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.

"For the vast majority of human evolution, Africa has been the region that produced new hominids with larger brains. For example fossils of early humans who lived between 2 and 5 million years ago come entirely from Africa. ^[1]During the period of human evolution brain size increased from 400cc to 1400cc ^[2]. On a number of occasions these hominids migrated out of Africa to Europe and Asia. These include homo erectus and the Neanderthals who evolved in Europe from a large brained hominid from Africa. Though living in the colder regions, the Neanderthals and homo erectus would later be displaced by technologically more advanced immigrants from the warmer regions of Africa, the such as the African Cro-Magnon."

This article is about the evolutionary history of intelligence in the races of Homo sapiens sapiens. Other species are irrelevant.

MoritzB 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Other subspecies are relevant, if they are precursors to modern humans, which they obviously are.-- Ramdrake 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Their alleged relevance is OR. And those are different species, not subspecies.

MoritzB 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at least Cro-Magnon was H.S. Sapiens, and many people believe that Neanderthal was either also the same species (different subspecies) or closely related enough that it could interbreed (with a contribution to modern human DNA of 5-25% [1]. So, there is relevance there.-- Ramdrake 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I slightly altered that paragraph because it gave the wrong impression about the roots of hominid intelligence. It is true that Africa produced the new hominids with larger brains, but that is because Africa produced nearly all of the new hominids, so it invited an unwarranted comparative judgment from the reader. W.M. O'Quinlan 00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is irrelevant because no serious scientist claims that the fact that modern humans evolved in Africa has any significance in the IQ differences between populations today. I will modify it more.

MoritzB 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And the latest research indicates that the information is also incorrect: Asians appear to have played a larger part in the settlement of Europe than did Africans.

http://www.livescience.com/history/070807_ap_asia_europe.html

MoritzB 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, your last cite is misquoted, as that's not what the authors are saying. I'd just like to point out this isn't the first source you mis-cite. Second, the information is relevant as background information to understand the evolution of intelligence per se. That's called background information.-- Ramdrake 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That horribly written paragraph does not help to understand the evolution of intelligence.

The paragraph merely confuses the reader as it implies that Africa would somehow be a better environment for the evolution of intelligence. This incorrect view is not supported by any credible evidence. The paragraph is misplaced and does not have any logical connection to the rest of the section. It has to be removed. Fourdee and other editors happen to agree.

MoritzB 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph merely states that Africa is where large-brained apes (giving rise to humans) first evolved, which I don't think s very controversial at all.-- Ramdrake 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that fact is not controversial but it is very irrelevant.

MoritzB 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole section on the evolution of IQ maybe off topic. IQ tests were only invented around 1906, any theory regarding IQ before 1906 is entirely speculative. if one wants to discuss ice ages and intelligence then we might as well discuss the evolution of homo sapiens. Muntuwandi 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TITLE#Use_of_.22and.22

From that page: Do not use "and" to bias article names. For example, the article would be Islamic extremist terrorism, rather than "Islam and terrorism"

In my interpretation the use of the word "and" biases the way this subject is presented. zen master T 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really as it isn't controversial that there are intelligence differences between races. The question is how to explain them.

MoritzB 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"it isn't controversial that there are intelligence differences between races." For sure ! This is of course highly controversial. Ericd

Framing this issue in terms of "race and intelligence" is just one among many possible ways of framing this issue, "wealth and nutrition" is another. You are missing the point of bias in the example above: "Islam and terrorism" biases the subject because some might incorrectly read that as meaning Islam is synonomous with terrorism just as some might incorrectly read "race and intelligence" as meaning race is synonomous with intelligence (neither are true). Given that there are multiple answers and ways of framing this question/issue it should not be framed exclusively around one among many ways, we should find a more generic way of presenting it. Neutrality wise "race and intelligence" biases the presentation of this subject heavily and is a subtle yet profound violation of the principle of neutral presentation. I propose IQ controversy since IQ is a disputed foundation of "intelligence research". zen master T 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. This article is about the impact of racially varying genotypic and environmental differences on the IQ of individuals.

MoritzB 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before (when you were "Matthew L Foster") and as far as I can tell, you are the only one who is having trouble getting past the title and format of the article. As long as you are going to use the "Islam and Terrorism" precedent, then the natural adjustment to this title wouldn't be to "IQ controversy", rather it would be to something like "Racial differences in measures of intelligence". You already claimed that somehow "wealth and nutrition" is an equally valid way of presenting this issue--which makes no sense given that that is a measure of independently and internally coherent variables--but there is no practical way of adapting this article to something like that without essentially changing what it is about (and just because wealth and nutrition also have correlations to race and intelligence, it does not follow that they are legitimate surrogates for each other). It is clearly not obvious to most other people that there is any bias inherent in the article's current formulation, so your move to drastically overhaul the article is unwarranted. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The validity, correlations, methodologies and implications of IQ testing are disputed, as such the title of any article on this subject should reflect this fact (IQ tests are the foundation of this "research"). All I am saying is "wealth and nutrition" and "race and intelligence" are potential surrogates for the exact same underlying cause for this issue which might not have anything to do with "race", "race" is just one among many ways of describing this issue and since "race" might not be a cause "race" shouldn't be in the title. We should be very very very careful that readers do not confuse description with possible cause. Just because one group of people have chosen to frame a complex issue entirely around "race" does not mean wikipedia has to, and in fact to do so is non neutral. I think it is possible a group of people are intentionally trying to confuse description with cause on this issue for racist purposes. zen master T 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for aforementioned reasons.

MoritzB 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point though. You may not like this breakdown of IQ scores, but what you're really trying to say is that no one (or at least not Wikipedia) should be able to look at the question in terms of the racial manifestations of variation in IQ scores. It isn't a question of what the ultimate underlying cause of the discrepancies is, rather it is a look at one form in which that cause manifests itself. To think that we can't regard the racial aspect of that cause (whatever it may be) as being in any way relevant is a kind of intellectual censorship (it would be like physicists searching solely for the Theory of Everything while dismissing any study of fluid turbulence). You are free to contribute to an article on the relationship between wealth and nutrition or wealth and race, but don't try to say that this particular relationship (between race and IQ scores) is off limits. All it is is a look at one relationship/correlation that is important for everyone; no one but you seems to be confusing the title with some foregone conclusion which you find distasteful. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even all supporters of the environmentalist hypothesis agree that race matters. They blame racism etc.

MoritzB 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not the like/dislike of IQ test results, the issue is assuming IQ test results mean anything which is disputed. Given multiple disputes over a principle foundation of this "research" this subject should not be presented this way if neutral presentation is your goal. zen master T 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would prehaps "The distribution of specific genes related to intelligence among the human races" be a better... no, lets just stick with race and intelligence. 84.68.62.89 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I seen that MoritzB changed the European to 102 (German) an then to high as 112 (Jewish). It seems wrong since the IQ is the average European IQ, not the range of IQ scores between different ethnic groups in Europe. But there are a lot of races in Europe. "Race" is ambiguous and not well-defined, so some European "races" have an average IQ of 160. We could go on and on and include average IQs of European cities, European families, European people.

Greece, which is still in Europe has an IQ of 92 and some East Asian tribes have an average IQ of 70. Including the average IQ of Europe, East Asia, etc. is the most rational decision. Shinzuru2 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the European IQ shouldn't be adjusted like that, but I don't see that as being due to the ambiguity of race; rather it is methodological flaw. I would like to change that whole paragraph there in the opening, since it doesn't appear to be sourced correctly (e.g. the footnotes don't correspond to any publication by Herrnstein, Murray, or Flynn--only R. Lynn), and furthermore, the article about the IQ and the Wealth of Nations apparently would suggest different overall averages. In any case though, the paragraph doesn't make it clear if it is talking about racial IQ averages or simply some average IQ of a mixture of citizenship, geography, and ethnicity. I called for a verification of the reference (since I don't have immediate access to those sources myself), but in truth that specific breakdown doesn't belong in the introduction. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will improve that paragraph. I think it is very important that those numbers are in the introduction.

MoritzB 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear what those numbers say, nor do they reflect any well-established formulation of race found elsewhere in the article. And I'm not sure how important it is that an executive summary of IQ scores appears in the introduction anyway--that would seem a fairly simplistic and ill-conceived way of structuring the article (furthermore, there is some suspect motive in having them there). It suffices to say that there are observed differences in measures of intelligence among the different racial groupings of the world and then simply cite some publication which offers that kind of statement (it shouldn't be hard to find). W.M. O'Quinlan 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good now.

MoritzB 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My question is whether the ambiguity is enough to be statistically significant. There is certainly some difference in how people would classify the race of a given individual. Let's say this affects 1% (just off the cuff) of all people and for the remaining 99% of people everyone would agree on the race. In that case, the fact that race may be a little vague doesn't matter. That's perhaps "original research" on my part, I'm just trying to get a grasp on how much it would matter to the numbers we have. Is there any amount of re-interpretation that would dramatically change these numbers? And aren't we just reporting what a wide array of studies have found and letting the reader decide how useful that information is? Lots of widely cited statistics from many sources report race. Barring some directly useful expert citation that questions the material we have, cramming the political agenda of questioning the very concept of race into this article seems out of place. And I don't think any ambiguity has substantially impacted these numbers. Koreans are Koreans, Ashkenazi Jews are what they are, and blacks, well whether they are blacks in africa or blacks in america, we all know what these people look like well enough to interpret the statistics and have a pretty good idea of how they were measured. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Let's say this affects 1% (just off the cuff) of all people and for the remaining 99% of people everyone would agree on the race." - I assume you mean "of all people sampled." Statistical significance is not a simple matter of percentages, it is a function of sample size and the number of variables you are looking at. I agree that statistical significance, as well as margin of error, are important if we use any statistics at all. And I think the really important number here is the coefficient of correlation, given that the only empirical claim made by thse sources is about a correlation between self-identified race and IQ score ... and then how they interpret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, fourdee. According to the US census (2000) the proportion of multiracial people was 2,8%. The number is so low that possible misclassifications don't affect the validity of studies. The transracial adoption studies examining the IQ of mulattoes (socially identified as black) also affirm the validity of racial categories.

