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.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nicholas Wade. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There is now a formal RfC at this talk page: Talk:Nicholas Wade#RfC about suggested statement. You are invited to participate. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

To all participating here: I've started work on a potential FYI for this talk page at User:MjolnirPants/RnI FYI. I'd like to know what everyone thinks and invite you all to suggest changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The FYI has been through a few rounds of edits, along with a bit of discussion about them, and I believe it is ready for inclusion here. Would love to hear from others about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

After another few rounds of editing, the FAQ is looking better than ever. I intend to add it to this page very soon. If anyone believes discussion would be helpful, then now is the time to get it going. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've added the FAQ, as the latest round of changes has been pretty minor, and the FAQ appears to be in good shape, well-sourced and highly informative as it stands. Note, I had to manually copy it, as there was an existing, unfinished and unused FAQ here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I have a few additional points:

• I'd suggest that the question What do other scientists have to say about the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence? should either be eliminated or substantially altered. Not all sources (including those we reference in the FAQ) agree that the question is fundamentally unintelligible. Many think that such a link is indeed possible but highly unlikely to exist. And since the current version of the FAQ is visually quite cluttered, we might want to err on the side of fewer items.
• I'd suggest that What is the evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence? could be rephrased to make it clear without clicking through that there is no such evidence (or we could consider cutting this question altogether). Otherwise it appears to contradict the premise of the first question.
• I'd suggest that What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race? can be eliminated to avoid clutter, since it simply directs the reader to read the article.

Generalrelative ( talk) 14:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that I've gone ahead with my first suggestion here, as well as altered the question substantially to read Isn't this just political correctness? Happy to be reverted and discuss if others disagree with these changes! Generalrelative ( talk) 16:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also: upon reflection I wonder if we really need three Q&As on "is race really socially constructed?" These are well written but I wonder if they represent a bit of a tangent in this context. Perhaps we can just direct skeptics to the main article Race (human categorization) and to the essay WP:Race and ethnicity? Just a thought. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

They speak to the fundamentals of the issue: people who assert this genetic link invariably assert a biological origin to racial classifications, and deny the well-proven social origin. I mean, the question of a genetic link between race and IQ is "unintelligible" precisely because of the nature of human racial differences as nothing more than a loose and inconsistent collection of unrelated traits.

As for the other stuff you mentioned: Regarding your first point and the edits you made, I approve. I just addressed your second point with an edit. I'm agnostic on your third point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with finishing with an encouragement to go read the article and judge for yourself. I think it should stand. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks to you both! Generalrelative ( talk) 18:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ is really shaping up well. I have questions about two of the Q-and-As:

• The answer to Q7 is very long. The first paragraph is hard to follow ("clear evidence for selective pressure", "dedicated genetic module...that can be acted on independently by natural selection...often negatively" etc.) and does not explain what the fallacy is. Perhaps after the first sentence we could put in: "A quick explanation of this fallacy is given in the last paragraph of the "Heritability within and between groups" section of the article and the accompanying picture." I'd suggest removing the rest of this paragraph after the first sentence, but keeping the block quote, which is clearly written.
• I also wonder if the 6th bullet-point in the 4th-to-last question is really needed. (In such surveys, the average percentage of the measured delta (about 15 points between the highest average racial score and the lowest average racial score) estimated to be explained by genetics is 1-5%; less than half the delta expected between two identical IQ tests taken by the same person on different days. In other words: statistically meaningless.) First, it uses technical language "measured delta". Second, it's not clear what average is being taken. Third, I'm not sure that it's accurate. Hunt estimated 3%, and he was among the relatively moderate members of the ISIR crowd. Fourth, if the IQ tests taken by the same person were identical, of course one would expect performance the second time to be significantly better than the first time ("practice makes perfect"). Fifth, given all the problems with the surveys, why should anyone care about this statistic? NightHeron ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  NightHeron, First, it uses technical language "measured delta". Good point. I agree on rewording this.

  Second, it's not clear what average is being taken. Also a good point.

  Third, I'm not sure that it's accurate. Hunt estimated 3%, and he was among the relatively moderate members of the ISIR crowd. Well, 3% is pretty close to the median of 1-5%. I'm not sure what you mean, here. I've seen 1% and 5% given, though Hunt is the only one who's opinion has been brought up on WP about it, that I've seen. If you think we should quote Hunt on this, I'm fine with that.

  Fourth, if the IQ tests taken by the same person were identical, of course one would expect performance the second time to be significantly better than the first time ("practice makes perfect"). This needs clarification: when giving a person an IQ test repeatedly, the problems are usually randomly chosen from a pool of problems of similar complexity, to avoid precisely this. The answer needs to be clarified.

  Fifth, given all the problems with the surveys, why should anyone care about this statistic? The best direct answer I've got is: It shows that even if one accepts that their research is 100% accurate, their hypothesis is still meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Where did the 1-5% figure come from? If we give it, we should first be certain that it's correct. I didn't mean to suggest that we should quote Hunt. I think there's a potential problem in saying that 1-5% is statistically meaningless because of random fluctuation that's greater than that when an individual takes the IQ test multiple times. The racial hereditarians claim that 1-5% (or whatever percent they're claiming) is consistently in one direction. This has to be rejected, not called "statistically meaningless". (Two examples showing the problem with the "statistically meaningless" claim: (1) Suppose that Jane and John each take IQ tests 5 times, and Jane's average score is 10 points higher than John's. Suppose the variation in each case over the 5 times went up and down an average of 15 points, so both were averages of 15-point fluctuations. Wouldn't we still conclude that Jane has significantly higher IQ than John? (2) The batting performance of baseball player A varies tremendously from game to game, and the same for player B. Nevertheless, if A's batting average is .350 and B's is .250, that difference is highly significant even though it's less than the game-to-game fluctuation.) I don't think we should be saying anything to the effect that "even if their research is 100% accurate it's a small difference anyway", just as we wouldn't say "even if the climate change deniers are right that whatever change is occurring is caused naturally rather than by humans, we should still be concerned and do something about it." NightHeron ( talk) 21:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, Where did the 1-5% figure come from? Honestly, it's WP:SYNTH (arguably WP:CALC) from various such surveys I've read over the past few years. I like the point it makes, but I'm not married to it. We can remove it, if we want to hold the FAQ to the same standards as an article (I didn't see it that way, but I understand the case for it).

The racial hereditarians claim that 1-5% (or whatever percent they're claiming) is consistently in one direction. This has to be rejected, not called "statistically meaningless". From where I sit, there's no difference there.

(1) Suppose that Jane and John each take IQ tests 5 times, and Jane's average score is 10 points higher than John's. Suppose the variation in each case over the 5 times went up and down an average of 15 points, so both were averages of 15-point fluctuations. Wouldn't we still conclude that Jane has significantly higher IQ than John? Yes, but those are two individuals, not populations. And individuals tend to have stable IQs over time, whereas populations do not (not only the Flynn effect, but the fact that the difference are shrinking over time, as well).

(2) The batting performance This analogy is very problematic, as batting performance is much more objective and empirical than IQ.

I don't think we should be saying anything to the effect that "even if their research is 100% accurate it's a small difference anyway", That's an opinion I can understand.

just as we wouldn't say "even if the climate change deniers are right that whatever change is occurring is caused naturally rather than by humans, we should still be concerned and do something about it." That's not. I think you missed a clause, there, in which the deniers also assert that the consequences of not doing anything are negligible.

Just to reiterate: It seems like there might not be a consensus to keep that point, which is okay by me, even though I like that point. I strongly disagree with your criticisms of it (unless you want to critique the lack of sourcing on the 1-5%: that's valid), but it's a "parting shot" as it were, and not really necessary for the overall point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of the climate denier analogy: it's saying "Even if the climate change deniers are right that whatever change is occurring is caused naturally rather than by humans, they're wrong that there's no reason to be concerned and do something about it." I think it's a very weak type of argument to say that even if we concede the main point, there's still a subsidiary point that would be valid. To give another analogy, it's what lawyers do when they say "even if my client did commit the murder, it was not premeditated so you should convict him on a lesser charge." NightHeron ( talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, Clarification of the climate denier analogy: it's saying "Even if the climate change deniers are right that whatever change is occurring is caused naturally rather than by humans, they're wrong that there's no reason to be concerned and do something about it." Yeah, that's a better phrasing that I can get behind.

To give another analogy, it's what lawyers do when they say "even if my client did commit the murder, it was not premeditated so you should convict him on a lesser charge." I see it more like "Even if my client did commit the murder, there's no evidence that it was premeditated," which is a valid point.

But GR agreed with you and Alaexis about this, so I'll get behind removing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@ NightHeron: I think you're right. I probably got carried away trying to cram a bunch of additional info into that item. I'll put it back the way it was. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay I've mostly restored it to the way it was, but I've also tried to address your concern about defining the "hereditarian fallacy". Generalrelative ( talk) 21:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I also cut the final chunk of text here, which I realized dealt with a slightly different topic. That can be turned into its own item if necessary (but I suspect it is not necessary). Generalrelative ( talk) 21:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with NightHeron that the statement about 1-5% is problematic. If the difference is statistically significant then it contradicts the main premise that there is no evidence for such difference. On the other hand, if the difference is not statistically significant, then, tautologically, these numbers are insignificant and should not be mentioned. The comparison with the variance of IQ scores of the same person is irrelevant. Alaexis _¿question? 10:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, If the difference is statistically significant then it contradicts the main premise that there is no evidence for such difference No, it wouldn't. These numbers are speculations by the psychometrists involved, not hard data about the differences. They aren't evidence.

On the other hand, if the difference is not statistically significant, then, tautologically, these numbers are insignificant and should not be mentioned. I agree with the statement that the the numbers are insignificant, but I disagree that they shouldn't be mentioned, because they would be insignificant (per the comparison to the variance of a single person) even if there were evidence that some of the difference was genetic.

That being said, I'm not married to it. If the consensus here is that they should go, then I'm (a little reluctantly, but still) okay with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we want to be put on the defensive concerning 1-5% if a racial hereditarian POV-pusher challenges it, claims the average is much higher, and drags us into a debate about what the white supremacy percent would be (according to the racial hereditarians) if there were white supremacy in intelligence. That would be diversionary, to say the least. NightHeron ( talk) 15:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, What do you think of the point about "even if the racists are right, the amount of difference they ascribe to genetics is meaningless" bit? It's the one that mentions 1-5%.

NH and Alaexis don't like it. If you don't either, then we should remove it. I like it, but I've nothing vested in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@ MPants at work: Thanks for asking. I find your rationale compelling, but it is rather a lot to cram into a single bullet point, resulting in a lexically dense bit of text. In my case I had to read it several times before understanding what it was saying. So I imagine it would probably generate more questions than it resolves, and for that reason I'd tend to agree that it's probably best to leave it out. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, Okay, let's do that. If you don't remove it in the next few minutes, I'll do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I removed the bit about the speculated amount of difference. I'm considering replacing it with "Even if these survey were meaningful, the amount of the difference speculated to be genetic in origin is so small as to be meaningless." which is much more succinct, simple, and addresses some (but not all) of the criticisms here. Let me know what you think, I don't plan to be bold about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

But even if your earlier statement about averages is correct, this simplified statement is not, because certainly some of the racial hereditarians surveyed do claim that there are meaningful differences. NightHeron ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, Right. They insist there's a difference, then when asked to quantify it, basically admit there's no difference. I think wording that conveys that would be best, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's probably not worth it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think the answer about political correctness is wrong. There is clearly serious resistance and taboo involving any research into race and intelligence, as discussed in Nature [39] [40] ("Whereas our 'politically correct' work garners us praise, speaking invitations and book contracts, challengers are demeaned, ostracized and occasionally threatened with tenure revocation.") and elsewhere [41] [42] [43]. Even the quote provided acknowledges that "...moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions...". Stonkaments ( talk) 00:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, would you say that these pieces meet the special sourcing requirements for this article? – dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I'd actually be okay writing something for the article using these, myself. Of course, I don't think Stonkaments would like me pointing out that their first two links are actually evidence that the scientific community is perfectly willing to discuss this kind of research (I mean, it's a couple of editorials in Nature, it really doesn't get more mainstream science than that), that Noah Carl got shitcanned for doing shitty research for racist reasons, that Nathan Cofnas explicitly confirms the existence of that scientific consensus Stonk spent a couple of weeks fighting to prove doesn't exist, and that that Guardian link not only doesn't say what they seem to think it does, but also argues that people only want to pursue said research because they're already racist, and that the only reason they haven't died off is because other racists support them.

