This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence quotient article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 720 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Autism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Intelligence quotient is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles Statistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Intelligence quotient. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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 Intelligence quotient, 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: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. 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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Reuven Feuerstein#Difference between IQ test and Dynamic Assessment|criticized standard IQ testing]] The anchor (#Difference between IQ test and Dynamic Assessment) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

First, the edit gives the misleading impression that Bouchard's estimate is generally accepted. The Minnesota Twin Studies have been criticized, and they're partially financed by the Pioneer Fund. Secondly, the 80% estimate goes back to Cyril Burt in mid-20th century or earlier, so it shouldn't be called "a recent estimate". NightHeron ( talk) 09:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

A meta-analysis or review would be better, if one exists. BooleanQuackery ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC) reply

If it goes back to Cyril Burt, it should not even be called an "estimate". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Burt's estimate was correct. Leon Kamin found extensive evidence that Burt faked his data, see The Science and Politics of I.Q.. NightHeron ( talk) 10:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you implied that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Heritability_of_IQ#Comments_on_sourcing_and_consensus, regarding the statement in this article, "there is no evidence for a genetic component". In the Heritability of IQ article, the same statement was recently changed [2] to something that I think more accurately reflects its sources, but in this article (Intelligence quotient) it has not been changed. I suggest it should be changed the same way in both articles. In the other discussion, Firefangledfeathers suggested opening a new discussion about the same statement in this article, and I'd like to know his or her opinion about potentially making the same change here. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 18:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

A key piece of information that is missing from the above post is that this statement is in reference to racial differences in average IQ test performance. As far as I'm aware, this was first discussed a year and a half ago on the Race and intelligence talk page (specifically here and here) and I do not see any reason to revisit the consensus that was established on the matter at that time: the sources do support the statement that no evidence exists linking racial differences in average IQ test performance to underlying genetic causes. For those who are not yet aware, there is a very firm consensus on the topic which was solidified by a nearly unanimous RfC last year. Happy to improve the language of the article for valid reasons, but I do not believe that AndewNguyen has yet presented one. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

And now Generalrelative has raised the issue at the Fringe theories noticeboard. [3] -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Please change the sentence or remove it. It isn't consistent with the sources it cites. Nor is it consistent with sources such as [4] from the American Journal of Psychology, about the various lines of indirect evidence that the average differences include a genetic component. Mr Butterbur ( talk) 16:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Russell Warne is far outside the mainstream. In particular, he contradicts the conclusions of the panel of experts convened by the American Psychological Association, whose report is cited in the article. NightHeron ( talk) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There's not an actual contradiction between the two papers. The APA report says that genetic interpretations of group differences have no "direct evidence", like all of the other sources cited for the "no evidence" statement. (In this article the statement is sourced only to Hunt, but the APA report is cited for it in the Race and intelligence article.) Here are the relevant portions of the APA report:

It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.

A later part of the report says that genetic interpretations have no "direct empirical support":

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

Definitely the emphasis is different, because the APA report emphasizes the importance of environment for group differences and does not say much about the possible role of genetics. But the report doesn't comment about the existence or non-existence of indirect evidence for genetic factors, which is the subject of Warne's paper, except for by including that subtle qualifier of "no direct evidence" when the report discusses this matter. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

As Generalrelative pointed out, this issue has already been debated and resolved elsewhere, and the consensus of editors is that there is no meaningful difference between "no direct evidence" and "no evidence". Warne's abstract makes 5 claims about so-called "evidence" to support his belief that white Americans are genetically superior to Black Americans in intelligence. None of those claims are made by mainstream researchers, and none of them are supported by the APA report. For example, he expresses the opinion that studies of genetic variation between individuals provide evidence for a genetic explanation of differences in test results between groups. But there's nothing scientific about this non sequitur, which serious researchers reject.

As you well know, two RfCs in 2020 and 2021 concluded that white supremacist beliefs about race and intelligence are fringe. According to WP:FRINGE we do not give undue attention to fringe sources, such as the Russell Warne article. Please stop your attempts to relitigate matters that have already been settled. NightHeron ( talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

In the earlier discussion that Generelrelative linked to there were four editors arguing in favor of inclusion and three arguing against it. As I mentioned on the Heritability of IQ talk page, all of the additional editors that Generalrelative listed and pinged in this comment [5] were commenting in a separate discussion, about whether to include the word "current" before "scientific consensus". So the view that "no evidence" means the same thing as "no direct evidence" never was supported by more than four people, two of which were you and Generalrelative.

In the current discussion there are four editors who support altering the wording, and it's four different editors from the three that who made that argument in the earlier discussion. In the earlier discussion the editors who supported changing the statement were Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph and Angillo, and in the current one it's myself, Ferahgo, Mr Butterbur and Firefangledfeathers. On the other side, the argument for keeping the statement in its current state has been coming just from you and Generalrelative, so this is a case where consensus has changed: WP:CCC. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 07:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

There are still people who determine consensus by counting heads? You should read WP:!VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. I thought everybody knew those after editing for more than a few months. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Removing the statement per WP:ONUS might be the best solution. (Not the entire section, just that one sentence.) Generalrelative invoked WP:ONUS here to remove several paragraphs of longstanding content in the Recent human evolution article, when opinion was 4 to 3 in favor of the removal. In this discussion it's 3 to 2 against retaining the statement in its current state, with myself, AndewNguyen and Mr Butterbur all arguing against that, so the same principle applies. The sentence was added to this article without any discussion, and this is the first time it's been discussed with respect to this particular article, so there definitely has never been a consensus that this article should include it.