MoritzB 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added long ago and the article has almost totally changed now. It is now an obsolete relic of past disputes.

I have removed the tag and it should not not be added again without a long, thorough discussion.

The mere controversial nature of the topic is not adequate justification for the tag. Cf. Global Warming MoritzB 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro only exposes the reader to one view presented in the article. Thus, it is POV. Brusegadi 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both views are now mentioned.

MoritzB 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article continues to be disputed. If it were not so, why has MortizB reverted three times every edit in the last 24 hours. Skywriter 11:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Because your edits were simply misguided. There is no dispute of the results of the psychometric studies in question. The dispute is about the cause of the race differences, genetics or the environment?

MoritzB 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent edit wars I have restored the tag. There are POV problems in the intro and several sections. Brusegadi 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Is there a tag designed specifically for biased trash? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.200.105 ( talk) 07:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is: {{ Totalydisputed}}. –  ornis ⚙ 08:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't controversial what the average IQ scores of different ethnic/racial groups are. The only dispute is about the cause of the difference. Therefore, the reference to Rushton and Jensen Skywriter added to the intro was removed. MoritzB 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is your tiny minority opinion that what Rushton and Jensen claim is not controversial. Skywriter 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause", Rushton and Jensen write. If you disagree back your opinion with reliable sources.

MoritzB 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MoritzB is absolutely correct. Intelligence researchers do not dispute this IQ gap; it is well-known and is supported by mountains of data. What is controversial among scientists is what causes it, and honestly, I'm not entirely certain that even -that- is all that controversial. We know SES has an impact on it (this isn't controversial, and is well established), and it seems likely that additionally there is a genetic component to intelligence which may help explain it. However, most scientists don't study racial intelligence issues in depth, and even those who do are often loath to say "Well, this data seems to suggest that Jews may be more intelligent in part due to genetic factors, and blacks may be less intelligent in part due to genetic factors" because they're (rightly) afraid people will brand them racists, demand they be fired, try to cut off their funding, and the black community in general will throw a hissy fit.

The reality is that it is very difficult politically speaking to come out and say it, but if you listen to what people say about books and papers on racial intelligence, you'll hear that they'll say that they don't dispute the IQ differences between blacks and whites and other racial group. They may or may not dispute the conclusions, but they don't dispute the differences, and indeed, reading reviews on some of these books you see that a lot of the people asked don't even deny the conclusions - they just seem not to want to talk about it. Titanium Dragon 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am surprised this last post went unchallenged for such a long period of time. I am sorry to say but claiming that scientists are "(rightly) afraid people will brand them racists, demand they be fired, try to cut off their funding, and the black community in general will throw a hissy fit" as a support for a statement such as "it seems likely that additionally there is a genetic component to intelligence" is a terribly ineffective way to make such claims. I do not know that there is any likelihood of a genetic component that has been properly established at all--and without some kind of legitimate source supporting your view it seems to be quite incorrect. In fact, from what I understand (and, admittedly, I do not intend to support this statement at the time) the view that genes create a significant difference in intelligence across "races" is most definitely controversial. As a note, I will say that this controversy stems in part from several different issues, most notably being: 1) the questionable ability of IQ scores to demonstrate an accurate representation of intelligence (IQ scores being the primary method of comparison for such arguments--this I hope we all can agree upon at least); 2) the fact that correlation does not demonstrate causation (correlation being the only way that IQ scores may be used to demonstrate differences between groups); and 3) the interaction between environment and genes (something that--although I am sure some may still argue--most definitely is widely considered to exist) and the fact that this interaction, by definition, must (at least to a certain extent) confound the effect of genes, thus limiting any inferences that can be made from data collected on this subject.

Oh, and please--although I am sure you won't get my response a month and a half later--stop defending the validity of arguments with terms like "hissy fit."

Frank0570618 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Only the opinions of those scientists who deny the legitimacy of research on race and intelligence are represented in these sections. Thus, they strongly violate WP:NPOV. The article "scientific racism" is just a POV fork. WP:POVFORK. MoritzB 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the mainstream view of most scientists in the field is that "race and intelligence" is a controversial to fringe subject. You can always add alternate views (proportional to their weight), but please don't remove cited views because you disagree with them.-- Ramdrake 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, can you explain to me how a section of an article can be construed to be a POV fork of the same article? POV fork policy applies only between distinct articles.-- Ramdrake 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The main article "scientific racism" is a POV fork describing the views of those scholars who don't see research on race and intelligence as legitimate which is a fringe view. In this article the section belongs to the criticism section.

MoritzB 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the article on Scientific racism touches on much more than just race and intelligence. And please, don't mix a bunch of discredited ideas decades if not centuries old with modern research. You're comparing apples and oranges and misleading the reader.-- Ramdrake 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the hereditarian model in an inappropriate manner and strongly violates NPOV. The section in this article only constructs a strawman of the hereditarian position using 80 years old studies. It is inappropriate.

And the hereditarian model should be fairly represented also in the history section.

MoritzB 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please supply examples of what you mean. If I see a NPOV violation, I would tend to think that the minority hereditarian position is overrepresented in this article.-- Ramdrake 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Many studies that purport to be both science-based and attempt to influence public policy have been criticized for purported scientific racism; the most recent examples of are those of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. Melvin Konner, in his book Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit accused Murray and Hernstein of trying to make policy based on speculations about race, and Rushton of applying a theory drawn from evolutionary biology to the difference about races with no academic legitimacy."

This criticism belongs to the explanation section, if anywhere.

MoritzB 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The communists are again censoring Wikipedia. Rushton's views of history must be in the main text, not in a footnote. Franz V 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rushton's views MUST be included in the main text, if only to point out the obvious flaws in his work. It is unfortunate for anyone quoting the man, but you really should find more sources if you intend to argue in favour of his ideas. Believe me, at any academic conference, quoting the scientific researchers who represent the outermost extremity of the field is more likely to get you laughed out of the room than a standing ovation. Perhaps Wikipedia should try and avoid some well due humiliation in this case.

131.104.235.213 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Contrary to the protestations of Franz V, who is concerned about communism and capitalism, which is off-topic to this article, he also complains that his favorite racist academic is not mentioned often and prominently enough.

Here are the facts--Rushton is mentioned 20 times in this article. His sometimes co-author Jensen is also mentioned 20 times. And, Richard Lynn is named 18 times, and Gottfredson 13 times. That hardly seems like censorship of the pro-racist viewpoint. In fact, their viewpoint is so grossly over-represented, I intend to again slap a disputed tag on this page because it favors racist viewpoints and tends to downplay or exclude anti-racist views.

Now comes Rushton enthusiasts insisting that Rushton's off-topic, throw-away lines be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Christopher Columbus had much to say about the indigenous people of the western hemisphere (before enslaving and/or slaughtering them) and Napolean had much to say about the people of Egypt before he tried and failed to conquer them. Germans had much to say about Jews, and the French have much to say about the English and vice versa. The Protestant Irish have their opinions of Catholic Irish. The Japanese had definite views of the Chinese before the Rape of Nanking. Should all of those opinions be larded into this article? If Rushton's throw-away lines are included either in this article or in two(!) footnotes, then this article should become a free-for-all about what all of the various ethnic groups allege about those they dislike (or revere) the most.

Rushton is not a historian. His comments on Marco Polo etc. are off topic. Please defend why two quotes from Race, Evolution, and Behavior is not off-topic to this article on Race and Intelligence, and should not be removed. Please explain also the exact link between nudity and paganism, which is not explained in this off-topic quote. Skywriter 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the case. Some scholars say that "In the 19th and 20th centuries research on race and intelligence has been used to argue that one race is superior to another, justifying poor outcomes and ill-treatment for the "inferior race".[13] Some early opinions about the differences among races grew out of stereotypes about non-whites developed during the period of colonialism and slavery."

Gould and Gil-White say that those stereotypes were racist and false. However, Rushton says that the basis of the "stereotypes" was the low intelligence of Africans and the primitivity of their societies.

It is certainly relevant that historically Europeans didn't usually think that Chinese people were less intelligent. This information should be in the history section.

MoritzB 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A logical fallacy, a non sequitur. In other words, you skipprf a beat and failed to respond to the questions. You persuade no one that text should be there because it is there. Where are Rushton's proofs to his claim that Africans were of low intelligence during that era? Where is the scholarship? Further, what is the connection to nudity and paganism? Are nudity and paganism race and or intelligence-based? Again, I ask, why is this off-topic material doing in this article? Skywriter 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the blacks have a lower genotypic intelligence today they likely did have a lower genotypic IQ hundreds of years ago, too. There are hundreds of citations in the article supporting the hypothesis that they do have a lower genotypic IQ. And there is historical proof that many Muslims and Europeans also thought that blacks were a less intelligent race also hundreds of years ago. The history section is for historical opinions.

It is also relevant per se that the Europeans did not think that Chinamen are racially inferior.

MoritzB 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moritz, you're mixing apples and oranges --again. The fact of the matter is that these "hundreds of citations" come from a handful (read: tiny minority) of scientists, most of whom are backed by the Pioneer Fund. You've just so much as admitted that side of the argument is over-represented.-- Ramdrake 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument is about a specific section in which only one side is represented. It's a truism that the arguments of the hereditarians are coming from a "tiny minority of scientists". The scholars who disagree with them also belong to the tiny minority of scientists who have written on race and intelligence.