I also think it's kinda funny that the argument here is that these "hereditarians" are an oppressed minority, as we collaborate on the first big change here since Stonk and crew spent a couple weeks arguing that they were the majority of scientists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these are absolutely reliable sources in this context. The Nature articles have been discussed here before. The Guardian article is a summary of a book from a reputable publisher, and the others were published in peer-reviewed papers. Additionally, you can look at the numerous other examples that "The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence" purported to refute: Miele, 2002; Woodley of Menie et al., 2018; Ceci & Williams, 2009; Cofnas, 2016; Gottfredson, 2010; Sesardic, 2005; Rushton & Jensen, 2008; Kourany, 2016; Sternberg, 2005; Gottfredson, 1994, 2009, 2010; Warne et al., 2018. There is an abundance of sources claiming that there are issues of taboo/political correctness in this line of research; it violates WP:NPOV for the FAQ to argue otherwise by favoring the few sources that dispute this. Stonkaments ( talk) 02:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

1) Ceci & Williams is a fine source for flat assertions (i.e. they helpfully state that there was in 2009 an "emerging consensus" about racial and gender equality in the genetic determinants of intelligence). They are real scientists, and their views can be considered fairly representative at least of one end of the spectrum of mainstream ideas. However nothing they say goes much beyond bare assertions based on personal experience. If that were the best source we could find for characterizing the academic environment, okay fine, but it's not. The Jackson & Winston article, on the other hand, is a piece of peer-reviewed research published in an APA journal, full of nuance and detail. And it addresses Ceci & Williams' claims, among many others, head-on. For that reason it is far more convincing as a source, and in the context of this Q&A the appropriate one to look to.

2) Of the "numerous" other sources you cite, most appear to be fringe POV-pushers themselves. The three whom you link to in your first comment here, Noah Carl, Nathan Cofnas and Gerhard Meisenberg (with regard to the latter, I presume his quotation about "political correctness" is why you linked the Guardian piece by Saini), are certainly not legitimate sources for anything. At this point it should be clear that their views hold no weight at all when it comes to scientific matters, including the question of whether their ostracism from mainstream academic circles is merited. I'm not sure if any of the other pieces you link here would fare any better under scrutiny, and frankly the onus is on you at this point to show that you're not just wasting our time by throwing spaghetti at the wall.

3) Finally, it kind of blows my mind how you mention Saini's Guardian article as though it supports your case. Yes it quotes Meisenberg but it does so in such a way as to make clear both how wildly repugnant his ideas are and how far he is outside of the scientific mainstream. Doesn't that give you pause at all? Doesn't it make you stop and wonder whether maybe you've been barking up the wrong tree this whole time? I'd like to believe that somewhere inside you there is that glimmer of recognition. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. You're dismissing nearly 20 sources describing an environment of taboo and political correctness as fringe POV-pushing, even though you would readily consider many of them to be reliable sources in other contexts. You can't have it both ways. Stonkaments ( talk) 18:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC) 19:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you pick a prime example? One source that is definitely not from a fringe POV-pusher but is used as reliable source in other contexts? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceci & Williams (2009) [44] was cited heavily in recent discussions about the scientific consensus, and is cited twice in the Wikipedia article. They are clearly not fringe POV-pushers; they argue that environmental, not genetic, factors cause the racial differences seen in IQ. Regarding political correctness, they observe:

Yet the spectre of Lysenkoism lurks in current scientific discourse on gender, race and intelligence. Claims that sex- or race-based IQ gaps are partly genetic can offend entire groups, who feel that such work feeds hatred and discrimination. Pressure from professional organizations and university administrators can result in boycotting such research, and even in ending scientific careers.

. Stonkaments ( talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Stonkaments: I suggest that you strike your comment above as a misrepresentation of other people, which is a violation of talk page guideline listed at WP:TALKNO. My statement was very clear in distinguishing the legitimate views of Ceci and Williams, whom I have indeed cited in other contexts, from fringe POV-pushers like Carl, Cofnas and Meisenberg, whose views hold no weight here. I'm pretty sure I have not approvingly cited anyone else you list here as supporting your position (unless you actually count Saini, in which case I'd be concerned about your basic reading comprehension), yet you state that I readily consider many of them to be reliable sources in other contexts. That really doesn't seem like a good-faith representation of past discussions or editing behavior. And yes I'm sure you can find "nearly 20 sources" from within the walled garden of fringe racialist pseudoscience. That's not going to change the balance of NPOV here. Jackson & Winston's peer-reviewed paper, published in an APA journal, is more than enough to establish the fact that race-and-intelligence research continues to be funded despite the fact that it is scientifically bankrupt. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Stonkaments: Your insertion of the word "would" in your comment above is a start but is not nearly enough to allay my concern about the way you've misrepresented me. First off, how do you know what I would accept? But the main issue is that you completely ignore / mischaracterize what I say about Ceci and Williams in 1), making it seem as though I were lumping them in which racialist pseudoscientists like Carl, Cofnas and Meisenberg, when I took care to explicitly state that this was not the case (i.e. They are real scientists, and their views can be considered fairly representative at least of one end of the spectrum of mainstream ideas). Generalrelative ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, You might want to go back and read past the first sentence of my comment before you agree with me too hard. All but one of those sources undermines what you're claiming here, in one way or another. A couple of them could be used to argue that the authors have claimed there's a taboo against this research and that these researchers are unfairly ostracized (of course, one of those authors was quite fairly ostracized for doing shit work and this would need to be pointed out per WP:GEVAL), but one of them straight up argues that yes, these people are in fact racist, and they deserve what they get, and they'd have all been run off long ago if it wasn't for the even worse racists propping them up.

If you want the FAQ to have a Q&A that reads:

Isn't there a taboo against researching race and IQ?

Well, some scientists claim so, such as Noah Carl, whose work was heavily criticized as "poor scholarship" which violated standards of academic integrity and was widely considered to be of poor methodological value. Carl would go on to be dismissed from his position due to his "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes about groups". Other writers, such as Barry Mehler argued that researchers into race and IQ are "riding the wave of populism" at present, and debates on whether to "permit" such research have made their way into the editorials of Nature. Meanwhile, nonprofits such as the Pioneer Fund continue to fund such research and journals such as Mankind Quarterly continue to publish it.

If that's the sort of Q&A you think we need to add, I'll add it myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from here, MjolnirPants, but if we were to add such a section it would have to be much longer to include all the bogus claims by wannabe scientists scrambling to get a piece of that sweet, sweet Pioneer Fund, and all the ways in which they have been rightly rejected by the mainstream academy for attendant piss-poor methodological choices. Instead I suggest that we keep the language the way it is since the existing Jackson and Winston reference details these matters very clearly. Any reader who's curious to learn more can easily click through. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, You raise a good point. I rescind my offer, and have changed my mind. Let's keep it the way it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Well cheers then! Generalrelative ( talk) 03:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, per your edit summary:

SUWEE!!!

Sorry. I'm from the South. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol, I'm just well traveled enough to get the reference :) Generalrelative ( talk) 04:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if an entry about how this topic was viewed in the past would be helpful? The answer could be along the lines that every attempt to study or prove this in the past was based on racist motivations? I don't have sources handy at the moment, but I think some historical framing to this topic could be helpful. There's the obvious examples from Nazi doctors and then experiments with African Americans during the Jim Crow era. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, The Guardian source Stonkaments wanted to use to evince his claim that these researchers are ostracized would seem to support that statement. I rather like the idea of outlining the history here, and am curious what other editors think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, as long as we can include thus quote from Saini's piece:

When Rushton’s book Race, Evolution and Behaviour was published in 1995, psychologist David Barash was stirred to write in a review: “Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book.” Rushton had collected scraps of unreliable evidence in “the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result”. In reality, Barash wrote, “the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit”.

Generalrelative ( talk) 15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I absolutely adore that quote and wholeheartedly concur. I'm considering getting it tattooed on my rib cage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

We'll be twinsies then because I already got it as a tramp stamp. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who We Are and How We Got Here.

FYI the relevant content dispute begins at comment #4 of Talk:Who We Are and How We Got Here#WP:DUE. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron can you clarify how the reverted passage violates WP:NPOV? Is the journal where the referenced study has been published not good? Ping Ekpyros Alaexis _¿question? 12:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Added diff link – dlthewave ☎ 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Alaexis: Russell Warne is a polemicist, blogger, and promoter of racial hereditarianism. A strong consensus of Wikipedia editors has determined, most recently in the RfC on this talk-page a few months ago (see [45]), that racial hereditarianism is a fringe view. This means that it must be treated as such, and we must avoid FALSEBALANCE. That's why I reverted your the edit. NightHeron ( talk) 13:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI Alaexis is asking a follow-up but didn't make the edit. That was Ekpyros. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also please note that Russell Warne is a psychologist at Utah Valley University with no professional expertise in genetics. For statements on controversial topics we look to relevant subject matter experts, not just anyone with a "Dr." in front of their name who believes passionately one way or the other. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, as Alaexis notes, you reverted my GF edit in which:

1. I clarified that Block's example uses randomly distributed seeds (it's clearly in Block's source and important to understanding the analogy)
2. I removed the overly broad and thus inaccurate claim that the analogy "shows how heritability works"
3. I added that analogy was popularized by Lewontin
4. I included criticism that the analogy misleads by using random groups as stand-ins for non-random racial groups
5. I attributed the figure to Block (to clarify any confusion as to why he's mentioned by Chomsky in the following quote)
6. I added a Wikilink to the article on Block

I am undoing your reversion, since I find it exceedingly hard to accept—and your reply above doesn't support—that every single one of the six above changes "makes the article clearly worse". How, for example, did attributing the diagram to Block or clarifying that it uses randomly selected seeds "clearly harming" the article? And unless all six did do clear harm, your wholesale reversion patently violated WP:MASSR. I'd further note the warning that those "with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo"—given that I see no editor "involved" in the article as much, or as passionately, as you seem to have been.

I'd add that neither your claim of WP:NPOV nor WP:PROFRINGE has any merit; indeed the opposite would seem true, given that the latter's guidance clearly states that: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." Warne's summary of longstanding criticism of the corn analogy has indeed "received critical review from the scientific community"—it was published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and as far as I am aware (although I'm happy to be corrected), no one has challenged it. I see nothing about his critique of the analogy that's controversial or not obviously true—let alone a "fringe theory" about "racial hereditarianism". He simply points out that analogizing randomly selected corn seeds is misleading when talking about human races, which no one argues are genetically random.

Nor is including criticism of the corn-seed analogy WP:FALSEBALANCE—unless you're arguing that the criticism of the analogy is itself some "fringe theory". You've confused the guidance in WP:BALANCE, which states that Wikipedia shouldn't promote fringe views, with your personal opinion that an individual has promoted a "fringe theory", then further erred by extrapolating from that to conclude that simply citing that individual's valid criticism of an analogy therefor must have violated WP:BALANCE. It does not, since Warne's criticism of the seed analogy is not "the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence".

As to your claims about Professor Russell Warne, I'm aware of no RS who has described him as a promoter of "fringe theories"—that claim would appear to be your WP:OR based on your Rfc, which doesn't mention him at all. It's irrelevant that he's not a geneticist, just as it's irrelevant that the source of the analogy in the article, philosopher Ned Block, isn't one either—the latter fact being something that seems, oddly, not to have occurred to, let alone troubled Generalrelative or any other editor.

Last, I've read the Rfc you linked to—which, indeed, you created and are clearly very passionate about!—but fail to see how it in any way applies to my edit. Frankly, your statement seems hopelessly vague and designed to censor even obviously legitimate "viewpoints"—which, I'd note, are quite different from scientific "theories". No serious scientist of whom I'm aware has argued that IQ differences between groups have been proven to be entirely the result of either genetics or environment (and of course genetics and environment interact and shape each other), leaving the question of whether there is any genetic contribution to the differences unanswered. The obvious fact—that the question hasn't yet been settled by science — is in no way a "fringe theory", since it's not a theory at all. Nor is the the "viewpoint" that genetics may play some, as-of-yet undetermined role.

Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 21:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Ekpyros: There is no consensus here on the talk-page in favor of your edits. I'm not going to debate your WP:WALLOFTEXT defending your POV that disputes Lewontin's explanation of the fallacy of going from genetic variation between individuals to genetic differences between groups. You have a right to your passionate opinion on the subject, but according to WP:NOR the only relevant issue is the quality of your two sources. Russell Warne is the author or lead author of both, and he's a promoter of fringe racial hereditarianism who has no expertise in genetics. NightHeron ( talk) 21:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ NightHeron: What is the problem with identifying Ned Block as the source of the analogy image? Or linking to his article? Or adding that the seeds are randomly selected? None of those has anything to do with Russell Warne, do they? Elle Kpyros ( talk) 23:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Ekpyros: Instead of reinserting your original edit, which is sourced to Russell Warne and is contrary to consensus, why don't you propose here on the talk-page a brief edit sourced to Ned Block that does what you just outlined? Then we can see what other editors think about it. NightHeron ( talk) 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. Perhaps cite the relevant piece by Richard Lewontin too since he was, ya know, an actual evolutionary biologist? Generalrelative ( talk) 00:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ NightHeron:, something is sideways with the Wikipedia editing process on this article.

1. Are you serious in suggesting that I "propose" what I "just outlined" regarding Block? It was in the edit you reverted—and I listed it in the edit summary, then again above in points 1, 2, 5, and 6. You're clearly not even aware what was in the edit, which is precisely you shouldn't have reverted it. You tell me: what was objectionable about the edits I made regarding Block that caused you to revert them?
2. Again, please do kindly familiarize yourself with WP:MASSR and only revert the portions of an edit you disagree with. Crying "no consensus" is never a valid reason for reversion, per WP:DRNC, and Wikipedia has a bias that favors editing, not the status quo. I don't need to "propose" anything—I made an edit, and it is on you to revert only the parts that obviously harm the article. I I've done you the favor by beginning the "discussion" you say you want with what you refer to as a "wall of text"—I'd call it a well-organized list of points—and you've failed to substantively respond. To you and MrOllie: I see no prior "consensus" on criticism of the corn-seed analogy, which is what my edit concerned. The issue here is not some purported "fallacy of going from genetic variation between individuals to genetic differences between groups"—unclear what that means—but rather something far more narrow than you apparently imagine and describe it to be.
3. The Archives of Scientific Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal published by the APA, the premiere association of US psychologists. What RS has ever suggested it publishes "fringe racial hereditarianism"? Or that Russell Warne "promotes" any such "fringe theories"? Just because some Wiki editors once signed onto your Rfc claiming that "the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence"—whatever that mouthful of mush might mean—is a "fringe theory" doesn't make it so, nor does it mean that you can violate WP:BLP by maligning a respected researcher based on nothing but your personal opinion. What's most relevant is that Warne is indisputably a published expert on myths and misconceptions regarding the study of intelligence and how that subject is taught—which is the capacity in which I've cited him. Even more pertinently, his paper is 100% a RS by Wikipedia standards, and I encourage you to provide any RS that disputes his points which I've included.
4. Most importantly: which of Warne's specific points about the analogy that I included do you claim to be false, and what is your reliably-sourced basis for doing so?

Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 12:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for a brief, unsourced reference to Block, the main part of your edit was an attempted refutation of Lewontin's point, sourced to Warne. The basic claim in your attempted refutation was the assertion that individual genetic differences (in intelligence, since that's what the article is about) must lead to intergroup genetic differences: interracial differences must be at least partly the result of individual genetic differences. Thus, the main point of your edit was to directly contradict the consensus reached at two recent RfC's that this is a fringe POV and so must be treated in accordance with WP:PROFRINGE, avoiding FALSEBALANCE. There was nothing "sideways" about reverting your edit. NightHeron ( talk) 13:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The corn stalks analogy is now sourced to Ned Black, who is not a geneticist either (and not a scholar, for that matter). If we want to use this analogy in the article, we should add the criticism too, unless it can be shown that this criticism is refuted by the majority of scholars in this field.

Regarding the sentence about the interracial differences, I agree with you that a single article cannot overturn the consensus and therefore it should not be added. Alaexis _¿question? 19:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading Ned Block's BLP, I see that he has a PhD in philosophy from Harvard, has been a professor at MIT, and since 1996 has been a professor (or professor emeritus) at NYU. As a professional philosopher, he has standing to comment on the illogicality of the claim that the existence of a genetic role in individual differences implies a genetic role in intergroup differences. NightHeron ( talk) 20:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't, this was a response to Generalrelative's characterisation of Russel Warne (a psychologist at Utah Valley University with no professional expertise in genetics. For statements on controversial topics we look to relevant subject matter experts, not just anyone with a "Dr." in front of their name who believes passionately one way or the other.). Alaexis _¿question? 21:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative also made the suggestion of including a citation to Richard Lewontin, who was a geneticist and who popularized Ned Block's observation because he thought it was valid and important for people to understand. NightHeron ( talk) 22:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. If, as Ekpyros has asserted, Lewontin is responsible for popularizing the analogy, it shouldn't be hard to cite Lewontin and leave it at that. For the record as well:

1) I'd support getting rid of the Chomsky quotation which mentions Block. I don find it particularly helpful here. We can also cut the one sentence which cites Block as its source. It's true that neither of them are subject-matter experts, which is the standard we should abide by.

2) This section really is incomplete, only not at all in the way Ekpyros seems to believe. Indeed, there is zero controversy among population geneticists today about the fact that the heritability of traits at the individual level tells us nothing about between-group difference. That's population genetics 101. See e.g. "Heritability in the genomics era — concepts and misconceptions" by Visscher et al. in Nature Reviews Genetics (2008): [46]. We can definitely do a better job of presenting this. Whether the corn analogy should stay or go is an open question, as far as I'm concerned, but what we must not do is misrepresent the state of scientific consensus regarding the difference between individual- and group-level heritability.

3) The entire first paragraph of the section is, in my view, hopelessly garbled and off-topic. The section could easily be improved by simply removing it.

Generalrelative ( talk) 23:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

For those without institutional access, here’s the money quote from Visscher et al.:

Box 2: Misconceptions regarding heritability [...] Heritability is informative about the nature of between-group differences –– This misconception comes in two forms, and in both cases height and IQ in human populations are good examples. The first misconception is that when the heritability is high, groups that differ greatly in the mean of the trait in question must do so because of genetic differences. The second misconception is that the observation of a shift in the mean of a character over time (when we can discount changes in gene frequencies) for a trait with high heritability is a paradox. For IQ, a large increase in the mean has been observed in numerous populations, and this effect is called the Flynn Effect, after its discoverer. The problem with this suggested paradox is that heritability should not be used to make predictions about changes in the population over time or about differences between groups, because in each individual calculation the heritability is defined for a particular population and says nothing about environments in other populations. White males born in the United States were the tallest in the world in the mid-19th century and about 9cm taller than Dutch males. At the end of the 20th century, although the height of males in the United States had increased, many European countries had overtaken them and Dutch males are now approximately 5cm taller than white US males, a trend that is likely to be environmental rather than genetic in origin.

Including a summary of this, and perhaps a bit of quotation as well, could certainly improve the section we’re discussing. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I'd be happy to get rid of the corn analogy, which everyone knows is weak sauce—but from judging by the completely uninformed and histrionic response I got for simply describing its well-known and well-sourced shortcomings in a minor edit—good luck with that! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 04:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be careful about what appears to be a pattern of projecting your own behavior onto others re. "completely uninformed and histrionic", "weak sauce". NightHeron is both very measured and very well informed on this topic, and has the support of a broad consensus for the work he does to protect this article from racialist POV-pushing. That doesn't mean he never makes a mistake. We all do. But reacting as though you're being persecuted when you get reverted is incompatible with the values of this project. If others are not persuaded by your arguments, perhaps they're simply unpersuasive? Generalrelative ( talk) 04:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron—you have utterly missed the point of what I wrote, which in no way said that all interracial differences—let alone those in intelligence—must be the result of individual genetic differences. Just that in groups with non-random genetics, some differences must be the result of individual genetics. In other words, we know that genes create differences, and we know that human races have genetic distinctions—therefor those genetic distinctions must create differences between races. Whether racial IQ differences are genetically caused remains to be seen—and you'll note I made no claims about the subject. My edit pointed out solely that Lewontin's analogy only proves that between-group differences in corn height are 100% environmental, because the corn is genetically random—and since human races decidedly are not, his analogy fails when extrapolating to interracial differences. His analogy would only apply to IQ differences between identical twins, or other genetically matched groups.

Get it? Once you do, you will realize why your accusation that my edit promoted some "fringe theory"—or said anything about whether interracial differences in intelligence are caused by genetics—was entirely false, caused by your failure to understand what I'd written, and why your reversion was unwarranted. Curious: did you even bother to read Warne's material which I cited? Elle Kpyros ( talk) 03:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is zero controversy among population geneticists about the fact that the heritability of traits at the individual level tells us nothing about between-group difference. Neither your original reasoning nor that of Warne –– who is not (for all the hot air he spews on the topic) a subject-matter expert –– will change that. And please, try not to throw stones in the glass house of "failure to understand". Generalrelative ( talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative Kindly show me where I have suggested the heritability of a trait at the individual level suggests a genetic cause for between-group differences in that trait. Let alone having suggested that in the context of racial difference in intelligence. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 05:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW: "did you even bother to read..." is a typical question of proponents of fringe theories. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 04:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

When an editor suggests adding something to an article they've just reverted—and does so in a thread about their reversion—it seems an eminently fair assumption that they didn't read what they reverted. And characterizing something I've written as a "typical of fringe theorists" isn't just puerile and asinine—it's an obvious concession that I haven't actually put forth any such theories. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 05:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was suggested that anyone is a fringe theorist. What Rsk6400 said was "...proponents of fringe theories". I believe there is a difference. One is labeling and the other is more about editing. A proponent edits in such a way as to support a fringe theory or a set of fringe theories. And fringe view is simply a minority viewpoint. However, a fringe view could also have no support. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron This is beyond parody:

1. Ned Block attributes the corn-seed analogy to Lewontin—not the other way around. You're proposal would completely misrepresent the facts. This is inexcusable, given that it's right there in the cited source, which you obviously didn't even bother to consult before suggesting further editing. The reason I wrote that the latter "popularized" it is because he didn't come up with it any more than Block did, and indeed appears possibly to have plagiarized it. In other words, I was correcting the (implied) misattribution to Block. But you reverted my edit about Block—again, because you've not the foggiest idea what you're blathering on about.
2. This is especially rich: I did cite Lewontin as having popularized the analogy, as you claim GeneralRelative wants to do… in my edit which you wholesale reverted. The fact that you that you apparently don't even realize this reveals how thoughtlessly you're running roughshod over this article, while treating it as your private fiefdom. Unbelievably enough, it appears that you didn't even read, let alone understand what you reverted.

You've not only revealed yourself to have been clueless regarding every part of my 6-item edit you blanket reverted—it's now abundantly clear that you didn't make the slightest effort to try to understand what you were reverting, such as by actually consulting the cited RS. Instead, you ignorantly believed that I was claiming race differences in IQ are genetically caused (see my other reply), and simply wholesale reverted the other 5-odd edits I'd made, while blathering on about "fringe theories" and your pet Rfc. You made an ad hominem attack on the author of a source you never read—or if you did, never comprehended in the slightest. I very seriously believe you should not be editing this article at all, given that you're going around hair-trigger reverting stuff you haven't read and/or can't be bothered to try to understand. It's shambolic, an utter betrayal of the responsibility of building an encyclopedia, and a perfect disgrace. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 05:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Ekryros: In thinking that Ned Block was the source of the corn analogy and Lewontin popularized it, I was responding to what you wrote above: What is the problem with identifying Ned Block as the source of the analogy image? and later: that analogy was popularized by Lewontin. From this I assumed that Ned Block was the source of the corn analogy, and Lewontin popularized it. Sorry -- from what you now say, I guess we both got it backwards. I didn't check the citation to Block because there was no citation to Block; that part of your edit was unsourced.