However, @ Firefangledfeathers: I would prefer to know whether you have an opinion about this before I make another attempt at changing the sentence. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I think this article is a good candidate for a switch from "no evidence" to "genetics does not explain"; at the least, I'd be interested to know what is different about this article (vs. the heritability one) such that the proposal is inapt. I prefer both the status quo and the proposal over the suggestion that we remove the line entirely. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Firefangledfeathers: In the Heritability of IQ article, the "no evidence" clause was embedded in an entirely different sentence, and in that case I thought the statement was stronger without it. In this article, here is the language I'm advocating for:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current scientific consensus tells us that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind them.

Here is the version that Ferahgo is advocating for:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.

Neither of those is bad but the first is, in my view, marginally more readable and informative. So I can only see two possible rationales for the change: 1) if you buy the view that the sources do not support the "no evidence" statement (already discussed in previous threads ad nauseam), or 2) if you think compromise here will provide some additional value, i.e. be an effective way to move forward collaboratively. Regarding 2, I would really love to believe that, but past experience in this topic area has left me dubious. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Let's put me at 1b) I think the sources better support "do not explain". There are some other tweaks that might help:

• We can separate out a sentence like "There is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences."
• The next line could then be something like "The current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain them."
• We should either reverse the order of the tidbits about race and sex or reverse the order of the subsections about the same.

Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That would be fine with me. My fundamental concern here is that we do not acquiesce to the incremental restoration of WP:PROFRINGE content which existed in these articles prior to the RfCs of recent years. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I'd like to leave this up for a bit to see how others respond. I share your concern. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Word. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

(ec) My concern about the version that Ferahgo is advocating for is that it is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. We intend it to mean that genetics does not explain any of the average differences in IQ test performance, but that's not stated explicitly. So it could be read as meaning that genetics does not fully explain, or that genetics explains only part. Opening the sentence to that reading would obviously please Ferahgo but would go against scientific consensus and violate WP:PROFRINGE. NightHeron ( talk) 02:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Good point, NightHeron. Here is my updated suggestion:

While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, the current scientific consensus is that they stem from environmental rather than genetic causes.

We could then cite e.g. [6] (Intelligence science has undoubtedly been dogged by ugly prejudice. Historical measurements of skull volume and brain weight were done to advance claims of the racial superiority of white people. More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.), [7] (There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.) and [8] (Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.) Thoughts? Generalrelative ( talk) 04:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The proposed wording is fine, but the only one of these sources that uses the word "consensus" as required by WP:RS/AC is the Ceci and Williams paper. There's no need to cite the other two.

I'll make the proposed change and add the Ceci and Williams source. I won't revert if someone adds the other two, but I think they're superfluous. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 07:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Wording looks good to me. Thanks GR! AndewNguyen, I'd prefer to keep the other citations in, as readers are likely to be interested in both the facts themselves on causes of differences in average IQ and the consensus on the facts. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Cool, done. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

What was the problem with this edit? The "no evidence" statement appeared in both of these sentences, so if we agree that it should be changed, it should be changed in them both. The Ceci and Williams source had already been cited in the first sentence, so when we discussed adding that as a source while changing the statement, I thought it was clear this referred to changing the statement in the second location also. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree that now that there seems to be a consensus that "environmental rather than genetic causes" more accurately reflects its sources than "no evidence" does, it doesn't make sense to replace the "no evidence" statement in only one sentence and not the other. If others' objection is to the same phrasing being repeated more than once, I'm open to suggestions about an alternative wording that could be used in the second case.

@ Firefangledfeathers: Would you be okay with us also replacing the "no evidence" statement with the new phrasing in the second place where that statement appears, in the first paragraph of the "race" section? I'd like to make sure we have a consensus for this change before I try restoring it. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ferahgo: This may be one of the rare cases where you and I can agree. But let's establish the alternate wording for the second sentence on the talk page first. AndewNguyen's recent edit introduced repetition within the paragraph, as well as word-for-word repetition within the section, neither of which is optimal. If we can actually collaborate here despite our profound differences of opinion on the topic, that would be a very positive development. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I would also like to avoid such proximate repetition. One possible way around it: does this section really need an introductory paragraph? Could we fold in the couple lines on race and sex into the subsections? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

It's a good idea in principle, but I'd argue that this section intro is helpful, since I think many readers will want to read a few headline points and then skip the details. (I will say that I think the intro sentence on sex differences –– as well as basically the entire subsection on that topic –– needs to be revised to better accord with the current state of our article Sex differences in intelligence, but that is another matter.) Generalrelative ( talk) 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, here's what I suggest. In the first paragraph of the "race" section, the last two sentences should be combined into a single sentence, which should say something like the following:

"After tremendous research done on the topic, current scientific consensus favors environmental causes of racial IQ gaps over genetic causes."