Your argument that the hereditarian position does not deserve to be included to the history section is as valid as an argument that it wouldn't deserve to be included to the "explanations" sections.

Thus, your views are rejected by consensus.

MoritzB 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much." -a Western Observer in 1881
"To see your men [Japanese] at work made me feel that you are a very satisfied easy goin race, who reckon time is no object. When I spoke to some managers they informed me that it was simply impossible to change the habits of national heritage." -western observer in 1915
From Landes, Davis S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton. p350
This a great example of observer bias. That is why I think that even mentioning the views of early Europeans would be undue weight. It is known that observe bias can cause judgment problems; that is why the effectiveness of new medicines is judged using a control group... Brusegadi 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They are already mentioned, aren't they?

MoritzB 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzBigot shouldn't have so much to say on this issue. Then again, POV does allow one to talk far more than one should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.235.213 ( talk) 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That section is offtopic and should be deleted. It has nothing to do with race. Add it to a separate article about prejudice and IQ if you wish. MoritzB 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you refer to:

A study done at a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US was carried out in order to determine whether a relationship existed between prejudice and IQ. Students were given an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice. The study found that students who scored lower on IQ tests were more prejudiced.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0399529519/ How do you compare pages 28-29] ISBN 0399529519 based on Lapsley and Enright , ' The effect of social desirability, intelligence, and milieu on an American validation of the conservatism scale' </ref>

I took it out because, at least in the way it is included, it is hard to accept it. Brusegadi 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't have. Because it has everything to do with this dubious topic. I don't mean it just applies to whites, but also blacks and others. - Jeeny  ^Talk 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brusegadi that some major points need to be addressed. The a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US should be replaced by the name of the actual university (to avoid weasel-wording); then an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice; I'm not aware of any: IQ tests are meants to measure intelligence, sometimes imperfectly, sometimes in a biased fashion, granted, but an IQ test was never meant to measure racial prejudice, so I'm thinkin the author meant something else. If the paragraph could be rephrased to eliminate these two major issues, I think it would then become suitable for inclusion. I think the point it makes is valid; it jsut can't be phrased this way.-- Ramdrake 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree the phrasing needs some work. But to delete it, without expanding on it? I don't kow. I think it is very interesting to include. Oh well. - Jeeny  ^Talk 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, someone should work on it as it should be included once properly reworded. But I can't blame Brusegadi for removing it in the state it's in now.-- Ramdrake 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been established that whites with lower SES have more contact with blacks and are more prejudiced. People with lower SES have lower IQs on average. The study isn't interesting and has nothing to do with this article.

MoritzB 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On a more general note, I feel that this article is not properly framed. When I first read it I did not care too much about it because I was under the impression that its title was "Race and IQ." Yet, since it is intelligence and not IQ, much work has to be done since there are obvious POV problems. I think the mainstream view is that there is really no good proxy for intelligence given that the latter can manifest itself in so many different ways. Finally, if some of the papers speak of a connection between genes and intelligence; these genetic components may not be correlated with race. It must be quoted explicitly. Besides the problems with undue weight, we must also look out for WP:SYN. Brusegadi 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. - Jeeny  ^Talk 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what evidence do you have that the "mainstream" doesn't consider IQ to be a good proxy for intelligence? You're absolutely wrong! The mainstream scientific community considers it to be a good proxy (or at least a useful one) for intelligence; it correlates well and is used as such by a large number of researchers. Indeed, complaints about IQ tests and similar often originate from people who -want- to believe that everyone is equal, rather than from actual data, which supports the value of IQ as a proxy for intelligence.

Nope; they use it at most for logical stuff. Thus, assuming that IQ tests can serve as a strictly increasing monotonic map between your ability to do logic and your score then IQ tests would be necessary but not sufficient in establishing a subject's intelligence. Notice the title of the article is not Race and IQ but Race and Intelligence. Brusegadi 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also support using other proxies for intelligence in the article; SAT scores, for instance. There are plenty of them, and they all seem to point the same way.

Using IQ is NOT undue weight. It is an excellent and often used intelligence proxy, and there is absolutely no reason for us not to rely on it when people who do intelligence research DO rely on it and similar tests.

I am not saying that we should not use it. I say that counter views should be given their proper weight in the article. Brusegadi 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And many things DO suggest that the intelligence differential is genetic in nature; SES certainly lowers IQ scores, but once you compensate for it you find that there are still intelligence gaps between races in the US, particularly between blacks and hispanics and whites and asians (and Jews, who are on the other end of the spectrum). When you're studying intelligence differences between races, and finding them even after SES compensation, this suggests genetic linkage. Suggestions of genetic linkages to explain these differences are certainly tossed around, but people don't like talking about it because a lot of people automatically brand them as racists rather than scientists, as is evident from the black community's reaction to such research. Titanium Dragon 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) wrote:

It has been established that whites with lower SES have more contact with blacks and are more prejudiced. People with lower SES have lower IQs on average.

No such thing "has been established". I note your use of the passive voice to avoid identifying the source of your claim. Passive voice has long been the purview of rogues and scoundrels...mistakes were made; others will be blamed.

I have twice asked you to show the sourcing for the claim of your boy Rushton that nudity and paganism is unique to Black Africans. And twice you have ignored the request. This is the third and final request to back up the provably false allegation. It is NOT acceptable to hide behind the skirt of "opinion" in the history section. History is made up of facts. Anyone can state opinion and that does not translate into inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Anyone can express opinion on subjects about which they know nothing. Shockley got into trouble for crossing over into a field where he lacked expertise. If you and Rushton lack facts to back up Rushton's contention, that section comes out. Stop wasting our time. Skywriter 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is your job to provide a citation which says that Rushton is wrong as Rushton's book is a reliable source.

But indeed, nudity and paganism were not unique traits of black Africans. Rushton didn't say so.

MoritzB 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs to be protected, at least not for a long period. The only editor who is advocating removal of information is MoritzB. All the other editors have accepted the inclusion of the information that MoritzB has included even though some of it is really of very poor quality (eg evolution of IQ ) and is outside of the mainstream. But MoritzB is not being fair in accepting other information from other editors. Muntuwandi 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, your addition to the section about the evolution of intelligence was offtopic. "Cavalli himself has made significant contributions to the fight against racism...."

You may have made your contributions in good faith but issues like "IQ and prejudice" simply aren't relevant. I have tried to explain this to you with fourdee.

MoritzB 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of Cavalli is to clarify that he does not endorse the racial theories of IQ proposed by Jensen et al. The statement-

Gerhard Meisenberg argues that measurements of genetic diversity by the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations caused by random genetic drift should be about 12 IQ points.[95]

This statement is not endorsed by Cavalli, So we do not know how Meisenberg arrives at this figure of 12 points IQ difference. It appears that either Meisenberg's made this up or it is original research. Consequently it should either be removed or attributed to Meisenberg himself and not Cavalli. In which case we would have to prove that Meisenberg is an expert in population genetics to stand as a Reliable source. Muntuwandi 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really prove anything if Cavalli-Sforza debated Shockley as a younger man in the 1970s. Cavalli-Sforza hadn't even done the research Meisenberg refers to at that time. Furthermore, the statement that "Cavalli made significant contributions in the fight against racism" when he debated Shockley and Jensen does not conform to WP:NPOV because it implies that Shockley and Jensen were racists.

MoritzB 23:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your source Supra, 67 p. 190 is an inadequate citation. There is no way anyone can independently verify this source. Would you blame me for thinking it is a dubious source. Muntuwandi 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct form of the citation would now be: Supra 84, p.190" and it refers to "Gerhard Meisenberg: IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think, p 190"

MoritzB 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

this is the actual statement:

If IQ genes float as randomly in the gene pool as Cavalli-Sforza’s DNA variations, then the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations should be about as great as the measured difference between black and white children in California: about 12 IQ points.

This is a hypothetical situation, only if IQ genes float randomly. Muntuwandi 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is evidence that the genotypic IQ is approximately normally distributed. It is the central assumption of the book Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, for instance.

MoritzB 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Genotypically the difference between the various "races" is 6-10% of the 0.1% difference and not 14%. [2]. The figure is actually 15% percent and refers to two random populations, such as the Kikuyu and the Dutch. When overall the continental races are considered the figure drops to 6-10%. This is of course averaged over many traits. For individual traits the difference could be more or non-existent. For example skin color variation is 88% between the races. But the gene that gives everybody 2 arms and two legs has no variation across the races since people in all races generally have two arms and two legs. Between these two types of traits we do not know where intelligence fits in. Without the knowledge of the actual genes that positively influence IQ, it is impossible to tell and is mere speculation on behalf of Meisenberg.

Muntuwandi 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as most scientists agree that there is normally distributed genotypic variation in IQ between individuals.

MoritzB 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not know that one can up their score on an IQ test, if they keep an open mind, read more, and continue education? IQ is not static. - Jeeny  ^Talk 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I will try to look for more recent data on IQs. We may also look into other proxies. Brusegadi 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was much debate earlier on regarding alternative theories on intelligence such as the Theory of multiple intelligences, see Talk Archive 57. There was a section on autistic savants for example who have low IQs but are very intelligent in one specific area. This information I believe should be reinstated. Muntuwandi 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory of multiple intelligences might as well be "the theory that we don't want to admit that people are actually innately inferior intellectually"; intelligent people are and can become good at everything, whereas dumber people -can't-; I'm not making this up, studies have shown this. And while IQ is a (pretty good) way of measuring intelligence, it is not perfect. However, its not like "blacks are dumber than whites" just arises from IQ scores; if you look at success, attitude towards intellectualism, intellectual achievements, ect. it is evident there is a major achievement gap which goes beyond differences in socioeconomic status and extend to the point where one has to question whether there is a genetic constituent for the data. Titanium Dragon 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kevin Murray deleted most of that material which was very appropriate. It should not be reinstated.

