![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Seymour Itzkoff, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A few words on Richard Lynn's book "The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund." Editor Grayfell deleted the section "Secondary sources," claiming that the book was "Not a neutral, reliable source" (edit of December 20, 2018, 23:09). It is certainly true that the book is not neutral (and the reader has the right to know that Lynn has been a Pioneer Fund recipient), but it does not mean that it is altogether unreliable. The book contains bibliographical details about Itzkoff which, so far as I can tell, cannot be found elsewhere. Richard Lynn does express a non-neutral point of view on Itzkoff's books, but biographical details are valuable irrespective of whether one agrees with the viewpoints of Itzkoff or those of Lynn.
While viewpoint neutrality is an important aspect of Wikipedia, the principles of Wikipedia do not require that all non-neutral sources be omitted from the bibliography. Otherwise, many important sources would have to be excluded. The reader should not that Richard Lynn is not neutral, but the reader also benefits from knowing that Lynn wrote on Itzkoff.
To make it clear, I wrote these explanations because I have entirely read the book "The Science of Human Diversity" and because the content does not warrant the assertion that it is not reliable, at least for the bibliographical details. I would like to ask editor "Grayfell" whether he read the book as well. If yes, please give precise reasons why you think the book is "not reliable." -- Sinuthius ( talk)22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
PS: the editor of Lynn's book is "University Press of America", part of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing group. The editor seems to be a reliable academic publishing house. Sinuthius ( talk) 22:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
In this book, Chapter 32 is specifically dedicated to Seymour Itzkoff (p. 417-427). Pages 417-419 are about his life, p. 419-426 about his publications, p. 427 is a list of references. I suggest that we integrate specific biographical details e.g. in what year he was born or obtained specific degrees, with every claim being linked to a specific page. For the content of Itzkoff's works, or his main ideas, other sources can be found. Sinuthius ( talk) 23:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The current description (12:07, 24 December 2018, UTC) of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence reads as follows:
"This statement claimed that the academic consensus was that black people have lower IQs than white people, and that this discrepancy was not caused by bias in testing nor due to economic differences"
This description is problematic for the following reasons:
1) It is partly counterfactual: the Mainstream Science on Intelligence did not claim "that the academic consensus was that black people have lower IQs than white people" but that there was an average difference between them. Conclusion 7 of the MSI states: "Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line." The current definition has to be rewritten, because it may lead the reader to believe that the MSI states that all black people have lower IQs than all white people (which it did not).
2) It gives the impression that the MSI was mainly focused or exclusively dedicated to the question of black/white differences. This is not the case. The MSI also discusses the nature and the measurement of intelligence, the correlates with social and economic outcomes, the practical advantages of having a higher IQ, the stability of individual differences in intelligence, the heritability of intelligence, and the implications for social policy.
Moreover, I would like to point out that, currently, the sources for this description are, one the one hand, the Mainstream Science on Intelligence itself, and on the other hand, a two-page article in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. While both sources meet the reliability criterion, it is problematic to base a description of the MSI on these two sole sources. I added a reference to the article "What Do Undergraduates Learn About Human Intelligence?" (Warne et al., 2018), whose authors write that both the MSI and the official statement made by the APA, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns "represent a summary of solid, noncontroversial findings in intelligence research" and "are widely cited and old enough to be commonly known" (p. 36).
Since it is not the purpose of the Itzkoff article to present a detailed description of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence, I think a good solution is to add a link to the Wikipedia article about the MSI, and export to the Itzkoff article the accepted description of the MSI as reads in the article Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I am open to alternative solutions.
Sinuthius ( talk) 12:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bell Curve is insulated against such criticism". As the rest of the article makes very clear, Montgomery did not share Herrnstein and Murray's views on scientific expertise (the authors presume "
an insupportable conception of science and of scientific authority—indeed a silly, almost childish one.")
The Pioneer Fund underwrites Mankind Quarterly, an extreme right-wing journal that publishes some of the most dubious 'research' on race and intelligence being written today, including the work of Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton.) This is, of course, the same fund that's backed Itzkoff, which comes back to my walled-garden point earlier. Grayfell ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Critics charge Herrnstein and Murray with employing a narrow and misleading conception of intelligence, out of step with both ordinary and biological conceptions of intelligence."
biological conceptions of intelligencehave nothing to do with race. Certainly not based on Itzkoff's writing.