And this sentence would be cited to Ceci & Williams. Would that revision be acceptable? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The wording "favors X over Y" is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. For example, it could be interpreted as meaning that the causes are primarily environmental and secondarily genetic. How about the wording "After tremendous research done on the topic, the current scientific consensus is that the causes of racial IQ gaps are environmental and not genetic" (or "environmental rather than genetic")? NightHeron ( talk) 23:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

We should also drop the word "current", which is redundant. What other scientific consensus could we mean? Putting in the gratuitous word "current" could be taken to imply that it's likely to change, and there's no evidence for that. NightHeron ( talk) 00:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't have a problem with the article saying "environmental rather than genetic causes", but that was the wording proposed by AndewNguyen, which Generalrelative rejected for being too similar to the wording used elsewhere in the article. I was trying to suggest a way this part could be worded differently.

How about, "After tremendous research done on the topic, the emerging scientific consensus is that racial IQ gaps are explained by environmental rather than genetic factors"? "Emerging consensus" is the exact phrase used by Ceci & Williams, so that's truer to the source than "current scientific consensus" is. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 01:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Perhaps we should wait to see what other editors think. I think the word "emerging" is unclear, particularly since in the source it sounds like it was describing a transient situation at the time the Ceci & Williams source was written 13 years ago, and it is not clear how far into the future they meant their characterization of the consensus to apply. That is, what they said was "emerging" then presumably has by now fully emerged. So saying "emerging" in wikivoice in 2022 is not necessarily being faithful to the source. (Of course, the current version does include the direct quote with the word "emerging" as a note in the references.) NightHeron ( talk) 01:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I would suggest replacing these two sentences:

Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap.

...with these two sentences from the lead of Race and intelligence:

In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

For the latter sentence, we could use the same three refs as for sentence #1: [10] [11] [12]. For the "empirical and theoretical grounds" statement, we have many options, but I'd suggest including [13]: "[W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. (I see that the R&I article still contains refs added by a block-evading sockpuppet [14], so we should reevaluate whether they belong there, but that is another topic which should be discussed elsewhere.) Generalrelative ( talk) 03:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The second sentence is fine, but a claim as strong as the one made in the first sentence requires a citation to a cognitive psychologist or a geneticist, not a paper on which six of the nine authors are philosophers. I doubt a cognitive psychologist or geneticist would support such an extreme statement. Researchers in those fields who oppose the hereditarian hypothesis such as Nisbett, Turkheimer and Flynn (not a psychologist, but still a respected intelligence researcher) regard this view as wrong, but not as preposterous. Here is a quote from an article by Turkheimer, Harden and Nisbett: We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community. Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.

Here is a quote from Flynn that was published in the New York Times: Take it from me, the evidence is highly complicated. The best we can say is that it is more probable that the I.Q. gap between black and white is entirely environmental in origin. (Emphasis in original)

I suggest that the first sentence instead say, In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, no specific genes have been identified that explain racial IQ gaps. That's a paraphrase of the Hunt source already cited for the first sentence, and it is a more accurate paraphrase than what that sentence currently says. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 05:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

AndewNguyen, three points:

1) When we’re talking about language that has been present in the lead of a high-profile article like Race and intelligence for over a year, we’re talking about a considerable level of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. If you would like to argue that this statement doesn’t accurately summarize the content of that article or its cited sources, the appropriate place to do that would be on the Race and intelligence talk page. But if it’s good enough for the lead of that article, it’s good enough for a subsection here which purports to summarize it, per e.g. WP:LOCALCON.

2) You doubt that a geneticist would support such an extreme statement without realizing that two of the authors –– renowned biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan M. Marks –– are far more reliable as subject-matter experts in genetics than any of the psychologists you quote. If anyone doubts that, I’d be happy to walk you through their credentials specifically with regard to genetics. It’s irrelevant that several of their co-authors on that particular publication are philosophers. That argument is a red herring.

3) The psychologists you quote who argue that hereditarianism is wrong but not preposterous still attest to the fact that claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races are indeed broadly rejected by scientists (a fairly wide consensus) on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Indeed, it's in the title of their follow-up piece: There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes [15]. So it's not at all clear how you intend to use these figures to argue against the wording I've suggested. Generalrelative ( talk) 07:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The amount of time material has been in an article is not a good argument. You recently rejected that argument when BooleanQuackery made it on the Spearman's Hypothesis article, in response to your removing material that had been in the article for several years. I also don't accept that a paper is an authoritative source about genetics because two of its nine authors are anthropologists who have studied genetics, and neither of them is the first author. Would you accept the authority of a pro-hereditarian source if two of its authors were experts in the relevant fields, but all the others were not?

There is a basic difference between saying "There’s still no good reason to believe X", and saying "X is broadly rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds." The first is saying that X is possible, but that the current state of evidence does not support it, such as, "There's still no good reason to believe that life formerly existed on Mars." The second is saying that X is impossible as far as we know, such as, "The ability of anything to travel faster than light is rejected on both theoretical and empirical grounds".