MoritzB 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is so untrue, intelligent people cannot be good at everything. When was the last time you heard of a computer geek winning an olympic gold medal for athletics. It is well documented that many other skills are required for success. IQ is a good predictor of intelligence associated with logic only. But other skills are also important. Recruitment companies don't just dish out IQ tests, they now have a barrage of personality tests that they unleash on prospects. Certain profiles are more suitable for certain positions. Two people with the same IQ may not be suitable for the same position if they have different personality profiles. There are other forms of intelligence that are at play. Muntuwandi 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Savants are indeed relevant, even Arthur Jensen discusses them Conversations with Arthur Jensen Muntuwandi 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jensen mentions them as an unusual exception which is not statistically relevant.

MoritzB 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to savant syndrome, Stephen Juan concludes

No model of brain function, particularly memory will be complete until it can include and account for the syndrome The Odd Brain.

Muntuwandi 03:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, this is false; IQ is measuring something different than what you think. It is measuring something very closely related to how efficiently your brain works - IQ scores often directly correlate with reaction time. Whites and asians have on average much faster and larger brains than sub-saharan africans. They have faster reaction time too - I forget the exact numbers but as I remember this is a significant one. This is not about "nerds" it is about regular people who may be a little quicker at figuring some things out in daily life. Caucasian and asian women have high IQs (same as males as far as I know) but their brains are definitely differently structured than men and they are accomplishing it in a somewhat different manner - at any rate, brain size isn't the only factor but that is a significant part of explaining why these groups with larger brains have uniformly higher iq, better reaction time, and a history of accomplishment. It doesn't take a scientist to observe this difference between the races. The practical implications of these facts are for the reader to decide (and please keep your political propaganda out), but the basic facts are pretty cut and dry. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is I have provide sources and you have provided your personal opinion. Muntuwandi 03:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, please define with references what you meant by "much larger". According to many studies, there are no significant differences in brain size between "races", or if there are, they are very small indeed [3]. What are your references for such an enormous statement?-- Ramdrake 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

East Asians have a cranial capacity of 1,364 cm3, Whites 1,347 cm3 and Blacks 1,267 cm3. The reference is in the article. MoritzB 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be in the article but it's false. Therefore should be removed. - Jeeny  ^Talk 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A reference is provided.

MoritzB 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB don't forget the Neanderthals at a whopping 1400 -1750cc [4]. Muntuwandi 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So what? MoritzB 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, please don't cherry-pick. Lieberman produces a whole table of researchers who have found various results, only to demonstrate that those "averages" which differ were demonstrably biased. The numbers you're producing are from one of Rushton's meta-analyses, perhaps the most severely criticized for its many biases and failure to correct these biases. Those who didn't find significant differences didn't show any obvious bias. And in any case, what is a difference of 100 cm3 when the normal brain size in humans has a range from 1000-2000 cm3? (All of this is in fact sourced to the Lieberman paper I cited earlier, so please don't ask again).-- Ramdrake 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The correlation between IQ and brain size between individuals is 0.40. Thus, it is very reasonable to expect that race differences in brain size matter.

MoritzB 04:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is according to Rushton, who is severely criticized for his methodology. And again, researchers with no demonstrable bias in their analyses (such as Beals et al. in their 1985 study) found no racially oriented differences in brain size. And again, you're drawing unwarranted conclusions (it is very reasonable to expect that race differences in brain size matter).-- Ramdrake 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That study reported that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3, respectively. (Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. "Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines," Current Anthropology, 1984: 25, 301-330)

The differences were even larger.

MoritzB 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's Rushton's interpretation of it. Beals et al's interpretation is that cranial differences are along clinal temperature lines, and not along racial lines. Please don't use other researchers' interpretations of someone else's research, especially when the reinterpretation is in conflict with the original conclusions, Rushton is notorious for that.-- Ramdrake 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Beals and Smith included a classification based on geographic areas to the study.

Beals and Smith say that "hominid expansion to northern climates produced a change in head shape. Such change in head shape contributed to the increased cranial volume." This is consistent with Lynn's theory of the evolution of intelligence. Beals and Smith are saying that Northern populations have genotypically larger brains which in light of other studies implies that Northern populations have a higher average genotypic IQ.

MoritzB 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG, this is bollocks on MoritzB's side, and others with this view. Brain size is not relevant to IQ. You are going back in time to Scientific racism when people where playing ignorant to justify that blacks and other were inferior to so that it wouldn't be considered as unethical. See: Einstein's brain, there was no difference in size. (if it hasn't been fiddled with since the last time I viewed the article.) - Jeeny  ^Talk 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was one man who was good at certain things. What we are trying to look at is the average people in whole populations, not what features an exceptional person has. The question for this article is about whole races and ethnic groups. There are many smart people with average size brains, however on average it does seem to offer some benefit at both the individual and ethnic level. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? - Jeeny  ^Talk 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. The only scientific studies available have always reflected this. There are many. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance, this study proved that Turkish men who have larger brains have a higher average IQ. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713740779~db=all

The correlation is 0.40.

MoritzB 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:SOAP. Lets get serious or move it to user space. Brusegadi 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No one will change their minds with this pointless arguing. We have to understand that all of us have already made up our minds about this. It seems that right now we are trying to argue with each other as oppose to for the improvement of the article. The truth is that nothing will change in the next few days because the article is protected. So, lets try to cool off and focus on specific things that we would like changed, removed, or added. Lets try to produce something that is good enough so that people from the outside will take it seriously. If any of us pushes their own POV beyond its due weight, the article will be a joke to outsiders. Brusegadi 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. But, when arguing POVs, sometimes, as it has for me, I've been able to open my mind and see the other side, and then reassess my own views, by doing more research. - Jeeny  ^Talk 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While some studies find a correlation between brain size and IQ, ie correlation of 0.4, which explains 16% of the variance. While this may have some statistical significance this still leaves plenty of room for a small brained genius and a large brained dullard. Geniuses have been known with a cranial capacity of 1000cc, about the size of a homo erectus brain. This correlation is however viewed as a gross oversimplification. Hominid brain size peaked about 500,000 years ago with the Neanderthals. Since then human brain size has shrunk, while human complexity has increased in the period. This suggests that human cognition was achieved through the an improvement in brain software rather than any further increase in brain hardware. Furthermore there are several problems with measuring brain size, what exactly is the brain is disputed. There is a lot of filler material that goes into the cranial vault, so having a big head does not necessarily imply a larger brain. Another complication is that some assert that brain size needs to be adjusted for body weight and sex. The studies that have been cited are not clear with regards to these assertions. A further problem is that women have smaller cranial capacities than men yet have the same IQ scores with men. Finally most variation in cranial capacity occurs within a "race" rather than between the "races". Muntuwandi 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just quickly: it's not accurate to say that human brain sizes have shrunk. The significant new type(s) that evolved in recent times have larger brains - asians and europeans. The difference in the structure of women's brains is well documented and doesn't affect what IQ tests measure. The question is: given two people of the same gender, and ideally of the same ethnic background to eliminate ethnic differences in brain structure, is there is a slight statistical likelihood that the one with the larger brain is more intelligent and a little quicker? Yes. Does this mean an ethnic group (or the female gender) that has a different structure is necessary less smart because its brains are more compact? Not necessarily but can you show any examples of this being true? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is well documented that human brain sizes have shrunk. The Neanderthals have the largest brains of all hominids as large as 1750 cc. Even more recently brain sizes have shrunk;

Although selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volumes might seem counterintuitive, it is relevant to note that the fossil record suggests that brain size in humans has decreased over the past 50 000 years, with the trend continuing through the Neolithic, reversing more recently only at higher latitudes [5] Muntuwandi 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the Cro-Magnons the first Europeans had cranial capacities greater than modern Europeans [6]. Muntuwandi 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern europeans are related to cro-magnons, what's the point? Neanderthals were a different creature that had a more primitive brain - differences in structure are definitely critical to how efficient a brain is at a certain size, like the difference between men and women of course. Perhaps the more evolved ethnic groups have some features like that as well, but they certainly have larger brains and higher measured intelligence than other modern humans (whose brains all have a more efficient design than neanderthal's).

It may seem confusing that all a person has to do to be smarter is have a bigger brain so why doesn't every ethnic group select for one - however you can readily see the forces at play in picking the best brain size. A bigger brain is physically awkward, delays maturity, consumes more energy, is vulnerable to attack, may cause excessive cautiousness (due to foreseeing consequences) which can be a significant disadvantage if it is a common trait in a population - brain size of course offers a number of advantages as well, however these are mitigated by the fact that there is by no means a linear return on increasing brain size - a person with a substantially larger brain only tends to be slightly smarter than average. So different populations have a balance established by their particular behaviors and needs (and this extends to many more traits than intelligence and appearance - like behavior in general). Anyway, the most successful modern groups seem to have arrived at a brain size in the higher range of what is normal for modern humans. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that during the period of the greatest technological developments, brain size has been smaller. Neolithic and iron age brains are smaller than paleolithic brains. The brain size of modern europeans is smaller than their ancestors the cro-magnons. consequently it seems that there are so many other factors involved in intelligence than cranial capacity alone. Muntuwandi 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What probably happened at the points when brain sizes shrunk was that a new innovation in brain structure was propagating. This is a tangental concern, and is of course another important factor in intelligence. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, It should be noted that the Neolithic revolution and the iron age occurred independently in Europe, Asia and Africa. Muntuwandi 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's first comment on this page is enough to end the discussion on cranial capacity. Also, I do not think it is worth getting into human evolution. It is clear that whatever genetic variation there is among humans, all humans belong to the same species and have the same general intelligence that distinguishes humans from other species. I am not even sure it is worth noting that the neolithic revolution accured independently in different continents - for one thing (personal opinion coming up) I think that the paleolithic itself is what really distinguishes humans from non-humans. Second, it doesn't really matter who invented something if other people can use it. This is the whole point of human intelligence - our ability to teach and learn from one another. Even if agriculture was invented independently in Asia, whoever invented it taught it to others. Even if it were invented in Europe, most Europeans learned it from others. If one person can teach another calculus or quantum mechanics, does it mater which one is from Africa and which one is from Europe? They both must be pretty damn smart! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your views are phenomenally fringe. The APA report explicitly states that humans do not have the same general intelligence.