Above I specified which part of your edit endorsed the fringe theory that, as you put it in your edit, interracial differences must be at least partly the result of individual genetic differences. According to geneticists, there is zero evidence that interracial differences in performance on intelligence tests are partly the result of individual genetic differences. The reason why the claim in your edit relates to intelligence (and so is covered by the two recent RfCs) is that you put your edit in an article titled "Race and intelligence".

I don't appreciate your litany of personal name-calling, which violates WP:NPA and could result in sanctions against you if you continue. You have called me uninformed, histrionic, blathering, clueless, ignorant, puerile, asinine. Wikipedia is not some kind of social media platform where insults and name-calling are accepted. Please stop this behavior immediately. NightHeron ( talk) 12:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, I'm not sure why you're still not getting it:

1. Yes, you got it backwards; no, I did not. I never suggested Block was the original source of the analogy; I'm well-read in this area and have long-known the analogy is commonly referred to as "Lewontin's" (although it appears not to have originated with him either, which is why I wrote "popularized"). I identified Block as the source of the image in the article, because he was; I didn't write the Wikipedia article or cite Block and didn't see any need to change the image to the one Lewontin previously used, as I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that the editors who did write the article had some familiarity with the subject matter. Again, if you'd bothered to read the cited material before reverting, you wouldn't have been confused about this—Block introduces the analogy by stating "Richard Lewontin responded a year later with a graphic illustration…" Is it really too much to ask that an editor make a basic effort to understand another's edit before they revert it?
2. I sincerely don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp. I never wrote that all racial differences are the result of genetic differences, let alone the black-white intelligence gap. I noted that human races are not genetically identical groups, therefore some of their differences must be genetic—not all differences or some part of each and every difference. Again, the analogy was the subject of my edit. If you failed to understand all this, all you had to do was look at the cited source. My edit stands without that sentence—again, if you objected to it based on a misunderstanding, all you had to do was ask, or even edit that portion which you found objectionable. The simplest attempt to familiarize yourself with what you reverted, plus an assumption of good faith, would have led to a very different result.
3. What I find so grating is your refusal to follow or even acknowledge basic reversion guidelines. This would have been a simple matter if, rather than wholesale reverting my edit, you had properly reverted only the portion you believed harmed the article, and explained specifically why you believed that part did so—which is exactly what I've been asking you to do. Instead, it has taken this long for you to simply identify the sentence you objected to and to explain why. Now that you've actually articulated your objection, it's easy for me to respond as to why you're mistaken. Instead, you immediately accused me of POV-pushing and fringe-theory-promotion for, in part, identifying Ned Block as the source of the image in the article or pointing out that the corn seeds in the analogy were genetically random—just totally indefensible editing.
4. I didn't "name-call". I pointed out, for example, that you were uninformed on the topic you're editing—which you've acknowledged—not an uninformed or stupid person, broadly. Nor did "puerile" or "asinine" refer to your actions, unless you're also Rsk6400. If I've hurt your feeling, I of course apologize unreservedly—I assure you everything I've written was entirely in regards to your poor editing here, not any sort of broader observation of you as a person.
5. Last but hardly least, in terms of moving forward: was there anything in my multipartite edit other than that sentence that you found objectionable? Or which you still don't understand?

Thanks, Elle Kpyros ( talk) 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Since NightHeron and I are not the same person, you might also want to apologize to me. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Rsk6400, perhaps you can explain the utility of your claim that "'did you even bother to read...' is a typical question of proponents of fringe theories"—because to me, it reeks of WP:NOTHERE. Even if we posit that your claim is true—how does it in any way help to advance this article? If I understood it to be constructive, I would of course wholeheartedly apologize for having characterizing it—again, not you—as puerile and asinine. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Ekpyros: My mistake -- I didn't notice that the insulting words "puerile" and "asinine" were directed at another editor, not at me. That actually makes your conduct worse, since it means that you've been insulting two editors, not just one.

I'll also respond to your misapplication of WP:MASSR (which, by the way, is an essay, not a policy). I did not do a massive reverting. Your edit was a short one, and except for a small, unsourced addition about Ned Block, about 90% of it consisted of an attempted refutation of the corn analogy based on a statement you wrote that directly contradicts what geneticists say and also violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE. You used wikivoice to falsely suggest that scientists have refuted the Block/Lewontin argument: Subsequent scientists have pointed out that the corn-stalk analogy...can be misleading:...individual humans are not randomly sorted into racial groups. Due to differing evolutionary histories and shared ancestries, racial groups have inherited genetic differences, and thus interracial differences must be at least partly the result of individual genetic differences. It harms the encyclopedia to insert an edit that promotes the theory of genetic superiority of certain races over others in intelligence. NightHeron ( talk) 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, referring to any other editors as: uninformed, histrionic, blathering, clueless, ignorant, puerile, asinine and so on contradicts WP:NPA and could ultimately lead to a block. Saying it is about editors' actions does not change how it is viewed on Wikipedia. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia". Also, aspersions (personal attacks) may be removed from the page per WP:NPA. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an editor generalizing or mentioning that proponents of fringe typically ask a certain question - that proponents tend to edit in this way - then it is best to simply say so - that there is a perceived problem with that. Countering with personal attacks does not help with the discussion. In fact, it could drive other editors away. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron ( talk) 22:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Q&A seems to confuse "observable" and "visible" traits. Differences in behaviour or cognitive abilities can be observable, although they are not physical. Therefore the claim that "So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same." Seems nonsensical. How could we find non-observable differences? Is IQ not an "observable trait/characteristic"?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 ( talk) 17:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above. I'm not sure why you'd want to start an entirely new heading for this but in any case your concerns have been addressed. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My question is that does the Q&A gives an impression that "observable traits" are visible traits, whereas it also includes observable behavioural differences? So does the Q&A mean to say that there is a genetic base in behavioural differences, or only visible differences?

I do not understand what "So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same." is trying to say? It seems to imply that differences are limited to physical differences, otherwise it makes no sense to me that it can only show differences that are observable?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 ( talk) 19:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For example the claim "So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same." I would be interesting to learn what sources the claim that difference in genes between Africans and Europeans are limited to observable traits is based on.

Similarly there are many other claims there that read more like opinions rather than facts. What are the editing guidelines that apply to the Q&A?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:90A2:E3C3:BD92:E870 ( talk) 22:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The procedure is pretty simple. You suggest specific changes to the FAQ and then establish a consensus here on the talk page by persuading others. Typically that's done by referencing high quality reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Be aware, however, that this is one of the most contentious topic areas on the whole encyclopedia, with 103 talk page archives for this page alone. Until recently only extended-confirmed users could even comment here due to a long history of disruption. Many of us have been over these issues again and again and again, so you will sometimes reach the limit of people's patience relatively quickly, especially when you can find out the answers to your questions on your own by reading through the archives or doing some basic research on Google.

All that said, I'll assume that you're asking in good faith and will direct you to, e.g. this rather straightforward explanation: [51]. And if you're looking for something a bit more on the peer-reviewed scientific paper side of things, see e.g. [52] or [53]. I hope that's helpful.

Also, many of the answers in the FAQ are full of citations. I'd be more than happy to work with anyone who'd like to add pertinent references to the others. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Generalrelative, I do not have a subscription to National Geographic, but I did read the two studies you linked. However, I must have missed the part where they mention that the differences are limited to observable traits. Hope you can quote me where in those sources such claim is made? Its contrary to what I have been taught in my own professional sphere. 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 ( talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest going back to the first study and everywhere it says " phenotype" understand that by that the authors mean "observable traits" because that's what the term means. Both studies support the scientific consensus that there is no genetic basis for grouping humanity into natural population groups as can be done with other species because of the extraordinarily high degree of interrelatedness that is evident in the human genome, despite the outward differences that would seem to suggest otherwise like skin color and hair type. Again, I hope that's helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 13:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly there is some confusion because of the ambiguity of the term "observable traits." In the phenotype article they are defined as "the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology or physical form and structure, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior" while in the Q&A it seems to refer to visible traits only. Alaexis _¿question? 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Alaexis. I see what you mean, and I'd support adding "susceptibility to certain diseases" or something like that for clarity. The key thing I wouldn't want to lose sight of here is the principle of some astonishment, in this case that despite the outward differences which would seem to suggest otherwise we are far too interrelated to be meaningfully sorted into genetically distinct population groups. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Alexis! So observable traits include not just physical characteristics, as the Q&A seemed to suggest, but also observable differences in behaviour and cognition?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:1906:630D:E828:D194 ( talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the definition from the phenotype article. I have no idea what the sources that were used for the Q&A meant by "observable traits." Alaexis _¿question? 17:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way you might want to register. There has been a history of problematic editing here... Alaexis _¿question? 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In this case no, not cognition, since there is a clear consensus that no evidence exists to support the contention that group-level differences in cognition have a genetic basis. That's the key point which the FAQ exists to rebut, and which the recent RfC unquestionably established. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The current version gives an impression it only refers to physical characteristics, so maybe good to mention that phenotype also includes observable behavioural differences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 ( talk) 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, no evidence exists that group-level differences in behavior have a genetic basis either. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Q&A states that surveys on intelligence experts "are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism, and respondents to these surveys are also almost exclusively members of groups that promote scientific racism. In short, they are not representative samples of mainstream scientific opinion."

How is Rothman and Snyderman survey not representative sample of scientific opinion? The 1020 experts in the survey were chosen randomly from the following organisations:

American Educational Research Association (120) National Council on Measurement in Education (120) American Psychological Association: Development psychology division (120) Educational psychology division (120) Evaluation and Measurement division (120) School psychology division (120) Counseling psychology division (60) Industrial and organizational psychology division (60) Behavior Genetics Association (60) American Sociological Association (education) (60) Cognitive Science Society (60)

How are these not mainstream scientists?

You omitted "not representative samples of". Please consult statistics books for beginners to find out how little you understand the problem. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is your comment the sort of discussion encouraged in Wikipedia? I do not understand how the criticism in the Q&A towards surveys of intelligence experts is in anyway applicable to the Rothman & Snyderman survey. These organisations seem to represent mainstream science, no?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 ( talk) 20:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Referring to any other editors as uninformed contradicts WP:NPA.

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 ( talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually no, referring to other editors as uninformed when they have shown themselves clearly to be uninformed does not violate WP:NPA, especially when they have been given ample warning about the nature of this topic area and the norms of contributing here –– as I provided in my first response to you above –– and have failed to read carefully what they aim to criticize. We always assume good faith and that people are coming at this with a reasonable amount of competence, but at some point when people show that they do not possess that competence there is nothing to be done but point that out to the person and, if one wants to go above and beyond as Hob Gadling has done, point them toward a way in which can educate themselves. Of course some people are so caught up in an image of themselves as very knowledgeable that they will react negatively to this, but there is only so much we can do without further disrupting the project. This is all summed up nicely in the explanatory supplement WP:CIR. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In this case questions arose largely because the Q&A has no references. I understand that possibly the justifications for each item are somewhere in these 103 archives, but wouldn't it be easier for everyone to provide them explicitly? Alaexis _¿question? 06:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid, questions of this kind will always be repeated by those uninformed people who Generalrelative described so well in their comment above. Look at the "contributions" of that IP, the only one to main space ( here) was quite horrible, it was quickly reverted, and justly so. A time sink. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone want to get the extended confirmed protection restored? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Hemiauchenia: I wouldn't be opposed, but FYI MrOllie recently raised the issue with Dennis Brown, the admin who issued the EC protection previously. His reply was that the level of disruption here is not yet sufficient to warrant restoration, but he asked to be kept posted if disruption continues. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP from Milan was in good faith, the addition of the polygenic scores does seem relevant and justified given that it meets all of Wikipedia's criteria. 2800:484:877C:94F0:8544:9078:3A8A:4A27 ( talk) 22:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been explained again and again, both here and at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy, why this content will not be added: it violates WP:RS and WP:OR. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Like, I am fine with saying Intelligence is not a reliable source, but then we would need to remove all the references to it from this article then, in order to be consistent. 2800:484:877C:94F0:A4C1:8C1A:84BF:EC33 ( talk) 04:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, a source that is not reliable for the purpose of determining scientific consensus may nevertheless be reliable for determining the opinions of the authors, which of course must be attributed to them. For example, the article contains references to work by Jensen, Rushton, etc., not because they're reliable as a scientific source, but because their writings were highly influential in promoting a fringe viewpoint, and so their views need to be mentioned in the article. NightHeron ( talk) 13:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let us mention the polygenic scores based on that criterion. Not because they represent scientific consensus, but because they are being put forth as evidence for a fringe view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.106.148.198 ( talk) 14:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:UNDUE, we don't include detailed argumentation for fringe viewpoints. NightHeron ( talk) 14:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but there is a whole section in this article dedicated to research into possible genetic influences, should we delete it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.106.156.142 ( talk) 15:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The talk page at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy had to be semi protected to curtail this repetitive POV pushing. Do we have to request that be done here as well? - MrOllie ( talk) 15:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the type of the pseudo-scientific racist rant (that I have just reverted per wp:NOTFORUM) being attracted, unfortunately yes, it seems that we do. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing "psuedoscientific" about this. The genetic hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis, just like any other, and it makes very specific predictions, including that these polygenic scores will be different. The only reason these polygenic scores are not being added, is because they constitute very powerful evidence in favour of a genetic component to racial gaps in IQ, and you guys want to suppress and hide this information from the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:4863:BF9C:825:FDE9 ( talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

|}

Ok guys, these polygenic scores either support hederitrianism, or they do not. If the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (a reliable source as far as I can tell) says they do not, do you not think this is an important development in this field that should be included? Unless the point I do not get is that you guys just want to hide this information from the public. I am looking for an argument, not another sudden closing or the discussion please. 2800:484:877C:94F0:78E7:361E:A26D:7647 ( talk) 21:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to keep having this conversation over and over. MrOllie ( talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We have had it for the reliability of the sources in Intelligence and MDPI, and FINE, I conceded that. But no one has called into question the reliability of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. As far as I can tell, not argument has been given for not including the paragraph that says that the polygenic scores do NOT support hereditarianism. Especially since it is right in line with modern scientific consensus.