Nisbett explains the distinction between these two views in Intelligence and How to Get It: Some laypeople I know—and some scientists as well—believe that it is a priori impossible for a genetic difference in intelligence to exist between the races. But such a conviction is entirely unfounded. There are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen—either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions about the essential equality of groups. Nisbett then goes on to argue that the empirical evidence supports an environmental cause, not a genetic one.

Flynn, Turkheimer et al, and most other anti-hereditarian sources argue for this position, treating hereditarianism equivalent to life having once existed on Mars, and I can accept this article taking the same position. What I object to is this article taking the second position, which treats hereditarianism the same way as objects traveling faster than light.

I have another suggestion about how the first sentence could be changed, based on the blog post that you linked to before you shortened your last reply. That post described a genetic basis for group differences as "unlikely". I would accept the first sentence saying, In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, inherent differences in intelligence between races are considered unlikely. Would you accept that phrasing? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 08:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sigh. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is policy, whether you like it or not. I don't believe that I've ever argued against this policy, but if I'm mistaken please point it out and I will happily strike my remark.

Your discussion of Nisbett rejecting hereditarianism on empirical grounds (and his colleagues rejecting it on theoretical ones –– Turkheimer is one of these by the way; read the final section here) only serves to support my argument and undercut your own.

And no, I would not accept the phrasing you suggest because it completely misrepresents the cited source. Firstly, populations are not races. And secondly, the piece states very clearly that claims about the genetic basis for population differences, are not scientifically supported.

In any case, let's let others weigh in now. I have no interest in getting into a protracted debate with you, nor in responding to a never-ending Gish gallop. Generalrelative ( talk) 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This discussion seems to have stalled, so here's another suggestion. The two sentences could be combined to say, "In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin." Perhaps user:Firefangledfeathers or user:Bakkster Man can offer an opinion? Mr Butterbur ( talk) 07:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I've got some concerns with the In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced part, because it could be read to imply that these group differences (particularly race) are inherently genetic. Perhaps an alternate wording that makes it clearer that past speculation about racial differences was based in antiquated views of race (arbitrarily assigned by how groups of people looked, prior to modern genetics debunked it). That and, as mentioned above, we should abide by current consensus that we clearly state there is no evidence for a genetic basis for group differences. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Bakkster Man: The main point of the discussion here is that a lot of us think the "no evidence" phrasing is not sufficiently supported by its sources. This phrasing has already been changed in the Heritability of IQ article to more accurately reflect its sources, [16] [17] and it also has been changed in one part of this article for the same reason. [18] I'd thought that you were okay with this change, based on your comment here. The "no evidence" statement previously appeared in two places in this article, and we've already reached a consensus to modify it in one of them, but now the question is how to change the other one.

The statement in question is just 1-2 sentences, so it isn't possible for this statement to explain the whole topic. But if you're concerned the wording suggested above implies that human races are genetic divisions, how about simply saying,  In recent decades, current scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 17:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Most of those who have weighed in on the matter still agree that Hunt does support the "no evidence" statement, but to foreclose on endless debate I'm happy to remove it in favor of less ambiguous sources. So that's what I've done, substituting in [19] and [20]. I see no reason to continue to quibble about language that accurately describes the state of scientific understanding, i.e. that claims of racial differences in inherent intelligence are not supported by scientific evidence. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

We've just spent several weeks coming to a consensus to change this wording. You agreed to this yourself in your comment here. Do you feel that it's appropriate, at this stage, to decide that now you're no longer willing to let it be changed? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 19:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Based on previous suggestions, I propose the following: "In recent decades, racial categories have been understood as a poor proxy for human genetic diversity. [21] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [22]" @ Firefangledfeathers: would this wording be acceptable to you? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

If others prefer Ferahgo's proposal over the wording that I proposed on Sep 5, I can accept her wording also. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm seeing broad agreement on the line "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin." After that, I'm seeing a lack of consensus on what a second line should say. Is that an accurate assessment of where we're at? Can we replace the two lines currently in the article with the one line we all seem to support and call that an incremental improvement? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I think that replacing what is currently present in the article

Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. ^{[1] [2]} Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap. ^{[3] [4] [5]}

with the single sentence

Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. ^[6]

would represent an incremental degradation rather than an improvement.

That said, it's a small degradation so I'm not interested in devoting much more time to arguing over it. And other points in the section could still be expanded with well sourced information illustrating the reasons for the scientific consensus on the matter. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Fair enough! I misread your point above. When you proposed "While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, current scientific consensus tells us that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind them" was that in addition to one of the existing lines? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

No worries, there are so many aspects to this conversation and it's been going on for a while. And indeed, I may be confused here myself. That suggestion was in reference to the first sentence where we discuss this issue, in the section intro to "Group differences". It seems to me that we've achieved consensus there for While there is little scholarly debate about the continued existence of some of these differences, the current scientific consensus is that they stem from environmental rather than genetic causes.. Now I believe we're discussing the two sentences in the body of the "Race" subsection which currently read Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain the racial IQ gap. I recently replaced the Hunt citation there –– which had been a point of contention –– with two alternate sources, in an effort to resolve concerns about whether the "no scientific evidence" part was supported. As you can see from the ref quotes below, both the sources I added make clear that the genetic hypothesis is not supported by science of any kind. I think that this is valuable material to keep in the article, though I'm open to discussing how exactly it's phrased. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Yep. My bad. Let me re-read the proposed language and new sources. If someone gets to it first, it would be nice to see all the proposed "other sentences" laid out in one place. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