MoritzB 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand what I am talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is your argument is that because all humans are so much more intelligent than animals IQ differences between humans do not matter?

MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but you are on the right track. I would not say humans are more intelligent than animals only because I don't think that kind of statement is very meaningful in evolutionary terms - I would say that humans have evolved a fundamentally different kind of intellegence than animals, and that absent congenital birth defects or trauma to the brain all humans have this kind of intelligence that distinguishes us from other species. I do not think that this means that all humans express equal intelligence, I am not fundamentally opposed to attempts to measure intelligence, and I think that discussions attempting to understand differences in expressions of human intelligence among individuals can be valuable. I only meant that since all humans have the same kind of intelligence in the sense that we evolved a kind of evolution distinct from other species, I do not think that there is any point in getting into how that intelligence evolved in this article. In other words, I would see a value in an article on the evolution of human intelligence, "human intelligence" in this context meaning something shared by all humans and distinct from the kinds of intelligence found in other species. And I see a value in an article reviewing debates over variations within "human intelligence, variations in measures of intelligence among humans. My point is: I think these are two different articles, two different topics, and we would progress further if we didn't get bogged down in one while working on the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The section is more accurately about the evolutionary background of the IQ differences between human races. If there are genotypic IQ differences between human races there is need for an explanation how they evolved. Several scholars have published articles in academic journals about possible explanations. They are relevant.

MoritzB 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, this is where we disagree: there are measurable differences in IQ between human "races". There are a few researchers who believe these differences are significantly or mostly genotypic. However, most researchers (as per the APA statement) believe that genes have little, if anything, to do with the observed difference.-- Ramdrake 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have had the discussion about the significance of the APA report, the Snyderman study etc. before. The section is intended for notable POVs about why there are genotypic differences in intelligence between human races (or populations) or why they don't exist. Scientists in both "camps" use arguments related to evolutionary history.

MoritzB 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree with SLR that this discussion should end, I would just like to point out that the supposition bigger brains==smarter is hopelessly simplistic. It fails to take into account a lot of research, both in humans and in animals on other biological variables to intelligence: the brain size/body mass ratio is just one (probably the best-known) which accounts for the fact that a more massive body requires a larger brain to make it function. That was exemplified in non-humans in some bird species (manatees among others, if menory serves correctly) which under careful behavioral (ethological) studies, turned out to be far more intelligent than expected. Then, there is brain complexity, whether it be the cortex/glial matter ratio or the granular/agranular cortex ratio. Dolphins have brains significantly larger than ours, even when body mass is factored into the equation. It seems that the fact that a much larger portion of their cortex is agranular (lower synaptic connection density) rather than granular might be a good part of the explanation as to why they never developed technology as we know it (although they are expert tool users when they need to, and have a very complex social structure). In order to tie larger brains with possible higher intelligence, one would have to compare body/brain mass ratio, glial/cortical matter ratio, granular/agranular cortex ratio, even down to demonstrating that the enlarged areas are indeed associated with higher cognition and/or mental processing. I'm not aware that any one study has done all that. Rather, all we have are empirical studies that conclude "gee, these folks have bigger brains and score higher on IQ charts, so bigger brains must mean smarter people". Empirical, but not deeply scientfic.-- Ramdrake 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes yes, Raqmdrake, with all due respect, so you and Muntuwandi both know what you are talking about. Genug, basta, makatei, move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist deconstructing the racialists' preferred argument in the race and intelligence debates. You're right, though. Circulez, y'a rien à voir! :)-- Ramdrake 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but all current research on brain size and intelligence accounts for other biological variables like brain size/body mass ratio. That was just a strawman. MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're dead wrong. While several studies have tried to take into consideration the brain/body mass ration, I'm not aware of many that focused on what this extra brain matter was (glia/agranular cortex/granular cortex, etc) or where it was located (medullar vs limbic vs cortical, sensory vs associative vs motor, etc), and I don't recall one that has investigated all those questions (as it requires very sophisticated equipment). But can we get back to the matter at hand and stop digressing, as SLR pointed out already twice?-- Ramdrake 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You actually make no attempt in explaining why there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence when variables such as body size is controlled. Are you saying that although blacks have smaller brains their brains are in some other respects superior?

MoritzB 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that smaller brain size (on the order of what some researchers believe they observe), even when corrected for body size, has no demonstrated impact on intelligence. What some researchers claim to have found is a correlation; nobody can claim causation (i.e. your claim that, having smaller brains, Blacks are thus less intelligent). Now, can we please get back to discussing the article, and not the subject of the article?-- Ramdrake 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. See: "The relation of IQ (Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test) to brain size was studied in 103 right- and left-handed men and women at Ataturk University in eastern Turkey. Cerebral areas were measured on a midsagittal section of the brain using MRI. An overall correlation of 40 was found between MRI-measured total area and IQ thereby further supporting the IQ¯brain size hypothesis. Additional analyses suggested that these results may need qualification. In men, only anterior cerebral area correlated with IQ. In women, total and posterior cerebral areas were correlated with IQ."

Tan, Uner and Tan, Meliha and Polat, Pinar and Ceylan, Yasar and Suma, Selami and Okur, Adnan (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Brain Size/IQ Relations in Turkish University Students. Intelligence 27(1):pp. 83-92.

The relationship is relevant.

MoritzB 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the development of human intelligence: Human intelligence is tied in some manner to the large increase in brain size going up the human evolutionary tree. When the encephalization quotient (EQ) is used to measure brain size relative to body size, modern humans are three times as encephalized (EQ = 6) as other primates (EQ = 2) and six times the average for all living mammals (EQ = 1, the reference group). This phylogenetic increase represents a disproportionate expansion of the brain’s prefrontal cortext, which matures last and is most essential for the highest cognitive functions, including weighing alternatives, planning, understanding the temporal order of events (and thus cause-and-effect relations), and making decisions. Moreover, encephalization of the human line proceeded rather quickly, in evolutionary terms, after the first hominids (Australopithicines, EQ = 3) split off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees (EQ = 2) about 5 million years ago. Encephalization was especially rapid during the last 500,000 to one million years, when relative brain size increased from under EQ = 4 for Homo erectus (arguably the first species of Homo) to about EQ = 6 for living humans (the only surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens). (Gottfredson: Innovation, Fatal Accidents, and the Evolution of General Intelligence) MoritzB 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a problem with any of the material in this paragraph. It's just not relevant to the POV you are asserting in your statement above.-- Ramdrake 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is as it debunks the POV of those scholars who say that if brain size differences don't cause IQ differences in modern humans the evolution of human intelligence cannot be related to the increasing IQ.

MoritzB 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather intellectualy dishonest to constantly push africans off as, er, "retarded" in face of things like this:

http://www.thecoupmagazine.com/content/view/45/47/

"Another difference that commentators writing on the study noted, though that was not explicitly stated in the study, involves work ethic. As a direct result of pressure to succeed, many black immigrants, much like immigrants from other nations, outperform their American peers. According to U.S. census data from 2000, “black immigrants from Africa averaged the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country,” with 43.8% of African immigrants having attained a degree at an institution of higher learning in comparison to 42.5% of Asian-Americans, 28.9% of immigrants from Europe and Canada, and 23.1 of the entire U.S. population (Page, "Black Immigrants Collect"). In addition, black immigrants make up 40% of the black student population enrolled in Ivy League education institutions, while they only comprise 13 percent of the black population in the United States as a whole (Wu, "Immigrants Comprise"). "

Bare in mind that immigrants don't get affirmative action. If the average african IQ were that low, or even somewhere in the 70's, people like this would be rare to non-existant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.64 ( talk) 22:24, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, studies indicate that most genotypically intelligent blacks live in Africa.

Also, the black immigrants do benefit from Affirmative Action. See: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174562/posts

The figure reflects the sad reality how Western countries are draining Africa of its best brains.