Why you do not want to include that second paragraph has not been discussed yet. 2800:484:877C:94F0:1D0E:83AF:628:E99 ( talk) 21:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe instead we can turn this around and you can explain to the rest of us what mentioning this study would add to the discussion of race and intelligence? It would seem to me rather that it refutes fringe claims which are undue for inclusion. Note that if you accuse this community of attempting to "hide information from the public" ever again you will not get another second of consideration from me, and will likely have your comment removed as a violation of talk page guidelines. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the field of genetics has advanced enormously over the last few years. If there is new, direct genetic evidence that the Black-White IQ gap, for example, is not genetic, then that would seem a substantial development in this very field, would you not agree? And since there definitely is an almost universal scientific consensus against racial hereditarianism, should we not present to the public the strong, cutting edge, direct genetic evidence that adds to the mountain of support there already is for this consensus? after all, the last sentence in the introduction says "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." But fails to provide any examples of this. How about we include this very study as a shining example of that claim? 2800:484:877C:94F0:9CB:E91:4744:EDCC ( talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The article as written actually includes lots of examples to support that statement. So I'm not buying your premise here. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I was speaking of the introduction, which maybe could include a few citations at that point at least. But let us look at the section "Genetics of race and intelligence",

First it says: a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences".

Then it says: A 2005 literature review article by Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time.

And there are a few other sentences to the same effect in the section. Now honestly, that section is out of date, we now know of thousands of genetic variants that are associated with Educational Attainment now. Do you not think that section needs to be updated?

2800:484:877C:94F0:D503:EAD8:E165:4323 ( talk) 03:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to discuss whether citations belong in the lead, that would be another conversation. Per MOS:LEAD we cannot describe something in the lead which is not discussed at greater length in the article body. In any case, there are in fact lots more examples in the article than the few you describe here. And to your final point, as has been explained numerous times before, making the leap from educational attainment to intelligence would be WP:OR unless the sources themselves do so explicitly. And even if they do, unless they explicitly discuss these statements about intelligence in terms of race then they do not belong in this article. After considering these issues there is a final filter: are they primary sources (such as a single study) or are they secondary sources (such as e.g. a literature review)? We can use primary sources only to support statements that are made notable by inclusion in reliable secondary sources. The secondary sources are the guide to what we consider encyclopedic. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nature explicitly says: generates polygenic scores that explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3

So it is not OR.

Stanford picked up, not the more recent larger study, but a previous smaller one that also pinned down a few hundred SNPs with genome wide significance for EA: https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/genetics-success-how-snps-associated-educational-attainment-relate-life-course-development

That is your secondary source.

None discussed this specifically in terms of race, but they do make all of those statements in the "Genetics of race and intelligence" section, outdated. They are:

1) Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence.

2) Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.[158][159] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences".

3) A 2005 literature review article by Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time."

4) "Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range."

Come to think of it, statements (1) and (2) do not explicitly discuss these statements about intelligence in terms of race, given that and that they are clearly outdated, maybe they should be deleted.

Finally, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/ Does discuss in terms of race. Not picked up by any secondary sources yet, but you could add it as "Kevin A Bird has found that the distribution of these genetic variants lends no support to the hereditarian hypothesis" or something like that.

2800:484:877C:94F0:D503:EAD8:E165:4323 ( talk) 04:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you've worked out why the stuff you've proposed doesn't belong in this article. As to whether 1) and 2) should be cut, that's a separate conversation, and I invite you to start a new thread to discuss that if you'd like. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I just did a simple IP lookup and saw that you are very likely to be the same user as IP 191.106.144.142, who, from their single comment, is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia per WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. Honestly I regret having devoted any time to engaging with you in an effort to assume good faith. Instead I should have checked your IP immediately. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Jewish. 2800:484:877C:94F0:C026:2849:7482:9EF6 ( talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Long and proud, 17 generations, Sephardic Jewish pedigree, on my mother's side, going back at least until the early 1400s. Not that that is relevant but still. 2800:484:877C:94F0:C026:2849:7482:9EF6 ( talk) 20:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The section on "Genetics of race and intelligence" has many sentences to the effect that no genetic variants affecting intelligence in the normal range have been discovered. That is not longer true. We should remove that.

2800:484:877C:94F0:C026:2849:7482:9EF6 ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the more interesting areas of Race and Intelligence that is not explored at all in this article.

2800:484:877C:94F0:C026:2849:7482:9EF6 ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |}

Why was this reverted?

In recent years scientists have found thousands of Single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with intelligence. The distribution of these genetic variants across races can be summarized in polygenic scores. These scientific developments have provided no support for the hereditarian hypothesis for racial differences in cognitive ability. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fq90 ( talk • contribs)

A short stroll through recent discussions on this talk page (and its archives) will demonstrate that there is a clear consensus against including this content. Edit warring it back into the article after being reverted is disruptive, and such behavior will not result in the content being included. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the archives I saw there was clear consensus against the addition of a statement to the opposite effect, on the basis that the Journal Intelligence and MDPI were not reliable sources, but I have not seen a consensus or any reason given to exclude the above paragraph, which says exactly the opposite of what the paragraph that was shut down by the consensus of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fq90 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Without assuming bad faith, I'd like to know whether you are the same editor who was posting in those above discussions as an IP. Your language style and reasoning appear to be identical. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No clue what you are talking about. Removing the most up to date and accurate information from an encyclopedia entry is also disruptive. Users who come to the article and read the section on "Genetics of race and intelligence" are going to go home thinking that no genetic variants contributing to variation in intelligence in the normal range have been found yet, and that is not the current state of the science. Do you not think this is problematic? Fq90 ( talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have no clue what I am talking about then you have not done the work of familiarizing yourself with previous discussions of this topic. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have, I only meant to say that I am not the user you mentioned. So is it problematic in your view that the readers of Wikipedia are going home thinking this encyclopedia has given them the most up to date and accurate information when as a matter of fact it has not? Fq90 ( talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been rejected again and again, there is obviously no consensus for inclusion. MrOllie ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm confused as to why we'd not include this stuff in general as it's clearly relevant to the topic. The piece cited by Fq90 is literally cited in our FAQ on this apge. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ EvergreenFir: I'm not seeing it. Firefangledfeathers 19:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Firefangledfeathers: It's in "Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence?", the "[9]" link. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Ctrl-F failed me. Firefangledfeathers 19:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ EvergreenFir: The reason is that it's not clear that the views this study refutes are notable for inclusion in the article. If there were multiple reliable independent sources like this refuting those views then the situation would be different. The recent history is that an overtly racist IP argued for adding it after their more direct strategy of POV-pushing failed. It seems they figured they could use this study as a Trojan horse to justify presenting hereditarian arguments in more detail or something of that nature. Regardless, the basic issue is that this study does not appear to be DUE for inclusion when the views it refutes have so far not been considered to be. Further, if it were to be included, it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading. And it's not at all clear that such a detailed presentation would be DUE. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Generalrelative: Okay, that makes more sense. I don't know enough about the topic to assess DUE and don't have the time to look into it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Generalrelative: Lots of things lend themselves to facile misreadings. For example, suppose someone who knows a few thousand genetic variants associated with intelligence have been discovered already comes to this Wikipedia article and only finds information from 10 years ago saying none have. That person is bound to ask themselves why this information has not been included, some might even be inclined to think that the editors are making an effort to hide this information from them. We would not want that would we? Fq90 ( talk) 23:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ EvergreenFir: Exactly, like, it is 2022 already, the last reference in the "Genetics of race and intelligence" is from 10 years ago. The section needs updating. Fq90 ( talk) 19:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any recent secondary sources that discuss SNPs in the context of race and intelligence? Firefangledfeathers 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

[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. [54] Generalrelative ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Firefangledfeathers: I do not know, what worries me is what I have been saying, the readers of the encyclopedia are coming here expecting us to give them up-to-date and accurate information, and they are going home with the more-than-10-years-ago-no-longer-true state of the science. What further worries me is that no one here seems to think this is a problem. Fq90 ( talk) 23:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Up-to-dateness is not such a high priority for us and is in tension with both accuracy, especially in technical areas and controversial ones, and neutrality, which are more important. We do not need to cover novel findings that have not yet been discussed and evaluated in reliable sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, forget mentioning the polygenic scores, focus on merely mentioning that thousands of genetic variants that contribute to variation in intelligence have been discovered already. Would you not say that this is up-to-date, accurate, neutral and uncontroversial, and that these findings have been widely discussed in reliable sources? Further would you not say that the current state of the article, which says that no such genetic variants have been discovered is simply, objectively inaccurate?

As I said, forget mentioning the polygenic scores and its implications, I would be quite happy if we simply add this:

A 2018 study found 1,271 genome-wide significant Single-nucleotide polymorphism that collectively explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance. ^[2] Fq90 ( talk) 02:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, we generally do not report on single studies. Especially for biomedical information because the state of the art tends to fluctuate quite a bit. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: There is actually secondary material on this. See this 2017 meta-analysis in Nature genetics [55] and the accompanying editorial in Nature [56]. The number is smaller than reported in the 2018 study Fq90 mentions, and the conclusions are more tentative: The meta-analysis identifies 18 genomic regions associated with intelligence, and candidate genes that are highly expressed in the brain. The associations, the study suggests, could explain up to 4.8% of the variance in intelligence across these cohorts. But it's true that there is decent evidence that some specifically identifiable genomic regions contribute a non-zero amount to individual differences in IQ. It's also worth emphasizing that the editorial states explicitly that this provides absolutely no evidence for group-level differences in innate intelligence. I would be okay with removing any content in the existing article which contradicts this. I would not however support adding anything to the article, such as a reference to the meta-analysis itself, which does not discuss race and intelligence, since doing so would clearly be SYNTH. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some WP:BOLD edits along these lines. Anyone is of course free to revert (barring 1RR violations of course) and discuss here. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've indef semi-protected the talk page due to serious signal to noise ratio issues and disruption. This is logged under the Arbitration log as an enforcement issue, a continuation of the previous AE case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Generalrelative: Well, hello again! I noticed that you reverted my addition of the Evolutionary psychology navigation box to this article. I most certainly do not dispute that the theory that ethnic and racial differences in intelligence are biologically based is an argument that falls under WP:FRINGE but it was based upon assumptions related to group selection, while contemporary evolutionary psychology as proposed by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby is based upon the selfish-genetic view of evolution as proposed by George C. Williams, W. D. Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, and Richard Dawkins in the 1960s and 1970s which was formulated explicitly in rejection of group selection. See Tooby and Cosmides in their 2015 interview with Reason.tv where they note that the principal subject of interest in their field are cultural universals. Cosmides and Tooby initiated the line of research related to the Wason selection task in the 1980s and 1990s that demonstrated that general intelligence itself is more related to non-arbitrary and evolutionarily familiar problems rather than to arbitrary and evolutionarily novel ones in line with longstanding observations made by other critics of the theory such as Thomas Sowell, James R. Flynn, and Richard E. Nisbett (as noted in the Evolution of human intelligence article section about Social exchange theory). I would argue that because Cosmides and Tooby helped formulated the framework that helped displace the racialist theory with one that is still consistent with the mainstream of evolutionary theory warrants its inclusion in the Related topics list of the navbox along with the other articles listed in the parentheses after Unit of selection. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello CommonKnowledgeCreator. This is all very interesting, but it still seems to me that the article topic is quite a bit too tangential to the category to merit inclusion. Of course if others agree with you then I will not stand in the way. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Very well. I'll remove until and unless there is consensus on the talk page. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a pseudo-scientific subject. Science only comes in indirectly, via the refutation of the pseudo-scientific theory. Since the navigation box is about science, IMHO it should not be added here. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Does it fit in with evolutionary psychology though, regardless of it is scientific or pseudo-scientific? The navigation box is in it current forms about the wider topic not just science on it. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the navbox include homeopathy, dowsing or lizard people? If so, go ahead and add even more nonsense. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Those are clearly not the same, but if there were appropriate navigation boxes then I would say go ahead and put them there. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that infobox doesn't have a line for pseudoscience topics. Phrenology is another obvious candidate for such a line since obviously one can tell how evolved an ethnic group are from the shape of their skulls. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the FAQ above this talk page need more citation. GUT412454 ( talk) 10:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty fun. https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/ - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

See the section above. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Our article's prior short description was: "Discussions and claims of differences in intelligence along racial lines."

