intentionally twisted to suit the proposer or my close doesn't appear to be based on anything factual (also, I've never edited this article), so I see no reason to reconsider my close. I suggest you go to WP:AN if you want a more formal reconsideration. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this article should be moved to "race and IQ" as that is more scientific (and most of this article is pretty scientific) and most of this article is talking about IQ tests achieved by individuals from different races.-- MrEpsilon ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Aaaaand I just realized race and IQ redirects here anyway. Okay, nevermind.-- MrEpsilon ( talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Should the Boskop skulls be mentioned? They were large neotenic skulls found in southern Africa(the cranial capacity was around 1700cc, larger than even the neanderthals). I found an article about them in discover. The author argues that based on their size they would have had an IQ average of 150. Interesting as they are believed to be the ancestors of the modern khoisan people http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us and here on John Hawks blog http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/return-amazing-boskops-lynch-granger-2009.html Turtire ( talk) 03:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why this statement is valid. Do you need some of the hundreds of sources and studies? Sombe19 ( talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Ontario Institute of Technology/Critical Race Theory (Winter 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
AndrewHamsha ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC) HamshaAndrew ( talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Is in no way a reliable source for this topic. He has no expertise in any area of research that is relevant for this article. His blog is not peer reviewed. And finally the blog post is not about the topic of race and intelligence, which is of course the first requirement for being used in the article. The fact that African and African American populations are at much higher risk for many environmental conditions that affect cognitive development is already mentioned based on the many reliable sources that make this point. Consensus so far has been to build this article based only on high quality sources. Let's keep doing that, the opposite is a bad spiral to get into. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That section is about improper nutrition causing lower intelligence. This fact shows just how common of a problem it is in the world. And Bill Gates is an expert on this, since he he runs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which he has donated 28 billion of his own money to. More opinions please, should we have that edit in there or not? Dream Focus 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)One in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. [Gates, Bill (2014-08-01). "Why Does Hunger Still Exist in Africa? | Bill Gates". Gatesnotes.com. Retrieved 2014-08-22.]
I concur: Gatesnotes.com -- Bill Gates's blog -- is not an acceptable source. BCorr| Брайен 12:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify the meaning of this sentence: "Lynn and Vanhanen argue that due to genetic limitations in intelligence particularly in African populations, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48]"
Does this mean the following? "Lynn and Vanhanen claim that populations in the third world, particularly populations in Africa, tend to have limited intelligence because of their genetic composition and that, consequently, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48] CarlosChio ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that the helpful discussion of reliable sources from an earlier RfC has once again aged off this article talk page. After I reposted the previous discussion, which is still in the talk page archive, an I.P. editor visited my user talk page to suggest starting a fresh discussion here. Fair enough. So pretending that we are starting from the beginning today, but possibly informed by previous discussion of sources, let's discuss here what current, reliable sources of the highest scholarly quality would be useful for further improvement of this article, which has generated a huge archive of talk page discussion but is still only an article of moderate quality so far. I look forward to hearing everyone's suggestions of good sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics". My question is, how is that statement reconcilable with essentially the entire article on race and health? The entire sub-section on the validity of race is centred around two things: genetics and statements made by certain organizations and scientists. I would like to see discussion on the practical applications of 'race' (along with the aforementioned medicine, this would also include things like forensics). The main fallacy here is that the only way for race to be a valid construct or have any scientific significance is for races to be discrete, when, of course, this is an absurd requirement (an analogy may be made with light; different colours are certainly on a continuum, so there is no particular point where one colour becomes another, but no one can seriously claim that "yellow" and "blue" are social constructs). JDiala ( talk) 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, information about the race of patients will be useless as soon as we discover and can type cheaply the underlying genes that are responsible for the associations. Can races be enumerated in any unambiguous way? Of course not, and this is well known not only to scientists but also to anyone on the street.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help) --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit)
11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Species is also a social construct human made up for something that is actually a continous sprectum. ParanoidLemmings ( talk) 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's important to point out that everything is a social construct. Unfortunately the stupid mass media will interpret that as biologically and scientifically meaningless, but what can one do. I'm fixing the other biological classification articles. By the way color is a bad example since it a perfect continuum, while the topography of genetic space has maxima and minima, and can be divided as an objective natural kind. But the word race is a social construct, so we can put it in the first sentence of all articles. Captain JT Verity MBA ( talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I hate to encourage certain people, but [5] is bound to perk up some ears around these parts. Please be careful in your interpretation. Wnt ( talk) 14:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This paper is used here and on Heritability of IQ by way of the 2012 paper for the finding that in low SES families heritability of IQ falls down. Yet, this finding has been contradicted by a lot more research since, especially Hanscombe et al. 2012. I want other editors to chime in on this, but the fact remains that Turkheimer's paper doesn't remain unchallenged. Wajajad ( talk) 02:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Until editors here understand what heritability means and what heritability doesn't mean (for which topic I also recommend another review article, namely Johnson, Wendy; Penke, Lars; Spinath, Frank M. (2011).
"Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 25 (4): 287–294.
doi:
10.1002/per.835.
ISSN
0890-2070. Archived from
the original on 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) ), it will be hard to produce improvements in the article text of this article, which I hope is something we are all here to do. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
Watch my talk,
How I edit)
10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)A few points:
1) "It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences."
The phenotypic and, especially, non-genetic variance of IQ is what may be higher in low SES families. "Higher variance in SES" doesn't mean anything.
Moreover, Kirkpatrick et al. [7] found lower IQ variance in low-SES families, in contradiction with Turkheimer. They also found that heritability does not vary as a function of trait level (low IQ and high IQ are equally due to genes).
2) "in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects"
Nope. The method used in these studies only estimates how those genetic and environmental main effects on IQ that are NOT shared with SES are moderated by SES.
3) Turkheimer's study is underpowered and its conclusions are not consistent, in terms of the magnitude of moderation, with other studies. Hanscombe et al. 2012 did find a moderation effect but it's very small compared to Turkheimer's.
4) "I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES"
The TEDS sample is representative of the UK population in terms of SES. Turkheimer's sample is highly unrepresentative (and old).-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I did a routine linking to the United States, thanked by one user, then another user reverted saying not only the US. Fine but in that case we must remove the mention of the US in the opening. I dont care which but we either dont include American or we include it with a link to the US. American can, esp outside the US, refer to people in the Americas but I dont believe the text referred to that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
A copy of this discussion should also be made on the Heritability of IQ page, considering this source has relevant data pertaining to several topics.
The paper is available to read here and is published in Intelligence, a notable journal for this topic area.
What's most relevant is the discussion of GWAS hits for various education attainment parameters (and said hits are also associated with g) and that these hits have been replicated (contrary to the belief that GWAS hits for cognitive traits won't replicate or haven't thus far replicated.)
The frequencies for these alleles also differ across populations, and were found to reflect national differences in IQ.
I urge editors to look into this new review and figure out how the findings can be used to improve this and other articles. Wajajad ( talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Might be worth looking at Talk:Eugenics#Marian Van Court. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You are infringing on copyright by using Google Drive to store and disseminate those papers.
I was reading through your copyright-violating papers and I found this interesting tidbit: "Most histories of mathematics devote only a few pages to ancient Egypt and to northern Africa during the 'Middle Ages.' Generally they ignore the history of mathematics in sub-Saharan Africa and give the impression either that this history is not knowable/traceable, or even stronger still, that there was no mathematics at all south of the Sahara." [emphasis mine]
Fringe Afrocentric pseudohistory (one of your papers asserted that Euclid was a Black Egyptian) should receive less attention on Wikipedia than the mainstream opinion. Who should be weighted more prominently, the Afrocentrists, or "most histories of mathematics"?
Instead of reverting my edit you could have expanded the section to summarize the disagreement as to the extent to which mathematics existed in sub-Saharan Africa (if Gerdes and the other Afrocentric academics should be mentioned at all)
And what about the Galton quotes and my section on life history variables? Sombe19 ( talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek:Regarding this: [8]. Can you please explain what you are talking about? Sombe19 ( talk) 14:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Maunus I suppose you are saying that because the subject is tangential and no other reason? Caballero//Historiador ☊ 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that people keep accusing me of promoting a "fringe" hereditarian POV. It is not a fringe POV, but rather the mainstream POV subscribed to by the majority of scholars and experts. Take a look at this (cut and pasted from the old set of Wikipedia articles on race and intelligence)
A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars (65% replied) in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. Political and social opinions, reported in the same survey, accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. (Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically.) Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses.