MoritzB 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that, on the topic of african IQ, it's fallacious to constantly assert that the IQ of 70 figure is the reality of it all when the sheer abundance of high IQ africans living abroad couldn't possibly exist considering averages at such extremities. Malnutrition, cultural differences, and the fact that many african universities have very poor standards (yes, I've read Lynn's work, he lists studies of low IQ groups from universities) also are a problem for this to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.64 ( talk) 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the average IQ may be 70 to 80, doesn't mean there aren't exceptional, high performing Africans. Think of it in group terms, not individual. Furthermore, you may have even hinted at something yourself; perhaps the high IQ Africans leave Africa, therefore perpetuating the low IQ??-- Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The genotypic IQ of Africans is 80 according to Lynn. The University of Witwatersrand is actually rather prestigious. MoritzB 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that 1) "genotypic intelligence" is meaningless in this (when we are really talking about extrapolated IQ scores), and Lynn and his cohorts have been roundly criticized for the poor quality of the data thay used to arrive at their score, and the selection bias that allowed them to get those scores.-- Ramdrake 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, Lynn's results have been succesfully replicated by many independent researchers. MoritzB 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

since the page is locked, and i cant edit, i think it should be added that a big percent (if not most of them) of the world chess champions were also Ashkenazi Jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.3.91 ( talk) 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested I recommend this article about the Ashkenazi IQ: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ashkenaz.htm

MoritzB 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that article is very interesting. I think I will edit this page myself as soon as it unlocked. 217.132.3.91 11:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't suffice to show that simply because a large number of successful chess players are at least part-Jewish that that has anything to do with intelligence and its relationship to the race gap in IQ, etc.; if you were to include a note about Jewish chess players, then the article ought also to include a section about, for instance, European gentile Enlightenment scientists, inventors, and philosophers. The fact of the matter is, though, that these don't have much to do with the substantive issue of differences in measured intelligence, which is the primary concern of the article. Furthermore, La Griffe du Lion is not, I think, a credible source by itself; if the conclusions merit inclusion in the article then La Griffe's arguments ought to appear somewhere in a more scholarly context. W.M. O'Quinlan 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Race as a social construct" it is stated that "[i]n contemporary North American society, Blacks and coloreds are considered to be one 'race,' since any individual who possess any degree of nonwhiteness is automatically grouped in the Black category". However, if you are, say, of South Asian descent in some way, you do possess "some degree of nonwhiteness", yet you're not classified as Black or African-American. This should be corrected to read "... possesses any degree of black African ancestry..." Victor Chmara 11:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is it that's in such dispute so as to cause this article's protection status? W.M. O'Quinlan 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one or two POV pushers. Muntuwandi 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing what (besides the obvious)? W.M. O'Quinlan 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

why does this article need to mention both? and why are people so desperate to prove that those of african descent really are the 'dumbest' people on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.80.90 ( talk) 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They are racially different groups because black Americans have a substantial amount of European admixture. MoritzB 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually African Americans are different to Africans because their African ancestors are nearly all from west Africa. They are distinct because they do not represent an unbiased sampling of the African continent. Much the same way that non-Africans are all more similar to east Africans than any other Africans, because the origin of non-Africans is east Africa, and does not represent an unbiased sample of all the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. It follows that all non-Africans are more similar to some African groups than to others, it also follows that African Americans are more similar to some African groups than to other African groups. African Americans also have a large non-African ancestry, both European and Native American and a unique culture. Alun 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What happned to this section? Media portrayal of race and intelligence ? futurebird 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brain size reflects not only genetics, but also the degree to which one is exposed to cognitive stimulation. The correlation between brain size and intelligence might result from people who are interested in intelligent stuff growing bigger brains as they learn. Every major meta-analysis of the brain size intelligence correlation has noted this. Why doesn't the article? Specifically, I'm talking about the section on evolution/ice ages. Thanks, -- 156.56.151.76 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that brain size is not a definitive measure of intelligence in any sense (see blue whales/Einstein, if you must). As well, I believe that it was stated there is supposedly a 0.40 level of positive correlation between cranial capacity and IQ scores--this does not seem to be a particularly objective observation without including the fact that, again, IQ is not a completely accurate measure of intelligence itself, and correlation is not a valid method for correctly demonstrating why there is a relationship between a given pair of variables.

Frank0570618 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

According to Fox News "one of the world's most eminent scientists has created a racial firestorm in Britain" when he commented that blacks are less intelligent than whites. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302836,00.html

Watson writes in his book that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically". Nobody should question his expertise on evolutionary theory.

Such public attention has not been focused on the issue since the publication of Bell Curve. Ramdrake claims that Watson's views cannot be included to this article because "he is not an expert on intelligence". Nobody

However, Watson's comments are relevant simply because they caused much public debate on race and intelligence and prominent public figures (like Keith Vaz commented on the controversy. There are demands that Watson should be prosecuted.

This articles does not focus only on the scientific debate but also the public debate. Watson's views are notable ( WP:NOTE) in the public debate and reported by numerous reliable sources.

British news stories about the "scandal":

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488026&in_page_id=1770 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nwatson217.xml

MoritzB 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing this simple point: Watson is a biologist, not a psychologist, and doesn't specialize in any field related to intelligence. While he has notoriety for a totally separate reason, his opinion on the BW IQ gap are, to all intents and purposes, those of an educated layman. Let me draw an analogy: would you be quoting George Bush's views on the subject? I don't think so.-- Ramdrake 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if George W. Bush said that blacks are less intelligent than whites American newspapers would not talk about anything else for weeks. Thus, Bush's opinion would be notable and it should naturally be mentioned in the article in an appropriate section. However, as Bush presumably has a different view which has not gained notability his opinion is not included.

Watson said that blacks are less intelligent than whites. His opinion is notable because he is an eminent scientist and he caused a "scandal" which was widely covered in newspapers internationally.

As WP:RS and WP:NOTE are satisfied there is no reason to omit Watson's views.

MoritzB 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's another way to insert your POV by quoting one person's view that agrees with yours. Jeeny ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jeeny, the inclusion or exclusion shouldn't and doesn't hinge on whether the opinion agrees with any one editor. The case for excluding this opinion is that Watson is a molecular biologist, specializing in the structure of DNA, which has basically nothing to do with either race or intelligence studies, therefore,on this subject his opinion is no more notable than that of an educated layman (say, for analogy's sake, George W Bush).-- Ramdrake 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, please read WP:NOTE. Watson's opinion on this subject is notable because several large newspapers reported what Watson thinks of this issue. Therefore, according to the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia Watson's opinion is notable. Watson's possible lack of expertise is not an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

MoritzB 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake I know that. You had already pointed that out on why he didn't fit in the article. I'm just on Moritz's ass about his way-out there insertions into these types of articles. Jeeny ^(talk) 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Watson (unquestionably a notable person) has created scandals on a wide variety of (unquestionably notable) issues, FWIW. However, I'm sure that it is not the contention that every controversial issue on which a notable person publicly pronounces must include all those references. Articles will get rapidly bogged down with trivia if we included these kinds of pronouncements as a matter of course. Consider for example the George W. Bush article: Should we include the fact that the notable Dixie Chicks criticized him? Surely not, even though that incident, too, created a media storm, a hail of boycotts, and so on. Notable people cause public splashes by saying all kinds of things, and we simply can't insert into every article the comments by every notable person on that topic. There has to be more to determining whether something goes in an article about X than simply (a) a notable person (b) caused a public splash (c) by saying something about X.

It makes a lot of sense to say that this kind of thing is often notable in the life (and therefore wikipedia article) of the speaker, the notable person -- in this case, Jim Watson. But to say that it's relevant to the article about "X" is historically premature, at the least. That's an easy-to-follow guideline that helps keep minor publicity storms in the right context. -- lquilter 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, great point. Thanks. Jeeny ^(talk) 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that George W. Bush is receiving massive publicity constantly. The subject of race and intelligence is rarely discussed in the media. Watson's statements are the most notable event in the public debate about race and intelligence since the publication of Bell Curve. MoritzB 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think that tidbit of trivia is the most notable event in the public debate about race and intelligence since the publication of Bell Curve, you're either sorely ignorant, or you haven't read much about the debate.-- Ramdrake 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have followed it closely. This event is more notable than e.g. the local scandal caused by prof. Tatu Vanhanen in Finland. MoritzB 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Tatu Vanhanen should get taken out, too, then, if its sole relevance is as a minor media scandal about a notable public figure. ... On GWB -- I used that page advisedly as an example of how this precedent could lead to useful article information being overwhelmed by irrelevant content in the case of something that was even more controversial than this topic. The principle would apply to any article. But consider the topic at hand: When The Bell Curve came out, a gajillion people were commenting on the matter. We don't need to have every notable person's commentary pro & con on The Bell Curve included, even if we decide that The Bell Curve debate is notable in the history of this topic. (Which I believe it was.) Look, if Watson's new book primarily addresses this topic, and reignites a firestorm of controversy as TBC did, then we will be able to see that the whole thing is notable in the history of this topic. But at present the best we can say is it's a WikiNews topic, and certainly notable as a highlight (or lowlight, depending) in Watson's many controversial statements. -- lquilter 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Watson's comments did cause a major controversy. MoritzB 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Watson's statement belong to his page, but not here. He is not an expert on the topic at hand. How controversial a statement is in not the proper criterion for inclusion in this article, the proper criterion for inclusion is the academic relevance and significance of the material to be included. Thus, the Bell curve was a book. As flawed as it may be, it deserves inclusion because it attempted to draw from studies and other stuff. Watson's opinion is just an opinion so no need to put it here. When he says it in the context of a prp or book, then maybe then. Brusegadi 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Watson says so in his book. MoritzB 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish WP editors could try to be a little better informed. Watson has retracted his statement, following protests by British government ministers, the British press and a cancellation of a scheduled presentation at the Science Museum in London. He claims he never made these remarks, although this apparently contradicts the taped interviews by the Sunday Times. MoritzB as usual has cherry-picked an extremist unscientific statement to add authority to his own minority viewpoint. This kind of gossipy titbit should never be permitted in a WP article. MoritzB must surely be aware of the furore Watson's statement has created and of Watson's subsequent public retraction. Yet he remains silent. Why? This material was and is completely unsuitable for WP articles. Mathsci 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The protest of government ministers and the press make this very relevant.

Watson's current (Oct 19) position:

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity."