I edited it to to read: "Differences in average intelligence between races."

My explanation: "Per WP:VIA WP:VAI, replaced vague, unhelpful, and musteline short description… Removed "discussions of" as this is an encyclopedia article. Removed "along racial lines" as it's unnecessarily vague. Removed "claims of" in accordance with WP:NPOV, MOS:DOUBT, and MOS:CLAIM—while the cause(s) may remain controversial, expert consensus has long acknowledged significant differences, as measured by IQ."

Three minutes later, my edit was summarily reverted, with the sole explanation: "nope - we don't assert as fact minority-opinion claims." The reverting editor initiated no discussion on the Talk page, offered no explanation of what these "minority-opinion claims" might be, and blithely ignored the guidance in WP:REVONLY while wholesale reverting my tripartite edit and explanation.

As I'd written in my explanation, the fact that there are differences in average tested intelligence between racial groups is the majority, consensus view. The text of our article makes this abundantly clear:

• "In the US, individuals identifying themselves as Asian generally tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who tend to score higher than Hispanics, who tend to score higher than African Americans."

• "...differences in average test performance between racial groups were observed…"

• "A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate settings (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million)."

• The article cites the Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns report to establish the "consensus" that differences in intelligence between races exist: "Regarding group differences, the report reaffirmed the consensus that differences within groups are much wider than differences between groups." The report itself is specific about those differences: "African American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests."

Indeed, the entire article is about, as I succinctly summarized: "Differences in average intelligence between races." While much of the article is devoted to deconstructing the terms and meanings of "race" and "intelligence" while promulgating a minority view that none of the differences in average intelligence between races could possibly be genetic in origin—nowhere does our article reference any consensus that differences in average intelligence between racial groups do not exist or that their existence is merely a "minority-opinion claim". Indeed, the exact opposite is true.

I welcome input regarding our short description—but the mealy-mouthed one that is there now serves our article poorly, and contradicts a host of Wikipedia guidance. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Test results are not the same as intelligence. Your edit summary made it seem like a difference in intelligence really existed. And we already had this discussion about three or four hundred times on this talk page, so other editors with more patience may reply to you again, but I won't. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

First, my error above: I meant WP:VAI (not WP:AVI), and in the context of WP:SDESC—guidance over which the current short description runs roughshod.

Second, if you read my "edit summary", you know that I wrote: "...expert consensus has long acknowledged significant differences, as measured by IQ." That said, can you point me to some of the more significant of these 400-odd discussions of the WP:SDESC for this article?

Third, the expert consensus is that intelligence tests measure human intelligence—that's hardly a "minority-opinion claim", but rather the long-accepted scientific view. Quibbling over what "intelligence" means doesn't change that simple fact. That being said, I have no problem with "Racial groups differ in average intelligence, as measured by intelligence tests." The last clause is superfluous, as intelligence tests are the only scientifically accepted method for testing and comparing intelligence—so it seems an odd thing on which to insist. And if one really believed in the distinction, wouldn't one advocate for the article to be titled "Race and intelligence-test scores"? Nevertheless, perhaps that's a reasonable compromise which comports with WP:SDESC? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is more than about average differences in intelligence between racial groups. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What else is it "about", exactly? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is also about the lack of intrinsic differences in intelligence between racial groups, and the controversy of theories regarding differences in intelligence between racial groups. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there is precisely zero chance that you are going to persuade the community to allow you to present WP:RACISTBELIEFS in Wikivoice. There is no scientific rationale for defining intelligence as "what IQ tests measure" any more than there is for defining the intrinsic worth of a human being in terms of their Net worth. The consensus is that IQ measures some aspects of intelligence, but if you think that translates into a consensus that some races are more or less intelligent than others then you are simply, profoundly mistaken. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing that heritability has to be mentioned at all, but it is currently mentioned in the article. If the article is going to mention that environmental factors play a major role, it should be clear that IQ in adults is mostly hereditary. The article currently gives the impression that environmental factors are more important, or at least as important as hereditary factors, which may mislead a reader. The current state of this section of the article either needs to be removed entirely or added to as to not be misleading. Thespearthrower ( talk) 20:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@ AndyTheGump: I don't think I can revert due to 1RR but if you see material misrepresenting the claim of its alleged source, you have to remove/modify it. Given that you realized the source doesn't correspond to the claims made in the article whatsoever, you should have removed the content or found a fitting source. Unless somebody has done so, I will be removing the material tomorrow, as per policy.- Thespearthrower ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You altered data concerning the year 2017–2018, apparently based on data from the source cited, which now shows data for 2020-2021. Do you have access to the 2017–2018 data? Because otherwise, I can't see any evidence that anyone was 'misrepresenting' anything. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found the 2017–2018 data. [58] I'll correct the link. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Thespearthrower ( talk) 17:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I read this pathetic outpour in the 'net about how wikipedia is wrong and blahblah. And also that it censores science. I wouldn't want to see Wikipedia censor science, so I decided to take a look.

In a deletion discussion (one of many), there was one very sound argument for deleting it: the same could be covered by Race and Intelligence, and should be, since not every fringe theory deserves its own page. All good. HOWEVER, this page doesn't mention the theory at all! So, on to find if the scientific sources listed in a late version of the article are found, here's four that seem prominent (peer-reviewed, published): ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

I think it would serve Wikipedia well to critique these sources, and salvage into this article what can be salvaged, about the clearly existing and notable "exceptional Ashkenazi genetic intelligence" theory.

-- Sigmundur ( talk) 12:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Sigmundur ( talk) 12:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You have linked a discussion from 2007, which closed as no consensus. I suggest you read the latest AfD discussion instead. [59]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Quillette article you linked is, at the very best, dishonest. At worst, it's a steaming pile of bullshit used to advocate racism. Happy ( Slap me) 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Quillette, per WP:RSP, is not a reliable source for facts. Obviously we're not going to change our articles in response to their opinions. The sources you've published are largely fringe - the first one is a book review that specifically describes the book as unreliable and controversial, summarizing its argument as limited and biased. The second barely intelligence, and only in passing. The third is the very book that your first source dismisses as trash. The final one is... Richard Lynn, most notable for his work at Mankind Quarterly, the journal of scientific racism. This is the sort of unreliable, unscientific nonsense you get when you search for sources to back up a culture-war-trash source like Quillette. If that's all you can drudge up in support of their nonsense, it's certainly not notable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is an example of gaming the standard for and meaning of "Reliable Source". RS isn't relevant here because the article wasn't being used as a source, it was shared with editors here because it's criticizing the handling of this entry. This "demonize and exile the source" mentality is exactly what the article was talking about.

  Further, RS needs to be applied to each topic and article individually - the concept of reliable source whose every article is blessed is a joke. Anyone can clearly see that the Quillette article is making easily checkable claims (specifically that the contents of this article have changed) and the burden of proof is vastly different than if someone was trying to use them as a primary source to prove the existence of UFOs. Less than perfect sources can be used, with consensus approval, when they're in a more reliable topic or when the material makes only trivial claims (ie about Wikipedia history).

  Wikipedia rules should not be quoted to shut down discussion but in a helpful manner that assumes good faith.

  InverseZebra ( talk) 19:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Are there any changes to the article you would like to propose? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting changes to talk page behavior and how non-editors are treated by editors. Proposed changes are supposed to be discussed in good faith and people clearly aren't doing that here. InverseZebra ( talk) 17:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh god, I came here to talk about this very thing and it looks like someone was already doing it. Does anyone know why there is no mention of Ashklenazi Jews in this article? Also, in the section on test scores, I think we should differentiate between South Asians and East Asians. Asian is a term that is too broad, it encompasses everyone from Syrians to Koreans. TheHaberProcess ( talk) 18:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC) striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should not just check that somebody is discussing this but also read what they write? They write that the sources are crap. Without useable sources, we cannot mention the subject. The same holds for Asians. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed that this was a bit unfair since the last contribution saying the sources are crap was newer than the "oh god" contribution. Still, there you have the reason. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

When I added it I added it with this source ^[5]. It looks OK to me. I also found it odd the article does not mention Ashkenazi Jews at all because our are widely debated by people who study this.striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a passing mention in a book review (again). These sorts of sources just don't support the assertion that this is an important aspect of the subject. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Originally I cited Forbes, I did not quite understand why it was not reliable in this context. But there is a plethora of sources, forgive me, I just put the links because proper formatting is too much work, but :

Also, it is important that we talk about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, because there are so many anti-semitic conspiracy theories out there based on the overrepresentation of the Jews high positions, but that is shown to be bonkers once you simply control for IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHaberProcess ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For content concerning scientific topics, we don't cite Vox, the American Enterprise Institute, or op-eds in the NYT. And no, it isn't even remotely necessary to 'control for IQ' to refute antisemitic conspiracy theories, any more than it is necessary to 'control for the non-existence of shape-shifting lizards' to refute similar theories concerning the New World Order, the Illuminati, or mind-control through 5G WiFi. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But Vox and NYTimes are already cited in this article. And I think your example proves my point, it is precisely because shape-shifting lizards do not exist that those conspiracy theories are bonkers. I think your example is more about the fact that most people already know that those lizards do not exist, so there is no need to even mention it to show to most people those theories are silly. In the case of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, this is well known among ourselves, but the public at large is not so well informed. If they were though, they would have a retort when some nutjob comes to them talking about how X or Y percent of the bankers are Jewish. TheHaberProcess ( talk) 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/right-wing-personality-on-jewish-question-ashkenazim-have-high-iq-547159

Stephen Pinker: https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

TheHaberProcess ( talk) 21:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This article does not exist to refute conspiracy theories, especially ones unrelated or tangentially-related to intelligence, and it is an insult to our intelligence that editors would believe that is the reason it is proposed to include content about the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you guys are against inclusion of this content. The topic has been discussed in a wide range of sources, a lot of which seem very OK to me, some of whom are cited in this very article. And the topic is not tangentially-related, it is at the core of the issue. An article about race and intelligence should mention the most intelligent race, just as an article about dog breed intelligence would be remiss if there was no mention of the border collie. TheHaberProcess ( talk) 22:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Jewish culture is focussed on learning, thinking and discussing. It is known that actually using your brain increases your competence at using it, and therefore the consensus is that any higher intelligence of Ashkenazi already has a very good explanation.