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Seymour Itzkoff, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A few words on Richard Lynn's book "The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund." Editor Grayfell deleted the section "Secondary sources," claiming that the book was "Not a neutral, reliable source" (edit of December 20, 2018, 23:09). It is certainly true that the book is not neutral (and the reader has the right to know that Lynn has been a Pioneer Fund recipient), but it does not mean that it is altogether unreliable. The book contains bibliographical details about Itzkoff which, so far as I can tell, cannot be found elsewhere. Richard Lynn does express a non-neutral point of view on Itzkoff's books, but biographical details are valuable irrespective of whether one agrees with the viewpoints of Itzkoff or those of Lynn.
While viewpoint neutrality is an important aspect of Wikipedia, the principles of Wikipedia do not require that all non-neutral sources be omitted from the bibliography. Otherwise, many important sources would have to be excluded. The reader should not that Richard Lynn is not neutral, but the reader also benefits from knowing that Lynn wrote on Itzkoff.
To make it clear, I wrote these explanations because I have entirely read the book "The Science of Human Diversity" and because the content does not warrant the assertion that it is not reliable, at least for the bibliographical details. I would like to ask editor "Grayfell" whether he read the book as well. If yes, please give precise reasons why you think the book is "not reliable." -- Sinuthius ( talk)22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
PS: the editor of Lynn's book is "University Press of America", part of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing group. The editor seems to be a reliable academic publishing house. Sinuthius ( talk) 22:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
In this book, Chapter 32 is specifically dedicated to Seymour Itzkoff (p. 417-427). Pages 417-419 are about his life, p. 419-426 about his publications, p. 427 is a list of references. I suggest that we integrate specific biographical details e.g. in what year he was born or obtained specific degrees, with every claim being linked to a specific page. For the content of Itzkoff's works, or his main ideas, other sources can be found. Sinuthius ( talk) 23:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The current description (12:07, 24 December 2018, UTC) of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence reads as follows:
"This statement claimed that the academic consensus was that black people have lower IQs than white people, and that this discrepancy was not caused by bias in testing nor due to economic differences"
This description is problematic for the following reasons:
1) It is partly counterfactual: the Mainstream Science on Intelligence did not claim "that the academic consensus was that black people have lower IQs than white people" but that there was an average difference between them. Conclusion 7 of the MSI states: "Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line." The current definition has to be rewritten, because it may lead the reader to believe that the MSI states that all black people have lower IQs than all white people (which it did not).
2) It gives the impression that the MSI was mainly focused or exclusively dedicated to the question of black/white differences. This is not the case. The MSI also discusses the nature and the measurement of intelligence, the correlates with social and economic outcomes, the practical advantages of having a higher IQ, the stability of individual differences in intelligence, the heritability of intelligence, and the implications for social policy.
Moreover, I would like to point out that, currently, the sources for this description are, one the one hand, the Mainstream Science on Intelligence itself, and on the other hand, a two-page article in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. While both sources meet the reliability criterion, it is problematic to base a description of the MSI on these two sole sources. I added a reference to the article "What Do Undergraduates Learn About Human Intelligence?" (Warne et al., 2018), whose authors write that both the MSI and the official statement made by the APA, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns "represent a summary of solid, noncontroversial findings in intelligence research" and "are widely cited and old enough to be commonly known" (p. 36).
Since it is not the purpose of the Itzkoff article to present a detailed description of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence, I think a good solution is to add a link to the Wikipedia article about the MSI, and export to the Itzkoff article the accepted description of the MSI as reads in the article Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I am open to alternative solutions.
Sinuthius ( talk) 12:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bell Curve is insulated against such criticism". As the rest of the article makes very clear, Montgomery did not share Herrnstein and Murray's views on scientific expertise (the authors presume "
an insupportable conception of science and of scientific authority—indeed a silly, almost childish one.")
The Pioneer Fund underwrites Mankind Quarterly, an extreme right-wing journal that publishes some of the most dubious 'research' on race and intelligence being written today, including the work of Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton.) This is, of course, the same fund that's backed Itzkoff, which comes back to my walled-garden point earlier. Grayfell ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Critics charge Herrnstein and Murray with employing a narrow and misleading conception of intelligence, out of step with both ordinary and biological conceptions of intelligence."
biological conceptions of intelligencehave nothing to do with race. Certainly not based on Itzkoff's writing.