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm MoritzB 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The adverse reaction from the UK scientific establishment (and not just the UK government) shows that this material is completely unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia at present. Quoting newspaper tittle-tattle, as you did, might seem OK for your own purposes, whatever they are. This is gossip, however; it does not come from peer-reviewed verifiable scientific sources. I don't know why you persisted in spinning these idle and unsupported speculations. -- Mathsci 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Watson is certainly entitled to his opinions. However, he is not an expert on the subject, so his opinion isn't relevant to the scientific debate on the question.-- Ramdrake 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a reasonable assumption that the ancestors of all people in the world today looked similar in the distant past, in the same way that people of the same race look similar today. Those ancestors became geographically separated and evolved into different races. It would be surprising if the only differences that evolved between those races were those apparent to the eye. However, our public policies and current standards of political correctness compel us to say if not believe that the only differences are those noticeable by sight and perhaps a predisposition towards certain health problems. Unfortunately, misguided public policy meant to benefit a certain sector of society costs taxpayer dollars and can even have a negative effect on other sectors of society. Public policy must take into account the inconvenient truths of the real world, not a politically correct fantasy world. -- Jagz 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you read some of the huge body of genetic evidence on the "biological reality of races", particularly the part that finds more variation between individuals than between races. The fact that you think it might be so doesn't make it so.-- Ramdrake 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see on your user page that you do not believe in the existence of human races except as a social construct. Look up "race" in the dictionary, that is what I'm talking about. What I am referring to is the average characteristics of a race, not individual variations within a race. -- Jagz 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look up a good primer on anthropology on the construction of "race". Above all, this is an article about facts, not about suppositions. So far, all you have brought to the table are your own suppositions.-- Ramdrake 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find a discussion of the debates over "race" in the Race article. It also discusses models of human evolution. -- Jagz 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that: what's your point?-- Ramdrake 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion is finished. -- Jagz 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cavalli himself has made significant contributions to the fight against racism. On several occasions he publicly debated Arthur Jensen and William Shockley arguing that environmental factors could explain the black white IQ gap."

This information does not relate to the evolutionary history of intelligence. It is misplaced and badly written. (What "fight against racism"???)

The chapter "prejudice and intelligence": "A study done at a university known for its conservative values in the south of the US was carried out in order to determine whether a relationship existed between prejudice and IQ. Students were given an IQ test and a test that measures racial prejudice. The study found that students who scored lower on IQ tests were more prejudiced"

This article is about race and intelligence, not prejudice and intelligence. The information is irrelevant and badly written. ("A university known for its conservative values"???)

MoritzB 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Above you are correct. That study is not relevant for race and intelligence. Prejudice relation to ignorance may very well be true, but that is irrelevant. Unless you find a study linking prejudice and racism and stating the connection between that study and 'race and intelligence', unless you find a study linking them you cannot include it based on synthesis. Brusegadi 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to keep reinserting crap into the article.-- Ramdrake 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting crap? What are you trying to say? I deleted those irrelevant sentences. You reinserted them. I do not defend their existence on Wikipedia.

Please explain why Cavalli-Sforza's "fight against racism" is relevant in this article. Furthermore, explain why possible correlation between some psychological trait (prejudice) and intelligence should be relevant in this article which is about race and intelligence. MoritzB 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why you can't see the relevance of (prejudice) in this article is beyond me. As prejudice (racist) is related to ignorance (intelligence). Jeeny ^(talk) 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article does not seem to appropriately demonstrate an overall objective viewpoint. What I mean by this statement does not refer to the fact that issues mentioned are controversial. In fact, the lack of objectivity stems directly from the direction that this article follows when providing information. It seems apparent that the first sign of trouble comes immediately after reading the title. As this article itself admits (and I must apologize, but I do not intend to cite the specific reference within this article), there is a level of ambiguity involved with a concept such as "race". It appears to me that if such a concept is in dispute it should be relegated to a subsection of such an article, allowing for a title that actually describes what the article intends to discuss. Moreover, there is a need to distinguish this last, as the article appears to jointly describe how "genes influence intelligence" and "current racial controversies", a pair of topics that should not be displayed directly within the same section.

Frank0570618 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

This article needs to have a proper description of how evolutionary factors would affect intelligence over a short period of time (i.e. 65 000 years). In the discussion of "the evolutionary history of IQ" there are several scientific facts that have been overlooked with regard to evolutionary theory. For example, the claim that there would be any change in IQ from generation to generation is as close to Lamarkian reasoning as I have ever seen. This is very nearly done by the source cited (who, matter of fact, has a background in chemistry) to be arguing in favour of genetic variations in intelligence since the exist of humans from Africa. Specifically, the statement that the only variation needed would be 0.004 per generation can only be seen to be relevant if it is assumed that there will be genetic variability BETWEEN generations. Otherwise, it must simply be stated that there would need to be a change of 12 IQ points (IQ being a relative scale by the way, which I am sure environmental factors would have a dramatically greater influence on than genetic factors would--i.e. if you were to give an IQ test to a person 60 000 years ago, they would most certainly not score within an average range of today's values) over 65 000 years. As well it must be mentioned that the idea it is possible to accurately quantitatively measure the value of change in intelligence (a variable that must be acted upon by thousands of factors) is somewhat simplistic.

Frank0570618 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Why on earth does Wikipedia have ten articles on this topic, when it is unquestionably fringe science at best? Such vast coverage seems to confer an implicit authority on the topic, and so represents a kind of undue weight; where are the series of articles arguing the mainstream view that (i) 'race' is highly dubious as a scientific concept, (ii) 'intelligence' is almost as contentious (and extremely difficult to measure), and (iii) even if they are serious concepts, a link between the two has yet to be conclusively proven. If this is science at all (as opposed to psuedoscience), it is not an area that any significant number of biologists are concerned with - and rightly so, given how the main publishers and readers of this 'research' seem to be unapologetic racists.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these articles were created by POV-pushers, and while I appreciate the efforts of more reasonable editors to keep them neutral, the mere existence of so many articles on this topic is inherently non-neutral. I would suggest that at least some of them be deleted, and this material be cut down to a shorter length to more accurately represent the (lack of) scientific validity of the subject matter. Terraxos 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Most of the information in this area is deserving of a disclaimer. Basically, a large portion of this stuff is statistically weak when placed into the context that these sorts of articles describe. As well, the conclusions that are being drawn from much of this research are considerably too close to pseudo-science. Personally, freedom of information should be paramount to something like Wikipedia, but the improper censoring shown in this kind of article really hurt such a cause.

24.57.200.105 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

I thought an accurate description of the matter may be a chart that uses people of exactly the same education and the same numbers of people for each group. That kind of education would better be higher. Ideally, a masters degree or higher required (to avoid cheeply gotten lower school degrees). Is there such a chart? -- Leladax 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ps. i've seen many iq tests, most are obviously rewarding education. some even have geography questions for heaven's sake. i suspect law graduates score lower than lower level physics or math degrees for not being in contact with math at all. -- Leladax 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC) pps. maybe someone should try a chart of math students of masters level. -- Leladax 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel laureate, writes in his 2007 book, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science":

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically". "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

-- Jagz 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Although ironic, it is not necessarily overly surprising that a "father" of the double helix might be very wrong about the functioning of evolutionary theory and genetics. Lacking complete and definite proof of something does not make it untrue. On the other hand, making claims that are both unproven and somewhat fat-fetched under the name of science without necessarily finding any proof is most definitely worthy of shame. Dr. Watson has rightfully lost any sense of credibility he may have once had due to his involvement of such activity. Our wanting to eliminate bigotry as a form of expression within a society supposedly based on equality will not be enough to make it so--but, hopefully the effort itself may be more than a worthwhile expenditure of time.

24.57.200.105 07:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Do you believe Dr. Watson's above statements are untrue? -- Jagz 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not those specific statements are correct or not is unimportant. The fact is that there does not happen to be any relevant evidence to the contrary. In such a case, why should a relative layman who carries a considerable level of scientific influence in other areas make further claims than those which you have presented on the basis of what can only amount to opinion. It seems to me that he is either a fool, a bigot or simply too far past his prime to know the difference.

131.104.235.213 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

I don't know everything he wrote or said, only the controversial statements the press chose to publish. Maybe someone was asking him his opinion on certain topics and he answered, and then they chose to take everything he said that was likely to cause controversy and published it. -- Jagz 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for him, I really don't care which reason it is that is most responsible for his statements. Within about 10 minutes of looking I read exact quotes that were offensive to women, minorities (in terms of intelligence, sexual vigour and preference as well as work ethic) as well as people of different body masses. In each case, the statements represented ideas that related genetic factors (factors which there would be no possible way of proving causally) to numerous different ideas--ideas which, when stated, in any context would be considered offensive. At some point it must be admitted that whatever reason he might have for making such statements, the overall result is rather shameful.

131.104.235.213 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

If I was 79, had won a Nobel prize, and was an atheist, I'd say what I believed too. -- Jagz 04:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I suppose the most flattering way to look at the matter is that Watson is just a really big xxxxx. God, I hope no one quotes this--I am definitely not proud of such a comment.

131.104.235.213 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

It's not quite that simple. He's also out of touch, as a lot of people at that age are. (No offense to other 79+ year old Wikipedia editors intended.) I remember one of my grandmothers making some comments that were blatantly racist ("she was really nice for a black girl"), having no idea how that could be taken "the wrong way". These aren't bad people, they're a product of their times. (I.e., they were raised during more ignorant times.) Ben Hocking ^{( talk| contribs)} 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagz: Watson's opinions are of no interest to WP except perhaps to add to a "controversy" section on his WP bio. The fact that someone has won a Nobel prize does not legitimize random statements they make; they remain opinions and not verifiable facts, supported by science. Brian Josephson, Nobel laureate in physics, publicly supports the most far-fetched parts of fringe science; he has also publicly predicted in a Royal Mail leaflet that quantum mechanics will explain telepathy. He is not yet 79. However, the fact that MoritzB and others are still promoting Watson's sentiments, after he has rather publicly retracted them, is quite disturbing. I do not think that the Science Museum in London, which withdrew its invitation to Watson, represents the Media or the Government; I would rather say it represents part of the UK science establishment. Does MoritzB claim otherwise? -- Mathsci 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Watson was suspended from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 6 days ago; he resigned from his position today. -- Mathsci 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is a shame for wikipedia. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence Intelligence is hard to define (see par. on "definition", "Other definitions"). It is clearly not the same as IQ tests.

Likewise, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race#20th-_and_21st-Century_debates_over_race Nobody agrees on what is or is not "human race".