The Pinker source you quote says, This does not imply that differences between groups are also genetic, since one group may experience a difference across the board, such as in wealth, discrimination, or social and cultural capital and CH&H's evidence is circumstantial and But all the hypotheses would have to be true for the theory as a whole to be true--and much of the evidence is circumstantial, and the pivotal hypothesis is the one for which they have the least evidence. So, you claim Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent race, but the very source you quote regards this as highly dubious. (I did not check Peterson because he is a crappy source - most psychoanalysts do not understand how science works, and Peterson definitely does not. He talks a lot of Dunning-Krugerish nonsense about evolution too.)

It is not enough that sources seem very OK to you. They must also seem very OK to the people here who are familiar with the subject, and the subject needs to be relevant enough. They have tried to explain why. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I think the relevant factor is Jewish moms, have you heard you are only Jewish if your mom is Jewish? The status of the father is irrelevant. I can get the ref for you if you like, but I heard Paul Bloomn in his psychology lectures saying that the fact that IQ seems to vary more by social conditions, like, whether you were born to a Jewish mother or father, as an argument against hereditarianism. It is not what you would expect if it were genetic, given you get half genes from mom and dad. I am not endorsing Pinker's or Peterson's or Bloom's views on anything for that matter, I am just saying the topic is salient enough for lots of high profile psychologists and even geneticists to discuss it.

The evidence is less comprehensive for other groups in the US. According to a number of secondary sources, Ashkenazi Jews are have an average IQ that is between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean for white gentiles.(sources) However, the primary research on the topic is wanting and said advantage seems to be more associated with how individuals are regarded rather than their genetic make up.(Bloom source here) Indian Americans are also a group with high average educational and occupational attainment. There is some preliminary evidence that their average IQ is roughly on a pair with that of Ashkenazi Jews.(if not Forbes, maybe this book: US-India Forward Leap—The Partnership Building - Page 140, or both) This may be because only individuals with high educational and occupational status can migrate from India to the U.S. TheHaberProcess ( talk) 07:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely after the mountains of previous discussion on this topic, is there really anyone who knows the first thing about the topic who is still mistaking performance on IQ tests with actual intelligence? Or that the class of people who choose to leave their ancestral home to pursue opportunities elsewhere, are a true random sample of that population? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 09:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any content you propose to include in the article? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how those two last comments are relevant to my proposed addition. The second half of Maynard's comment is right in that Indian Americans are a highly selected population. Perhaps we can mention that in the paragraph? Regarding the comment by Onetwothreeip, if it was addressed to me, then yes, the paragraph above TheHaberProcess ( talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Clueful editors are invited to participate at Talk:Eyferth study#Request for comment on hereditarianism subsection. Generalrelative ( talk) 07:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No evidence for such a connection has ever been published.

A statement signed by 143 senior human population geneticists states categorically that genetics research in no way supports the view that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results".

As understanding of the human genome and the science of population genetics advances, it has become increasingly clear that race is not a biologically meaningful way to categorize human population groups. See for example this statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Even if we take ancestral population groups to be proxies for race, most subject-matter experts agree that cognitive differences between such such groups are unlikely to exist.

Extensive evidence has been published which indicates that observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups are environmental in origin.

Most researchers view the idea of a genetic connection between race and intelligence as scientifically obsolete. 

Recently @ AndyTheGrump reverted my edit that corrected an inaccuracy in the lead about scientific consensus

I replaced the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. with the scientific consensus is that intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. exactly as stated in the cited source of medline plus

he argued that MedlinePlus which is produced by United States National Library of Medicine is not WP:RS, calling it “misuse of source” even though these are the exact words of the source, and claimed it irrelevant even though the title of the article itself is “Race and intelligence” Chafique ( talk) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Even setting aside the reliability issue, you cited a source that is about genetic variation between individuals - this article is about variation between groups. That is an extremely important distinction. See the many, many discussions about this on this talk page and its archives. MrOllie ( talk) 12:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the individual vs group distinction is important. And this sentence of the lead has been repeatedly discussed in the archives, including in several RfCs about the scientific consensus. DFlhb ( talk) 08:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the context of your edit. The lede, like the rest of the article, is discussing supposed differences in IQ between groups ('races'). Your source isn't. Furthermore, the lede is supposed to summarise material discussed in depth in the article body. The article body cites multiple in-depth analyses of the actual topic in question. It is entirely inappropriate to try to counter them in the lede by citing a MedLine webpage aimed at a lay audience. There is a multitude of peer-reviewed and subject-expert written content available on the subject, and those are the sources we should be citing. MedLine is fine for it's intended purpose (providing background information on medical topics to the general public) but it isn't a peer-reviewed journal, and it isn't a reliable source for topics it doesn't even discuss. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Chafique Medline plus is just a digital library run by the National Institutes of Health. They index papers from academic journals, including good and bad. You can find papers purporting to prove demonic possession in MedLine. Inclusion in Medline does not make something good by default. The papers are published in journals (the actual source), not Medline, which simply indexes them. Zenomonoz ( talk) 12:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful when discussing Frederick Douglass. He was the half black, half white offspring of a plantation owner. He is also very important to the issue of Blackface. When new slave families arrived on plantations, plantation owners often allowed their children to interact with the slave kids. Whenever this happened, the black kids would laugh at anything the white kids did, funny or not. This condition was picked up by the whites, it was imitated in traveling circuses, on stage, in vaudeville, and in silent film. It was so bad that when Douglass gained fame, he was told to never smile in pictures taken of him, or it would remind people of the condition. So, of the hundreds of pictures taken of Frederick Douglass, none show him with a smile. This, despite being instructed to ally himself with the Suffragette Movement, having two wives (one white), and five children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What edit are you suggesting? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The article currently reads "There is no evidence for a Jewish IQ advantage." This statement is not supported by the article cited. I'll outline here the relevant section of the article, "Jewish—Non-Jewish Differences in IQ". The first paragraph says there is "little good evidence" about the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, then citing three studies which provide some evidence of higher Ashkenazi Jewish IQ; they say these studies are samples of convenience. They seem to be convinced that such a difference exists. Rather than arguing there is no difference, they instead go on to discuss in the second paragraph the source of the difference, focusing on Cochran et al.'s sphingolipid explanation. They do not believe there is strong enough evidence in favor of this theory, but still do not believe to be affirmatively untrue, as they still regard it to be "an intriguing suggestion". In their third paragraph, they note that even the highest estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ wouldn't account for the observed differences in Ashkenazi Jewish accomplishment. This is the entirety of their treatment of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ.

There is no bad-faith interpretation here, this is the straightforward, plain reading of the source material. Even if you think one source is sufficient to establish the existence of academic consensus, this source does not suffice, as it directly contradicts the claim currently made in the article. The authors explicitly say that there exists evidence/data in favor of the proposition. Where am I wrong here?

If you wanted to say "According to such-and-such authors, there is 'little good evidence' for an Ashkenazi Jewish IQ advantage", that would be supported by the source, though it would be somewhat biased towards what you want to be true. But the claim that there is no evidence is straightforwardly false. Peaux ( talk) 01:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

See my post just above where I address this. Let's limit the conversation to a single thread. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was this content deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousCrafter123 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. I've self-reverted. NightHeron ( talk) 18:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@ NightHeron I'm not going to complain if you think this content is really necessary (though I don't see the point myself), but can you fix the sfn multiple-target error that you've re-introduced please? Thanks, Wham2001 ( talk) 10:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

What error are you referring to? I'm not familiar with the term "multiple-target error". Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

See Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors – it's where a shortened footnote (reference using {{ harv}}, {{ sfn}} or one of their relatives) points to more than one long-form citation. The solution in this case is to convert the inline reference to Nisbet et al. (2021a) to a shortened footnote (sfn) citation. If you edit articles using shortened footnotes more than very occasionally, I would recomned installing this script, which highlights various kinds of problems with shortened references in a clear and helpful manner. Best, Wham2001 ( talk) 17:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question was put in not by me, but by CuriousCrafter123 two days ago. I've never used the "shortened footnote form", don't know how to use it or how to correct it when misused, and have already spent almost an hour trying unsuccessfully to understand it. If you want to revert CC123's edit, I won't object. I thought the content was relevant and well-sourced, but it's not crucial for this article. NightHeron ( talk) 18:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, harv and sfn are not obvious the first few times. I've converted the reference. Best wishes, Wham2001 ( talk) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring over this, and the claim has been made in an edit summary that the sentence misrepresents the source. I took the time to reread the relevant section just now, and I see the authors are quite clear that there isn't any real evidence that Jews (or Ashkenazi Jews in particular) in fact have higher IQs on average than other populations. As the authors emphasize, All available studies, however, are based on samples of convenience. They then go on to discuss the question of to what we should attribute the greater overall intellectual ability popularly attributed to Jews. But "popularly attributed" does not imply that there is in fact scientific evidence. The closest thing to evidence that they cite are two estimates comparing Jews in Britain and America to White non-Jews in the same countries, and one of these estimates is by notorious quack Richard Lynn. All that said, I'm not especially committed to retaining the edit, which was added by a brand new account (it's been discussed before, e.g., whether Jewish intelligence is relevant to this article at all, given that there is some question as to whether "Jewish" is a racial category) but I don't think that the rationale that was given for removing it in this instance makes sense. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing evidence with conclusive evidence. The authors explicitly state that there does exist weak evidence in favor of the proposition, and discuss it as if it were true. Note, for example, that rather than discussing why the belief may have come about that Ashki Jews have higher IQs, they instead discuss a theory that would explain a higher AJ average IQ. They describe the theory as "an intriguing suggestion", a descriptor very unlikely to be used about a theory of a mechanism explaining something you believe to be untrue.

For a couple other examples: other than this joke study, there have not been any studies done to the highest level of rigor to show that parachutes prevent death. Relative to the standard in the field (randomized controlled trials), the evidence we have that parachutes prevent death is weak. On the other hand, there is lots of strong evidence (RCTs, meta-analyses, the whole lot being peer-reviewed) of certain psychic abilities in humans (ESP). There's also equally strong evidence against. But while most people and scientists would likely say there is no chance ESP is real, the statement that there is no evidence of it is false, and the statement that there is only weak evidence that parachutes save lives is (technically) true.

You're right that "popularly attributed" doesn't imply that there is evidence, nor do I mean to suggest it does. However, you ignore the rest of the sentence: "supported by (weak) data". This is explicitly saying that there exists evidence, but that the evidence should not be taken as conclusive. I genuinely do not understand how this could be read any other way. Peaux ( talk) 05:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I could scrawl any false statistics I wanted on on a cocktail napkin. Perhaps I could even find someone willing to described it as "intriguing". That napkin would, technically, be a kind of 'evidence', but to present it as "some evidence" would be either disingenuous or completely and dramatically missing the point. Richard Lynn's fringe pseudoscientific nonsense is just about as legitimate as that hypothetical napkin-scrawling would be. It's perfectly possible for a theory to be intriguing without being supported by a shred of real evidence. Grayfell ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That napkin would not be evidence. Samples of convenience, however, are. If your claim is that they all falsified data, as you hypothetically did on your hypothetical napkin, then you'd be right to say there is no evidence. But you have provided nothing to back up that claim, and the source cited certainly doesn't either.

You can say that you consider the data that exist to be nonsense, but the source cited in the article, supposedly by seven top scholars in the field, does not.

And you misunderstand the "intriguing" comment/argument. They are referring to the proposed mechanism, not the proposed effect, as intriguing; and my argument is that people generally do not consider proposed mechanisms for effects they believe not to exist, to be intriguing.