My biggest concern about the two new sources for the current wording is that neither of them uses the word "consensus" or any similar word, as is needed by WP:RS/AC. The Birney source also is a blog post, and the source restriction says "only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers." The Nature paper uses the word consensus and is a high quality source, but it doesn't say "no evidence" or anything like that. If this article is going to say there is an academic consensus, it should say that consensus is about the specific thing that the Nature paper says there is a consensus about: a consensus that the cause is environmental, not a consensus about other additional statements. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The two new sources support the sentence Despite the tremendous amount of research done on the topic, no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. That sentence does not contain the word "consensus", so your point about WP:RS/AC is moot. And that sourcing restriction applies to the article Race and intelligence, not this one. Absent the specific sourcing restriction, there is no issue with the source being self-published, per WP:RS/SPS, since Birney et al. are clearly established subject-matter experts. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, I lost track of which sentence we were discussing, and I did not realize the sourcing restriction applies only to Race and intelligence, not to this article. Still, this is a sentence about the topic of race and intelligence, so wouldn't it be best to avoid citing blogs for the sentence in this article also? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 21:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

(Edit conflict) I would say that's an accurate assessment. Replacing the two sentences with the one would be an acceptable solution to me, but it isn't clear whether others will allow that change. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 18:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Firefangledfeathers: I support your proposal to use only the second sentence ("Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin"), and to replace both sentences currently in the article with that one. But you're welcome to make an alternate proposal, if you think there is another possible wording that's more likely to satisfy everyone. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 18:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm grateful not to be alone in having lost the plot a bit during our time away from this discussion. Having found it again, I no longer support the one sentence replacement. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

What do you think of the proposal I made above? "In recent decades, racial categories have been understood as a poor proxy for human genetic diversity. [23] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [24]" This was based on Bakkster Man's suggestion that the article should elucidate the relationship between race and genetics. The source for the first statement is a paper published in Science, so this sentence is better sourced than the current one, even if blog posts theoretically can be allowed as sources here. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Ferahgo, maybe you could start by explaining what you feel is wrong with the current language, now that the Hunt ref we've disagreed over in the past has been replaced. To your point about the Science article, I'm not against including a statement like that at all, but I don't see why it should come at the expense of the current content. Why not simply add it to what's there? And while Science is indeed a gold-star source, that particular article doesn't mention IQ, so to avoid the appearance of WP:SYNTH it would be better to source such a statement to something that does. Indeed, Birney et al. [25] devotes an entire section to this point ("Human population structure is not race"). Generalrelative ( talk) 23:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll try again to explain my own concern here. There are a large number of high quality secondary sources that discuss the existence of indirect evidence for a genetic component, or "circumstantial evidence" in the words from Hunt's book. These sources include Hunt's book, Flynn's book Race, IQ and Jensen, Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism, and Warne's book In the Know. And as I mentioned above there is another set of sources, including Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns and Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments that say genetic factors have no direct evidence, which subtly acknowledges the point made by the sources in the first group. It isn't clear why this part of the article can't be based on what any of those sources say on the matter, including papers from the APA's flagship journal American Psychologist and books from Cambridge University Press, but you think it should instead be based on a statement in a blog post.

Now that I remember which sentence we're discussing, here is my more specific objection: this seems like an attempt to find a source that supports what you want the article to say (if "not supported by science" in fact means the same thing as "no evidence"), even though it is a source of only mediocre quality, when we should instead be basing the article on the views given in the highest quality sources. Ferahgo's proposal reflects the views given by high quality sources including Nature and Science, and saying "no direct evidence" would also do that, as that wording is supported by the two American Psychologist papers including Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, which is a very authoritative source. These are the types of sources that the article should be based on, not blog posts. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 07:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This has already been discussed ad nauseum and doesn't need to be relitigated again. Saying "no direct evidence" would be weasel wording because it suggests (but does not say) that there's "indirect evidence", without saying what that indirect evidence is supposed to be. None of the sources -- that includes the ones that use the weasel wording -- give any evidence whatsoever of a genetic role in the IQ difference. The consensus of geneticists is that a genetic role in the difference would be inconsistent with what we know about genetics, race, IQ, intelligence, etc. Please don't keep repeating the same arguments that have already been rejected by consensus. NightHeron ( talk) 08:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Fine, this article does not have to say "no direct evidence". I was not actually arguing it should say that, I was just giving that as an example of a hypothetical wording that could be cited to higher quality sources than the current wording. My point is that it makes no sense to base the wording of this sentence on a statement in blog post, when much higher quality secondary sources are available, such as the sources for Ferahgo's proposal. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 10:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC) reply

AndewNguyen has explained why it's better to replace the current wording rather than add to it, but Generalrelative raised a valid concern about it being possible WP:SYNTH for this article to cite a paper that doesn't directly mention IQ. So instead of the Science paper, here is another paper that could be cited instead. [26] This paper was published in Nature Human Behavior, so it's another high-quality source.