This article seems to be about some comparison between IQ tests and human color skins. Either this article should be removed or its title changed. Herve661 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the science behind this is contrversial, even questionable, some scientists have chosen to study the phenomenon, each giving his/her interpretation of the facts. As an encyclopedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to report neutrally on such things, including those who think this hypothesis has merit, and those who think it is pseudoscience, and that's what we tried to do here. If you have specific suggestions to improve this article, please do suggest; however, please take note that Wikipedia isn't censored.-- Ramdrake 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed << "Race" and "intelligence" >> (with quotes) or << IQ tests and "race" >>? It seems most of the references at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28References%29 either condemn the broad use of such terms or use quotes or clearly announce that the terms should not be understood as the usual meaning of "race" and "intelligence". The only one that use both terms ( http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm) basically say such comparison is not relevant. Herve661 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree fully with Ramdrake. I also believe that in its current state this article does not represent a valid section of any encyclopaedia. Again, there are several required actions that must be taken. First, it must be shortened to describe what the article is actually about, namely a specific type of support for a "theory of race". With this in mind, the article should simply have a brief synopsis of what race may be, and the exact reason why it is considered controversial (specifically, no causal evidence). As long as the article makes such a statement (this being in particularly clear terms, mind you)--and it is therefore inferred by readers that much of what is described in the article may be incorrect--then there can be some elaboration on the subject. Further, it must be considered that for every point made in support of such a theory of race, there must be a support refuting it--this being a major reason why race is often not considered to be a valid construct.

P.S. It would be advisable to make sure concepts such as evolution are not mucked up too much.

131.104.235.213 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

Unfortunately, this isn't how Wikipedia works: we can't limit ourselves to exposing the tenets of the racialist researchers and then pose a value judgment saying they're almost certainly wrong. We are bound by policy to describe all significant positions in a debate without taking sides. And we can't do a tit-for-that of all arguments, either.-- Ramdrake 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This should not be in this article. It's an original synthesis of sources and highly misleading. This article is on race and intelligence, not just race and IQ test scores. Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Gottfredson and Richard Lynn are all controversial figures and Flynn's numbers are taken out of context. (His point was to show how IQ changed over time) The overall impression this table gives is that these numbers are accurate reflections of the intelligences of people from various parts of the world, rather than IQ test scores, that are in some cases based on speculation rather than actual tests. (Especially Richard Lynn's numbers.)

We have had this debate before. and that is why the numbers were moved out of the main article. We decided that they were not main-stream enough to be included here. Nothing has changed. The entire section needs to go. futurebird 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The debate is about explaining the measured differences in IQ test scores. MoritzB 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sociologist Thomas Volken said that data fromIQ and the Wealth of Nations are "highly deficient," citing limited sampling and varying tests and years. link In a 1995 review of The Bell Curve, Leon Kamin wrotes that "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity." These data are exactly main-stream or widely accepted, if you ask me.

And once again, this particular synthesis is novel and possibly original research. futurebird 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. MoritzB persistently pushes dubious sources, such as Lynn, to support his own particular WP:POV. Lynn's selective misuse of statistics has been criticized publicly in Nature and elsewhere, yet here and elsewhere on WP MoritzB attempts to misrepresent Lynn as a mainstream scientist. In the same way, MoritzB has included citations from contemporary newspapers on the WP, seemingly to justify lynchings in USA in the last century. This smacks of racism. -- Mathsci 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen are just two guys... but, hundreds of researchers have worked on this question. I think outlining 10 points' in support of their theory alone is over-kill. Environmental explanations are only briefly mentioned in the last paragraph of this section, even though they are what main-stream scientists support most often and the most fruitful areas of research. (We can show the socio economic factors and racism have a direct impact on test scores, the gentic explination is only based on data anaysis.) If you look at Race and intelligence (Explanations) you'll see that the bulk of the information in that article is describing environmental explanations. This article should follow a similar pattern.

The explanations section comes across is if it is trying to make a point and show that Rushton and Jensen have a valid theory. That's NPOV and undue weight. futurebird 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen are mainstream scientists. (See Snyderman and Rothman (study))Those ten points are the summary of the hereditarian position in general, not just their own views. MoritzB 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen's work is considered controversial. They even admits as much themselves.

"Also in the 1990s, Phillipe Rushton has tried to couch racial differences in IQ in a theory drawn from evolutionary biology. This theory takes the concepts of r and K selection, crudely useful when applied to a vast range of living creatures considered on a continuum, and apply it to subtle differences in skull form, mental test results, and sexual behavior within our one species. This theory has no academic legitimacy and little relationship to real evolutionary theory, but it taints the whole Darwinian enterprise, strongly recalling the “scientific anthropology” of the era of slavery." "The reality is quite different. As argued by George Armelagos in his Presidential Address to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (“Race, Reason and Rationale,” Evolutionary Anthropology 4, 1995, pp. 103–109) race itself is a dubious concept for the human species. Obviously it is sociologically meaningful, but even in the social realm it is a constantly moving target with little or no core biological legitimacy." link

The author presents a discussion of certain portions of Arthur Jensen's controversial article. The general conclusion is that Jensen has not provided substantial evidence that there are differences in neural structure among children from different social or ethnic groups which are genetically determined. The reviewer reacts to Jensen's conclusion "that schools and society must provide a range and diversity of educational methods, programs and goals, and occupational opportunities, just as wide as the range of human abilities." While the reviewer finds no objection to this general statement, he feels that the premise upon which it is built is rather flimsy because of the implication that individuals of different backgrounds are genetically different. A Critique of Jensen's Article: How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Sanua, Victor D.

"some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum." ^ On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton, by Zack Cernovsky, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25 (July 1, 1995), p. 672.

If you go to "eugenics.net" you'll see that only they put the word controversial in quotes when talking about Jensen. I think that they are the only people who would dispute the idea that his work is controversial.

Their work is only accepted by a small minority of scientists and a handful of self avowed racists. Even if you don't agree with any of this criticism there is so much of it that it's a little silly to call Rushton and Jensen's work "main-stream."

futurebird 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. MoritzB is infamous for his "main-stream" racist ideology. He's been warned about his POV pushing, and he's still at it. FB, you are smart and know how to read sources, so you can be bold and remove that which gives undue weight to these fringe ideologies, and not real science. :) Jeeny ^(talk) 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Snyderman and Rothman among psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists (in 1987), 53% thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic and 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. Snyderman and Rothman (study) MoritzB 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's been debated ad nauseam why that poll is not representative, despite the claims of those who trot it out every chance they get.-- Ramdrake 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between mainstream and famous. I would like to see how many articles specifically pertaining to these so-called mainstream theories were published in journals such as Science. The fact is, although there is always going to be an element of the scientific community that will support both ethically and statistically questionable ideas, the belief that those scientists whom are most popular within such an element are necessarily recognized as being credible by the scientific community as a whole is flawed. By the way, the Cold War was still on in 1987. I don't think that one poll from twenty years ago is really much of a support for your argument.

131.104.235.213 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

I would also like to point out to Moritz, after glancing at the article that he sourced above, that the idea that there is a distinction between environmental and genetic impacts on behaviour/intelligence/etc is a misconception. Within the last decade at the very least, this idea has been widely discredited because it is not only too narrow, but it completely ignores very apparent interactions between the two. Statistically speaking, if these two variables interact in all situations, there is NO possible way to correlate one of the variables with something else (such as intelligence) because they will most certainly be confounded. The main issue with intelligence and race arguments is that they are simply another method attempting to support the "race concept"--a concept that has failed in most relevant areas because it is not consistent with evolutionary theory. Why we need to support another concept that will evoke racism is beyond me. Do the research that is fine. Publish your findings and make conclusions (no matter how far fetched), I support it fully--this is the essence of science. But stop writing the biased, unsubstantiated crap that is out there for everyone to see. Propaganda is anything but a necessary evil for supporting views that are considered to be controversial.

131.104.235.213 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618

The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences between individuals of the same race reflect (1) real, (2) functionally/socially significant, and (3) substantial differences in the general intelligence factor. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}

This sentences is misleading because it makes it seem like all of those footnotes are in some way supporting Rushton and Jensen's idea about race and intelligence. This sentence is about genetics and intelligence not race... as are the sources that support it. Can we remove some of the sources from this sentence so there are only the two best ones? When I see this many footnotes I assume someone has an ax to grind... also it looks a little silly. futurebird 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The sources should stay. The sentence is not ambiguous. MoritzB 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No the sources should not stay. Moritz haven't you learned anything yet? Jeeny ^(talk) 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence should be changed to support the sources: "The consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences in individuals reflect genetic contributions that are..." Ben Hocking ^{( talk| contribs)} 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben, could you implement this rewording? It would be a start. futurebird 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only include valid sources? I looked over these, and only one refers to a paper actually published in an academic journal. Moreover, all of the "articles" are from online newspapers (the exception is a book review...I'll leave others to make their own conclusions about this) that quite obviously do not represent a consensus of the scientific community (of intelligence researchers). Please, I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be some kind of peer-reviewed, academic journal, but if you intend to create an encyclopaedic entry, you must actually use information that is valid. And yes, this criticism is in addition to the fact that support for the statement listed above is not presented in these sources--thankfully, this has already been mentioned several times.

Just to make the point clear this particular set of citations (and I know as a fact there are many similar ones) reminds me of how I used to get sources for my papers in grade school. I would create claims about what I believed, read information in a related area and cite those sources that were closest to the subject area that I was speaking about for a particular point. Luckily for me, my teachers didn't think it was as important that my information be correct as it was that I bother to make a reference list properly. I guess we all need to outgrow the habits we learned as twelve-year-olds--maybe it is time Wikipedia makes sure it does as well.

131.104.235.213 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618