One question was "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.?" (emphasis original). [10] The responses were divided into five categories:
Question | Responses |
---|---|
What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the White population? | Average estimate of 60 (± 17) percent. |
What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the Black population? | Average estimate of 57 (± 18) percent. |
Are intelligence tests biased against Blacks? | On a scale of 1 (not at all or insignificantly) to 4 (extremely), mean response of 2 (somewhat). |
What is the source of the average Black-White difference in IQ? | Both genetic and environmental (45%, or 52% of those responding). |
The age of the survey and the anonymity of the respondents could constrain its interpretation.
In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" (Snyderman and Rothman,1988)
Group | Entirely Environment | Entirely Genetic | Both | Data Are Insufficient |
---|---|---|---|---|
Journalists | 34% | 1% | 27% | 38% |
Editors | 47% | 2% | 23% | 28% |
IQ Experts | 17% | 1% | 53% | 28% |
I assert that it is the opposition's viewpoint that represents the fringe (Marxist) POV, that has been endlessly promoted to the point where it appears to represent mainstream opinion (but it doesn't). Sombe19 ( talk) 07:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
* Thanks for the quick response. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this: [12] Can you explain what is wrong with those edits? Sombe19 ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And how could consensus ever be established on a controversial topic such as this? Sombe19 ( talk) 19:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Rindermann H, Coyle T R, Becker D. 2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.
Presented at the 14th ISIR conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12-14, 2013
It has surveyed
It was emailed the 1237 persons, 228(18%) completed or partially completed.
Results:
Sources for U.S. black-white differences in IQ (74% of their experts having an opinion)
differences due to genes | proportion |
0% | 17% |
0-40% | 42% |
50% | 18% |
50-100% | 39% |
100% | 5% |
M = 47% SD =31% |
-- The Master ( talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(Regarding this: [13])
Please don't blanket revert all those edits. There were many good and unbiased edits in there. Fix what you think needs fixing - don't just blanket revert. Sombe19 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You do the same thing in the next sentence, where you changed "Racial thinkers such as Arthur de Gobineau relied crucially on the assumption that black people were innately inferior to Whites" to the POV "relied crucially on the findings that Blacks were innately inferior to Whites". In other words you changed what was stated to be a (racist) assumption into a claim of fact. Sorry, no way.
Also, your edit history shows that you're a single purpose account with a style and interest very similar to a couple of indef banned editors. Wanna tell us which one you're a sockpuppet of? I'm guessing at least this one but there's probably a few others. So.... I'm not going to waste my time on this. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Sorry to step in out of the blue on an old article, but whoever the original poster was was absolutely correct. The reverts in the histories they linked to showed a butchering attempt at agenda peddling by 'Volunteer Marek' (jesus christ dude, did you just step out of Stalinist Russia with that absurd name?) and it appears that their edit history has a consistent agenda peddling history. Why one user is banned and the other isn't when their agenda is as based on fallacious nonsense and fantasy is beyond me. They even removed sourced material. Idiocy for good intentions is still idiocy. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia used to have an excellent set of articles on race and intelligence which I have recently stumbled upon. Take a look at this:
Sombe19 ( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There was also a bunch of very comprehensive graphics compiling heaps of empirical research which kept getting blanket deleted also. It appears that this article has two kinds of agenda peddlers, both absolutely opposed to science and empirical evidence based reasoning, and it appears both think they're somehow doing good for their narrative by spouting nonsense and ultimately vandalizing what was a functional normal non-controversial article. For many years the mere whisper of inbreeding between h. neanderthalensis would get one in strife, but now post human genome project our view is very different. Unfortunately it appears that some people just write off the human genome project entirely because it doesn't suit their narrative. Cultural Marxism may work in an environment where one's opinion is worth a pinch of shit, but in a world where citations and evidence are more important than one's feelings it doesn't really have a place here. PS: Where DID those graphics go this time? Last time I was here a guy named Marek was constantly deleting them, and now there's a guy named 'Volunteer Marek' who seems to be peddling the same agenda as Marek was, same Marek I assume? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
New editors won't know this, old ones may have forgotten it.