What this paper says about race and genetics is slightly different from what the Science paper says, so the first sentence will have to be slightly reworked to be true to its source. Here's my new proposal:

"In recent decades, racial categories have been understood to be only imprecisely correlated with human genetic diversity, and to be defined primarily by social and cultural conventions. [27] Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. [28]"

I think we're close to reaching a consensus now. Generalrelative has agreed [29] that this wording could be replaced if we find a suitable replacement, and also [30] that they are not against including a statement like this one. Therefore, this statement should be a suitable replacement. However, @ Firefangledfeathers: I still would like to make sure this wording is acceptable to you before I try making this change to the article. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 23:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The reference for your proposed sentence is written by an economist and a psychologist, so it's not clear that it's a good source for a statement on genetics. Moreover, the sentence is weasel-wording, because to many the suggestion that races are "only imprecisely correlated" with genetics suggests (without explicitly saying so) that genetics do explain some important differences between races, but not precisely. In popular usage, "correlated" is often interpreted as suggesting a causal connection. (If you tell your students "The practice of skipping lectures is highly correlated with low grades in this course," they'll get the message.) So the wording could easily be interpreted as saying exactly the opposite of what we need to say about genetics and race differences. NightHeron ( talk) 01:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Kathryn Paige Harden is the head of the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab at the University of Texas, so a paper authored by her in Nature Human Behavior would be a fine source for this statement. As far as I know, there isn't any higher quality recent source about the relationship between race and genetics, if it must be a source that also discusses IQ. What the source says is, Racial and ethnic categories are correlated with genetic ancestry, but race is not reducible to genetics. The word "correlated" comes directly from the source, and we can't make this source say something different from what it does. If you wish to suggest an alternate wording for this sentence that is equally true to the source, go ahead, but our views as Wikipedia editors can't supersede the terms and ideas that are presented in the highest quality sources. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 05:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

AndewNguyen has explained no such thing. They have based their argument on a vague aspersion ("seems like an attempt to find a source that supports what you want the article to say") but presented no concrete rationale why the content in question is either unreliable or undue. The blog post by Birney et al. is clearly an expert statement on the matter, and is in any case only one of two sources supporting the sentence. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and added a third source to support the sentence, The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, ^[7] who summarize in the book's conclusion: The available evidence reviewed by several authors in this volume provides, as Richard E. Nisbett puts it, "no evidence for genetic superiority of either race while providing strong evidence for a substantial environmental contribution to the black-white IQ gap." This really should be the end of the debate. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Generalrelative, please read my previous reply to you again. The current wording disagrees with most of the major secondary sources published about this topic since 2010, and I listed four such sources.

Regarding the new source that you've added, I agree that The Black-White Test Score Gap is a good source, but I do not agree that this source should completely supersede all of the more recent sources of similar quality that say indirect evidence for a genetic component exists. The 2011 printing of the book that you're citing is a reprint, and the book actually was published in 1998. See this excerpt where it says (C) 1998 at the bottom, and the book's actual publication year is also given at Amazon. You evidently are trying very hard to find a good source for this statement, but does it indicate anything to you that all of the sources you've provided have been older sources, primary sources and blog posts, while the sources that discuss the existence of indirect evidence include two books published by Cambridge University Press in the past five years? Looking at this overall balance of sources, it seems very clear that the "no evidence" statement does not have wide support in recent secondary sources.

When sources disagree with one another in this way, it is best for the article to say something that can be supported by the highest quality sources or by a majority of recent sources, such as that the differences are most widely understood to have an environmental cause. This communicates the "correct" message, and it also gives priority to a source of the highest quality (a 2009 paper published in Nature), as should be done. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 05:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Has it even occured to you that you may not like it if others were to characterize what you evidently are trying very hard to do? It really wouldn't be a flattering picture. I'm afraid that your insistence on doing so to me –– despite having been asked to stop [31] –– means that my patience with you is at an end. Good luck convincing others that Heiner Rindermann and Russell Warne (your "two books published by Cambridge University Press") represent mainstream science on the matter. I'll be here to revert changes that go against consensus and to weigh in as briefly as possible when necessary. It's too bad though; there really did appear to be a moment when compromise was possible. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not agree that this source should completely supersede all of the more recent sources of similar quality that say indirect evidence for a genetic component exists It's attributed to Nisbett. How does that override anything?

Regarding "indirect evidence", please consider homeopathy as an example. There is no reason why it should work, and there is no evidence that it does. But actually, there is evidence, it is only very bad evidence. Also, there is indirect evidence, very indirect evidence that does not help at all. So, strictly speaking, the sentence "there is no evidence" in incorrect, but taking into account the totality of it, one can safely say "there is no evidence". There is an implicit addition "except, of course, all the bad evidence you expect to be there when something is false but people try to find something because they really want it to be true."