Again, they explicitly state that there does exist weak evidence of the proposition. Whether you believe that evidence or not, the statement that no evidence exists is false. Peaux ( talk) 06:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right that I haven't provided evidence that Lynn falsified his data, because this is a Wikipedia talk page and that would be WP:OR. Fortunately, dozens of published scientists have already done that work for us. We have already had many, many, many discussions of Lynn, as well as Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending, on these and related talk pages. This is junk science and per WP:FRINGE, should not be legitimized on Wikipedia. If you want real evidence that Lynn falsified, William H. Tucker (psychologist)'s work comes highly recommended, or if you want a more approachable work, Superior: The Return of Race Science is pretty good despite (and because) of the complaints of the scientific racists it documents. For Harpending etc., off the top of my head, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) is one previous discussion about this. As I mentioned on that discussion, they are not serious scholars and do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. If they are right about any aspect of their 'intriguing' theories, it's almost certainly a coincidence or "stopped-clock" kind of thing, and not because of the merits of their supposed research. Grayfell ( talk) 06:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

All that is well and good, but if true, then that would cast significant doubt on the legitimacy of the source cited in this article, which treats them as legitimate work. Peaux ( talk) 06:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave aside the bulk of what you're arguing because it seems to me to be a barrel of red herrings (if you'll forgive the phrase). The fact of the matter is that Cochran et al.'s hypothesis is in no way evidence that Jews have higher IQs than others. I will say, by the way, that I find the use of the term "IQ advantage" to be misleading (the sources sometimes use it, unfortunately, but not in this instance). We're really just talking about average performance on a specific set of tests, and in order to make claims about that we'd need systematic studies, i.e. most certainly not "samples of convenience". And the authors are clear that such systematic studies did not exist at the time of writing. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand my argument. Of course, a hypothesis is not evidence. However, the fact that the authors of the source discussed a hypothesized mechanism for the proposed effect is evidence that they, who (I believe) you described as seven top scholars in the field, find the proposed effect credible enough to care about how it might be explained. The hypothesis isn't evidence, but the fact that they discuss it is evidence they believe to some extent in the effect you claim there is no evidence for. As for whether samples of convenience should be considered evidence, you're right that they are not sufficiently conclusive evidence. But you are substituting your personal judgement for that of the authors of the source. They explicitly describe the effect in question as "supported by (weak) data". You have consistently ignored that the text of the source directly contradicts the claim made in the article. I'll also note, the standards you propose are an isolated demand for rigor. There are lots of effects in psychology for which the only evidence is samples of convenience (college students in psych classes or in general). We do not describe those effects as being supported by "no evidence". Peaux ( talk) 06:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I have misunderstood nothing. "Weak data" is scientist-talk for "no evidence". We've had similar discussions many times before on this talk page and the consensus is always the same. The authors of the review are certainly entertaining Cochran et al.'s argument, but they also present a pretty compelling case to reject the whole premise of a genetic Jewish IQ advantage in the final sentence of the section. In any case, see below. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

They present no case at all that the existing evidence should be ignored. As for the final sentence, it's a non sequitur. They say that a higher mean IQ, even if true, would be insufficient to explain the differences in achievement observed. This has no bearing on whether the claim is true or not.

I'm glad to see you're making the right decision, albeit disappointed, of course, in your reason for it. Peaux ( talk) 07:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, please give the ill-placed moralizing a rest. I've quoted the entire relevant section above so that others can make up their own minds. It's time to give them a chance to weigh in if they'd like. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I'm going to come down on the side of removing this content –– though not, I should emphasize, for any of the reasons raised by Miladragon3/Peaux. The fact remains that the sentence refers to "Jewish IQ advantage" which is a fundamentally misleading phrase. The previous sentences are about IQ test scores, so to fit in thematically we'd need to revise it to say that there's no good evidence for what the average IQ of Jews is. If folks think that's important to say here, that's fine, but I find it awkward. If you have nothing substantive to say about it, why bring it up? And this is leaving aside the concern that I raised above about Jews not necessarily being a racial grouping. On the whole, I just don't think the sentence as-is fits and I don't think a "fixed" version really adds much to the article. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a context-free statement that "There is no evidence for a Jewish IQ advantage" is entirely inappropriate. It seems to have been added because it expects readers to already be familiar with a rather esoteric debate concerning Ashkenazi Jews (not Jews in general). If this particular debate was of real significance to the 'race and intelligence' topic, and could be demonstrated to be so by citing sources which argued this, there might be a case for discussing it, while providing a proper context, but slapping in a 'no evidence' claim about something not previously discussed it just bad writing, even ignoring the vary many obvious problems involved in implying in Wikipedia's voice that Jews are a 'race' - an implication which absolutely does not belong in any serious discussion of a scientific topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I dug into this a bit more and I have reason to suspect that the burner account used to add this sentence was R&I LTA Fq90, possibly just trying to stir the pot. If anyone's curious I'll be happy to discuss via email. I'm going to go ahead and remove the disputed content for now. But if other experienced editors would like to take ownership of the content and re-add, I won't stand in the way. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. If restored, it should be rephrased to more accurately reflect the cited source. Grayfell ( talk) 00:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The phrase in the lede “Further complicating the issue, modern science has shown race to be a social construct rather than a biological reality” masks controversy and is not appropriate verbiage for an encyclopedic explanation of science. Science has not “shown” race to “be” a social construct. Some scientific perspectives have characterized race as a social construct, and more commonly as being more socially constructed than biologically real. But some scientists maintain that race is strongly biological. We should reveal controversy. Zanahary ( talk) 16:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a strong consensus about this over at Race (human categorization), so it won't be relitigated here. But I'll be happy to explain the basics of why we phrase this the way we do.

Per WP:MEDRS, consensus statements by major scientific bodies are among the highest quality sources on scientific topics.

Here's what the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (i.e. biologists who specialize in the species homo sapiens) says:

Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination. It thus does not have its roots in biological reality, but in policies of discrimination. Because of that, over the last five centuries, race has become a social reality that structures societies and how we experience the world. In this regard, race is real, as is racism, and both have real biological consequences.

They go on in slightly more granular detail to explain:

Racial categories do not provide an accurate picture of human biological variation. Variation exists within and among populations across the planet, and groups of individuals can be differentiated by patterns of similarity and difference, but these patterns do not align with socially-defined racial groups (such as whites and blacks) or continentally-defined geographic clusters (such as Africans, Asians, and Europeans). What has been characterized as “race” does not constitute discrete biological groups or evolutionarily independent lineages. Furthermore, while physical traits like skin color and hair texture are often emphasized in racial classification, and assumptions are often made about the pattern of genetic diversity relative to continental geography, neither follows racial lines. The distribution of biological variation in our species demonstrates that our socially-recognized races are not biological categories. While human racial groups are not biological categories, “race” as a social reality — as a way of structuring societies and experiencing the world — is very real. The racial groups we recognize in the West have been socially, politically, and legally constructed over the last five centuries.

So far, in the very extensive debates that have been had on this topic over the years, no one has come close to providing anything like this kind of source arguing that race has a biological meaning. That's why we state it as a fact rather than an opinion that race is socially constructed, per WP:YESPOV. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But controversy exists, doesn’t it? And it’s a controversy central to the article topic? Zanahary ( talk) 20:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, no. If you want to get into the weeds a bit more, here's a much more technical consensus statement on the issue, published earlier this year by the National Academies of Science: Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field. In most other cases I'd encourage you to go to the main article on the topic –– i.e. Talk:Race (human categorization) –– and start a discussion there, but in this instance the issue has already been discussed to death, so I'll suggest rather that you drop it. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You can find a minority view on almost any topic, but Wikipedia does not treat the minority views as equal to the mainstream ones. See WP:YESPOV (as Generalrelative correctly just cited), WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc. MrOllie ( talk) 20:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support adding a sentence to the last lead paragraph about the clear political goals (segregation/eugenics/"racial awareness") of the hereditarian position (based on this paper, page 6), and adding a corresponding paragraph to the body, maybe in the "Policy relevance and ethics" section. Some of this stuff is mentioned in the History section but only in passing; most of this article focuses on the science, but not on the movement linked to that science, and that movement's false claims (that their research is suppressed, "taboo", or that opponents are engaged in "blank-slate" science denial). The paper I linked addresses this at length and is a good source if we decide to cover this. DFlhb ( talk) 08:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to insist; I think it would benefit this article if we covered the false "meta-claims" associated with race and intelligence, like claims of suppression of 'legitimate' research, depictions of respected mainstream academics as blank-slatist ideologues, etc. I may do bold edits in this direction later. DFlhb ( talk) 08:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The answer to this question depends entirely on how many reliable, secondary sources you can find. Sources like these [60] [61] [62] might be argued to add up to some sort of brief statement, but be aware that any substantive addition to this article is likely to attract a new wave of meatpuppetry, so make sure you step correct. It's also worth noting that there are hereditarians and then there are race-and-intelligence hereditarians who fail to grasp the basic population-genetics-101 fact that individual-level heritability does not imply heritable difference at the level of population groups. Though the latter group like to call themselves simply "hereditarians" –– presumably in an effort to falsely cast those who criticize them as critics of hereditarianism writ large –– it's actually their scientific illiteracy that's the problem. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also add: the subsidiary article History of the race and intelligence controversy has a somewhat lower bar to entry. Perhaps it would be best to begin there and then evaluate whether some of that content can be incorporated into the main article? Generalrelative ( talk) 15:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing of the first paragraph when I read it always felt inaccurate. I didn’t know how to articulate until now.

My objections to the current reading is as follows:

(1)- “Science” as defined by wikipedia is an endeavor with the calculus of the scientific method. If we use calculus as a type of logic.

The meaning of endeavor can be either a noun or a verb, but not an object. It is not itself a system. Hence why Wikipedia says science is “systematic”. In logic and model theory only models, systems, or theories can show or demonstrate something. My definition of endeavor is inspired by Websters dictionary and Cambridge, in addition to a preview of the definition from the Oxford dictionary site. I do not have access to the Oxford English dictionary

(1.1)- For science to “show” something is misleading to the audience. Science as defined is a continuous process. Another phrasing which would work is the scientific method as it is a system. This would be more accurate. Even so, this leads me to the next point

(2)- In Oxford’s English learning dictionary “to show” means to prove something, among other things. This type of definition fits best in the context of the paragraph. Another definition by Webster close to this is “to demonstrate or establish by argument or reasoning”. The other definitions I’ve seen have been “to declare” to “peform”. The later definitions cannot be done by a system nor can “establishment”, rather, by people or an object. A formal system in itself cannot show this, a computer for example is build by a system of logic but it is the computer itself which can only demonstrate propositions, images, or declarations. The later cases do not seem to fit.

(2)- Now, to “prove” or “demonstrate by argument or reasoning”. As indicated by the edit, it is debatable whether or not the scientific method can show or “prove” anything. As commentators on this subject have offered perspectives, Kuhn and Popper in particular, who are the closest to holding positivist positions in the epistemology of science, there is disagreement. The school of conventionalism inherently carries an issue that there is an indeterminacy of proof. A formal system which we hold to understand an objective perception of the world is limited by its measuring apparati. Popper, holds two things: you cannot prove anything in science, only falsify. But to falsify is another term than to “show”. My edit comments were cut off but I added other suggestions. It might be better to replace show with “falsify”. Finally Kuhn holds the only systems we have in the domain of science are paradigms which may be superseded by later paradigms. So another phrasing which would be more precise is “the modern scientific paradigm has falsified race as [biological] construct” or “the modern scientific paradigm has shown race to be a social construct”.

(2)- The final objection which was cut off from my edit comment is that some hold to epistemological anarchism or even post modern like philosophies, which hold every scientific view is merely socially constructed. It is merely the product of a community of people holding certain propositions to be true by their own will to power. And/or, the epistemological anarchism which would hold each “truth” is merely a position by people. This led me to write “the modern scientific community”.

My edit comments also give other justifications in that it is more accurate to use a community as people who show things as they are objects which can act. Which showing is.

(3)- The idea of “science” showing race to be a social construct is indeed modern. Therefore, it may be accurate to say this is the case. But the scientific method hasn’t changed nor has the system of science since the concept of race was conceived. Prior to the mid 20th century the consensus of race wasn’t that it was a social construct. So “science” at that time period would have contradicted the modern understanding of race. Therefore to say “modern science has shown race to be a social construct” is to say science contradicts itself. A way to remove such a contradiction would to specify the field as “Modern biology and genetics has shown…” which indeed can be subject to change as we know physics, for example, is constantly developing and has many open problems and currently is waiting for a new unifying paradigm. ————————-

Therefore the suggestions are as follows:

(A) ”..modern biology and genetics have shown race to be socially constructed”

(B) “…the modern scientific paradigm has shown race to be a social construct [or: to be socially constructed]”

(C) “…the modern scientific paradigm has falsified race as anything else [than/but a] social construct”

(D) My original edit which was reverted

Finally, if there was already discussion of this I would like to see it, I do not know where it would be and it might help to add to the talk discussion. Sedeanimu ( talk) 22:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This language is based on a centralized consensus over at Race (human categorization). See the 4th sentence of that article: Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. The statement has been discussed many, many times, both there and here, and consensus has converged on the language you see. I'm surprised to hear you say you couldn't find any of these discussions because the most recent example is just above. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)