By motion [15] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.
The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides: banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia; the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor; any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.
To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor: which was posted within the R&I topic or which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
The topic area is the articles in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
Given that most of the vandalization I have seen since my last visit to this article, which I believe was for a mediation, it appears that the problem isn't the nutzi party but the goose stepping equally heinous polar opposite on the spectrum (both literally and figuratively 'on the spectrum' one could argue) who have removed considerable amounts of sourced material and collations of data into graphics. Why aren't these equally batshit insane and equally vandalizing nuseansaces banned from editing too? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The intro is too long IMHO. Ben Finn ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
To return to SageRad's original question:
This is about a measurable thing which, according to empirical evidence, may be either zero or not, but in any case so close to zero that nobody can conclusively tell both apart. In other words, the null hypothesis has not been refuted. Usually, such cases are described as "no evidence for such an effect". This wording is logically equivalent to "It is still not resolved" but it makes the logic of such a research situation clearer. Examples are easily found:
So I suggest to change the sentence into something like "No evidence for a relation between group differences in IQ and race has been found despite an intensive search for it." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.
The above sentence makes little sense and seems counterfactual. In other words, there is raw data. The question is the interpretation. The important aspect is that group differences in IQ test scores does not mean that there are group differences in intelligence. The sentence above doesn't add to the opening paragraph and seems to only muddy it. SageRad ( talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps:
would cover the problems clearly? Noting that IQ != "intelligence" therefore need not appear in the single sentence. Collect ( talk) 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The opening para is currently:
The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.
To my read, this leaves the question completely open. "It is still not resolved..." I find this troubling. I find it troubling especially in light of the way that many topics that may have validity are so often strongly argues for Wikivoice to represent as "bogus" or "quackery" or "fad diet" or "fringe" etc.... and yet this one in particular is left as an open question? I'll be keeping an eye on this page and thinking more about it. SageRad ( talk) 12:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:Well feel free to show us where the question was resolved. Presumably "all humans are exactly the same" is something we can just assume. Consistent patterns of cognitive difference are caused by the mysterious forces of racism, which is the only force known to increase with distance. Genes don't exist.
:::Nor do we throw out theories because editors find them "troubling". Please work on your argument.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
12:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think the popular idea that everybody is exactly the same and that we can't estimate cognitive ability or describe human variation and correlate them is fringe in academia. I know that hurts people's precious feelings. Would you like to extract some scholarly references from your magazine? I notice Turkheimer was referenced.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Many people have biases. For example some people find the idea of racial genetic differences "troubling". Feel free to edit the article. I suggest using something better than a popular magazine though.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
13:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
While it would be nice to ignore the fact that statistics exist which have caused much debate, the problem is that Wikipedia has the idea that that which is given as fact in reliable scholarly sources is generally accorded o be "reliably sourced." "Race and Intelligence" is and has been an area of some substantial controversy, but simply deleting one of the primary factors in the controversy does not excise the factor from existence. Best practice is to follow policy, and present statements of fact as given in the proper sources as fact, and positions in controversies with the weight accorded those positions in proper sources. Should Wikipedia change the policies? If so, then change them. Until them, we follow them. Collect ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
::You said the article was at odds with some magazine you looked at. Feel free to make sourced suggestions other than filling the talk page with how triggered you are.
My Happy Safe Space (
talk)
14:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Struck through (and deleted the last post as there was no reply) posts by CU confirmed sock of Tiny Dancer 48 who was almost certainly Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is a source that refutes the premise that there are inherent racial differences in intelligence. This source is over one year old and is not cited in this article yet. Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep? by Gavin Evans. This source refutes, for instance, the Nicholas Wade articles. We need to integrate this source and its content in the article. To quote Evans:
And yet the widespread combination of misplaced faith in the immutability of IQ and misplaced faith in the ability of genes to determine behaviour has allowed their claims to fester away, unchallenged in the public arena. The problem in not challenging these bad ideas promptly and vigorously goes way beyond their flawed science. If the public and its opinion makers come to accept notions like Wade’s – such as that Africans are, by nature, none-too-bright tribalists – we’ll be in danger of returning to the dangerous mentality that formed the ballast for colonialism and slavery.
Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker:
An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are.
this New York Times opinion piece by Richard Nisbett.
the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic
Supported by these sources and others like them, i have removed two sentences from the lede that said nothing specific but were weasely in that they mislead the reader to think that the question is still entirely open, whereas reliable review sources seem to say that environmental factors and mismeasure of intelligence by IQ or other tests do or probably do in fact explain the whole effect. My edits are here and here. Please discuss adequately before reverting. SageRad ( talk) 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Deleet ( talk) 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC) (Could not figure out how to indent a list.)
Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
[...]
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[24] costs, and risks versus benefits,[25] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[26] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[27] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources.
Please give the actual text about Nisbett if you would from Hunt p 434. Is your contention that the premise that there are genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups is an open question then? Is your contention that they're is NOT a general consensus that it's a false premise? That's what I seem to be getting here. Anyway, MEDRS is not a requirement and I think the sources I name are reasonably reliable and suitable for this article as sources and for further reading. Sure let's include other sources as well but not exclude these. And if there is a consensus as reported in these sources then we don't present a false "balance" as if they're all equal. We present one a fringe and the other as reliable and accepted. SageRad ( talk) 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
To parse some of the above... someone would like to dismiss totally the Gavin Evans book saying that he's "a journalist who is also an anti-racism political activist" as if that makes his book unreliable, whereas the Amazon bio says "Gavin Evans was born in London but grew up in South Africa where he became involved in the anti-apartheid campaign while working as a journalist and completing degrees in economic history, law and a PhD in politics. He returned to London 22 years ago and teaches at Birkbeck College while writing for several UK newspapers. This is his fifth book." That does not make his book unreliable. That makes him a human being who has followed his interests and written a book on a topic of interest. You may also note the widely favorable reception of his book among scholars and others. Why did it take two go-rounds to get you to note that it's a book, not a blog too? Anyway... SageRad ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Nisbett, it seems the argument made above, via the quote by Hunt, is that Nisbett is wrong because it's not viable to say that absolutely none of variability in testing results across groups comes from genetics. That's a pretty obvious strawman argument because Nisbett to my knowledge doesn't generally claim that there is absolutely no effect of genetics on testing results across groups. In other words, making a falsely extreme claim attributed to someone and then knocking it down is the definition of strawman fallacy. Here is a report from the APA that says:
After analyzing decades of intelligence research, Nisbett maintains that past studies give too much credit to heritability's role in intelligence. Culture, social class and education, he argues, matter more, and explain racial gaps in IQ.
And further, Nisbett's own words in this interview:
Genetics influences IQ. People with genes for high IQ pass them on to their children. Their children will be smarter than other children on average. The question is: How much of the variation in IQ in a given population is accounted for by genes? Estimates have run as high as 80 percent. This is not the same thing as saying that your IQ is 80 percent determined by genes. That's quite wrong. In any case, a number of errors of the kind I detail in my book have resulted in estimates of heritability that are too high.
I hope this suffices to eliminate that opposition to using Nisbett as a reliable source based on this argument from authority of the Hunt textbook. SageRad ( talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
studying brain region differences is more important, East Asians are more inhibited due to a more well functioning either bigger cingulum (cingulate cortex). We have to analyze functionality. Also different races sometimes not only have they brain part differences, but there is a small statistical difference on the subparts of a region. The smaller a difference is, the least the statistical significance, thus we shouldn't metaphysically claim ideas based on pure fantasy . We need more analytical data. Some people claim science is nazi. This isn't true. We simply have to be very analytical and to reveal actual data and also mention their statistical significance also if they cause a statistical behavioural change. That isn't nazi. Random comments might be perceived as racistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:CF00:1963:F284:B24D:197C ( talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Banned user EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I note that following political correctness in the US the article never uses the word. Instead it uses euphemisms that are vague and misleading. Southern Indians, Australian Aboriginals and Polinesians are all "Black", but not the same all being out of Africa etc. Many Arabs living in America are from Africa, but again that is not what is meant by African Americans (I presume).
It seems sensible to use racial words when talking about race. But if we cannot use the word Negro, then maybe some well define term. Maybe SSAs for sub-Sahara Africans? Tuntable ( talk) 00:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That is some 3,000 generations since we left Africa. Both populations will have evolved to some extent over all that time. But it would seem amazing if after all that time there was no difference in the most critical of human traits, intelligence. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.
Some discussion of this, and why, would be an excellent addition. My guess is that the populations actually inter bred to some extent, with an exception being the Australian Aboriginals. But that is just a guess. Tuntable ( talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly genetic. You can look at the fact that babies adopted by a family of another race grow up to exhibit IQs expected of their own race, and that even when controlling for socioeconomic status there's a 10 point difference between the average IQs of blacks and whites.
Source: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Benjamin ( talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The concept of stereotype threat has received some new attention in the psychological literature given some failures to replicate some studies, and a meta-analysis (by David Geary) that found little evidence for an effect. The full article on stereotype threat mentions this, but it should probably be briefly noted here. Currently the coverage is entirely uncritical. Hoping someone here is a bit more of an expert on the topic and can cover that. But I'll give it a try if no one else does. StoneProphet11 ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I just added the entire mini-essay on the theme of 'controversial proxy' and its many nested dolls. What the article previously lacked was the large leaning tower of controversy regarding the implicit social status judgement [editted]. If my addition is somewhat top heavy, it's because the tower is high. Please factor this into your chainsaw oil. — MaxEnt 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I find it highly suspicious there's no clear chart, table or map that shows average IQ by race, given that's what the article is supposed to be about. I think it's pretty obvious that data is intentionally obfuscated. That runs completely counter to anything I thought Wikipedia was supposed to represent. The entire article is pretty much hand-waving and excuses to undermine any negative interpretation of IQ race data...that's fine, but if Wiki articles attempt to bury and obfuscate facts then Wikipedia is no longer a credible, objective source to find information. I was just curious to know what the current statistical IQ differences were, without inferring or seeking any racist conclusions with that information, but apparently that's not politically-correct enough for this site and I have to scour Google to get the information I should be able to easily find here.
I agree the title of this page should be renamed to "Race and IQ" vs. "Race and Intelligence". 'Intelligence' is a pretty broad term that is open to a lot of interpretation; Statistical IQ data is an objective, quantitative number that can be fairly and accurately presented without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlook1977 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Under the heading "Race" the claim "However, the mainstream view among biologists is that race is a biological concept, similar to other taxonomic divisions. " Has no source and should be properly cited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnarlesincharge ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Doug Weller talk 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason this section is written so poorly? Why is the fact that tested black IQs are lower than whites only vaguely mentioned at the end when this is clearly the point of the section, and the whole article for that matter? Why is the irrelevance of a guess at the percent of blacks above the median mentioned rather than below? Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean you should attempt to alter them through misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Since someone re-added the graph from several years ago, I suppose we might as well restart the discussion from back then. My objections are more or less the same as the ones people had in the discussion back then; as presented, the graph violates WP:SYNTH - especially in this case, where the representation and interpretation of the data is extremely controversial. We could potentially use a chart from a particular source, citing it specifically as the position of that source, but it would require considerably more context than was given here - it can't just be dropped at the top of the article with no context in the article voice. Charts and graphs are particularly tricky because if not used carefully they are inherently devoid of context, which is why I think the figures are better placed in the text where the exact controversies and context (who, exactly, is saying what about which data at which point in time) can be clearly expressed. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In other words the one coherent representation of actual data is just too controversial for a rambling thread which consists almost entirely of context rather than on topic exposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 ( talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I came across the lead sentence in this article (which was the same then as it is now) and decided that it was too biased, and so changed it. I edited the page so the lead sentence said "The relationship between race and intelligence has been a controversial subject for hundreds of years." instead of "Establishing a link between race and intelligence has been a primary goal of white supremacist pseudoscience for hundreds of years." [20] In this and other edits made around that time, I also added two studies to the article. Futurebird just effectively reverted these edits, claiming that "You didn't change just the quote you deleted a bunch of citations." (You in this case is me.) This is not true, however: I did not delete any citations; instead I just added 2 studies as citations. Therefore, I think my edits should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)