We always have "evidence" for false ideas. Scientists know that. Saying that "there is evidence" when the evidence is not good enough will give laypeople the wrong idea. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sigh, no one is currently arguing that this article should say "there is evidence" (although there are some sources that say that). The question is whether the article should say no scientific evidence has emerged in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to anyone, or should say the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups. My argument is that the sourcing for the second potential statement is much stronger. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 06:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

No reason not to have both. With the "no evidence" statement attributed to Nisbett. So that readers can see where the consensus comes from. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

If the "no scientific evidence" statement can be attributed to Nisbett, instead of being stated in Wikipedia's voice, I'd accept that compromise. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 07:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Now the suggested compromise has been reverted by a newly registered user who looks like a sock puppet. [32] Whichever of you did that, why couldn't you simply revert me from your regular account? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

You should not make accusations without evidence. There are over 1000 watchers of this page, so there's no reason to think that one of the editors with whom you've been debating reverted your edit as a sock. I agree with the revertion, but I didn't do it. Like the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, I would never under any circumstances edit with a fake account.

To continue with Hob Gadling's analogy, the first sentence of Homeopathy calls it a pseudoscience in wikivoice (sourced, but not attributed). The notion that there's any valid evidence of any genetic role in racial differences in IQ scores is a fringe notion, according to consensus of editors in two RfCs. Your own personal view of the matter does not trump consensus. NightHeron ( talk) 09:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Looking at the timing of that revert, the language used in the edit summary (closely mirroring phrases recently used by myself and NightHeron), and the obviously overblown username [33], I'd suggest we may be looking at a poorly staged Joejob. Possibly fodder for a follow-up piece in Quillette to this. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Regardless of who made the revert, I agree that it should have been reverted. The article shouldn't imply that the point is simply one person's opinion. MrOllie ( talk) 23:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The sentence is supported by three refs, with a total of eight authors. And indeed, the one source that quotes Nisbett states that several other contributors to the book corroborate his findings. This is a clear case of Avoid stating facts as opinions per WP:YESPOV. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hob Gadling: I did my best to implement your suggestion that the statement should be attributed to Nisbett. If you think I did so in the wrong way, can you suggest a better way? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 08:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I still think we can have both a consensus sentence and a no-evidence sentence. With only the consensus, the justification for the consensus is missing, and with only the no-evidence, well, the consensus is missing.

I had thought something like "Nisbett explained the reason for the consensus, i.e. no-evidence", not "according to Nisbett", which weakens the fact. It does not have consensus, and the reasons given against attribution were good. Actually, I did not expect you to implement it immediately but wait for comments from others. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Per WP:RS/AC, any statement about "consensus" must be cited to a source that actually says there is a consensus. There is such a source, [34] but we must be careful to not go beyond what the source says when stating what the consensus is. This source says there is a consensus that the cause is environmental, but it does not say there's a consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic contribution.

It sounds like you're suggesting something like this: Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. Richard E. Nisbett states that no scientific evidence has emerged that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. Is that closer to what you had in mind? -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 08:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, "stated" is closer to "explained" than "according to". Why are you asking me? I am just one person. -- Hob Gadling ( talk)

My previous wording evidently was not an accurate reflection of your suggestion, so I want to make sure I have it right this time. You and Firefangledfeathers are the closest thing that exist to neutral parties in this discussion, so both of you are more likely to suggest a workable compromise than anyone else is. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 09:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no principle of Wikipedia that says that the wording has to be a compromise between those who support the R&I consensus of editors and those who opposed it from the beginning. Wording that suggests that the "no evidence" statement is just what Nisbett says is very different from simply stating that there's no evidence. NightHeron ( talk) 09:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

You're just one person too, and no one WP:OWNs this article. The views of Hob Galding, Firefangledfeathers, Ferahgo and myself matter just as much as yours and Generalrelative's, and I'm hopeful that the first four of us will be able to come to a consensus. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

There already is a consensus on the "no evidence" issue, a consensus that you and Ferahgo have opposed since the beginning. There's no need for other editors to weaken the "no evidence" statement to suit opponents of the R&I consensus. I'm obviously not insisting on my own wording, since I haven't even proposed any wording. I'm happy to accept the judgment of other editors who are implementing the R&I consensus rather than opposing it. NightHeron ( talk) 10:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not lump me with Ferahgo and yourself. I am perfectly fine with a no-evidence sentence without attribution, and I do not see any need to change it. Of course, text can be improved, but there have not been any suggestions that are generally approved. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

GR's proposal is looking better to me with each additional source. I don't think Nesbitt needs to be attributed, but if he does, we should try and capture the point of the source: many experts agree that there is no evidence, and here's how Nesbitt describes that agreement. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

If you could make a proposal about how to word such a statement, I would greatly appreciate that. I strongly feel that when there are sources of similar quality that say there is indirect evidence for a genetic component, such as the Flynn, Hunt and Warne books, the "no evidence" statement should have attribution. -- AndewNguyen ( talk) 12:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Looking over the above discussion, I see a clear consensus in favor of the status quo "no scientific evidence" statement:

1. BakksterMan: we should abide by current consensus that we clearly state there is no evidence for a genetic basis for group differences.
2. MrOllie: Regardless of who made the revert, I agree that it should have been reverted. The article shouldn't imply that the point is simply one person's opinion.
3. NightHeron: I agree with the revertion... The notion that there's any valid evidence of any genetic role in racial differences in IQ scores is a fringe notion, according to consensus of editors in two RfCs.
4. Me: The sentence is supported by three refs, with a total of eight authors. And indeed, the one source that quotes Nisbett states that several other contributors to the book corroborate his findings. This is a clear case of Avoid stating facts as opinions per WP:YESPOV.
5. Hob Gadling: I am perfectly fine with a no-evidence sentence without attribution, and I do not see any need to change it.
6. Firefangledfeathers: I don't think Nesbitt needs to be attributed

Seems to me that we may be nearing the point where an uninvolved editor can safely close this discussion. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Obviously, a section with criticism is needed, because IQ has always been full of controversy and inaccuracies. If not, then Wikipedia is not encyclopaedic 78.106.255.87 ( talk) 14:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, but not the one you were adding, which apparently copied text from elsewhere in violation of copyright. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

No. See WP:CSECTION. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Additionally, criticism/controversy is already in the article, but not in a dedicated section, per WP:CRITS. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

There used to be one. See this discussion from a couple years back. I took the lead in integrating the valid criticisms that were mentioned there into the rest of the article, as is suggested in the essay WP:CRIT. Any new criticisms added to the article should follow that pattern. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

It's striking seeing the changes in the article since 2015. Read [35] and compare with the current version. John Nagle ( talk) 16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks to @ Generalrelative for asking why I think it would be beneficial to cite new Dworak study. The current page on the Intelligence quotient already has a paragraph talking about the "negative flynn effect", citing a 2016 study coauthord by Richard Lynn and a 2018 study coauthored by Bernt Bratsberg. In the current issue of the "Intelligence" journal there has been new research on the topic, including the (2023) study I cited. I think that study would be beneficial to cite since it provides interested readers of Wikipedia another, more recent, source on the topic.

Apologies - but I don't know what you mean by the topic being contested? The negative flynn effect definitely a phenomenon for which evidence has been recently discovered. Besides, I didn't add any new description, only another source for the already existing description confirming what the previous sources already have shown. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant? LenoJeno ( talk) 19:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

When another editor reverts your addition, that means it's been contested, see WP:BRD. The article you wanted to add from the journal Intelligence is a primary source appearing in a journal that often publishes questionable material. There are already two sources, so there's no need to add a 3rd source that's low-quality. NightHeron ( talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I see, so "contesting" refers to other editors here, thanks. It's weird then to see how one of the other two sources accepted are also from Intelligence, in fact, coauthored by Richard Lynn, who is the scientific racist. Surely that's even lower credibility. Many thanks for the clarification anyway @ NightHeron! LenoJeno ( talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree that we should remove the Richard Lynn source. Unfortunately Intelligence does not conduct any meaningful peer review to screen out pseudoscience when race / ethnicity / nationality are concerned, so I'd be concerned about the new Dworak study for that reason. A secondary source would be better. Are you aware of any that we could use to discuss the "negative Flynn effect"? For now I'll remove the Lynn source and retain the NAS Norway study. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It is learning from examples. There is lots of this all the time in out environment. Inductive reasoning Ran8dom9 ( talk) 19:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ran8dom9: Article talk pages are for discussing suggested improvements to an article, not discussion of our personal thoughts about the topic. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? Induction as a specialized ability (a subfactor of fluid reasoning) has been demonstrated by Thurstone (and a tremendous amount of subsequent research by a vast number of researchers, including Cattell, Horn, and Carroll) using factor analysis of massive amounts of test data. Can you cite research from peer-reviewed academic journals that clearly refute all of that research, and not just your personal opinion? Sundayclose ( talk) 19:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

§ "Job performance" includes this paragraph: "Newer studies find that the effects of IQ on job performance have been greatly overestimated. The current estimates of the correlation between job performance and IQ are about 0.23 correcting for unreliability and range restriction."

I fear this presentation lacks WP:BALANCE, given that it's citing what is essentially a single paper by two researchers (the other is a minor follow-up) which has been subject to quite significant significant criticism from experts in just the few months since publication, who point out that it's narrow (only including supervisor ratings as a "performance" measure) and is hardly "new" (as its range-restriction claims have been brought up and dismissed in the past). Moreover, the paper(s) referenced find diminished correlations between almost every other metric and performance (e.g., interviews; work sample tests; job-knowledge tests, etc.)

Given that there is hardly a consensus in support of the Sackett, et al. paper(s) it seems unbalanced to include them, at least in the current framing. I'm in favor of removing it entirely, since it runs contrary to consensus backed by an staggering amount of research. Alternately, we could add its narrow focus and other significant criticism, but that may just compound the WP:UNDUE issue. Frankly, I'm not sure it adds much to our article, since of course Sackett, et al. still concede that cognitive ability is one of variables most highly correlated with job performance. Thanks! Ekpyros ( talk) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply