![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Continuing WP:BRD, I think that it is not a great idea to have the Bell Curve picture in the lede. Mathsci ( talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to demand that image. I just thought having something to illustrate the distribution of score as well as the overlap could be helpful to the reader. (By the way, I've posted a similar note on the talkpage.) -- Aryaman (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the balance between the environmental interpretation and the hereditarian interpretation is not very good at the moment. There are too many criticisms of the environmental point of view and too few of the genetic point of view. Critiques of the genetic point of view can be found in the books of Fish, Mackintosh and Nisbett. I think these sections and the introductory passage preceding them need a lot more work, with tightening up and the addition of missing content. Mathsci ( talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am through the "data gathering" section but still have the rest to review. Could someone provide an update on what's most likely to happen here? If it's possible or likely that the outline and article will be scraped or reverted to an earlier version, then I'd prefer not to spend more time on this now. On the other hand, if it's likely that David' outline is the first step toward a new and agreed-upon article, then I will keep going.
re citations. I am aware that all my claims eventually need ample cites. That process is tedious (but will be done) so I was hoping to do it last, and only if agreement is reached that what I wrote be included. Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks DK
I don't expect that all or even most of my comments will go in. If there's consensus here that they should go in, then they should.
Realize though that lack of citations so far is a non-issue. I wouldn't put any claims in my review unless I could make them well-cited. To save time, however, they do not yet include cites.
I briefly skimmed Aprock's comments and seemed to agree with most of them; could be I missed something (I think he/she is dead on re the requirement that any explanation co-vary systematically with race, or it's not an explanation. This is what I referred to awhile back as the difference between a source of error variance versus a confound (finding a confound here would be the explanation for the race gap, at least partly).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also added to Talk:Race and intelligence
Mathsci ( talk) 11:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wapondaponda: are you satisfied with the compromise Mathsci and Occam worked out, or do you still have qualms about it? And Occam: please tread a little more gently. when you say "nobody other than you [Wapondaponda] had a problem..." that means that you were aware that Wapondaponda did have a problem, and you should have taken care to address that before charging ahead. ok? -- Ludwigs2 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD is indeed very important here. If someone reverts you, my advice is this: start a section on the talk page of the article in question. Summarize your edit, and why you believe you are not violating NPOV, V, or NOR. Ask anyone if they believe you are violating any of these core content policies, and if so, how. Tell people you will welcome suggestions about how to phrase your edit and here to put it (i.e. improve the style). Wait a day or two, but at least 36 hours, and then if no one has any objections, make your edit again. If someone has objections, respond to them - seriously, and collegially. This is all part of collaborative editing which is wht Wikipedia is all about. But once you have responded to all objections by improving your proposed edit, edit the article again. My point: once reverted, take it to the talk page of the article and discuss it in a constructive and cooperative way, welcoming suggested improvements. Once discussion is over, then make your edit again. (originally from slrubenstein)
I have made available a pdf file of Appendix B of "Intelligence and how to get it" by Richard Nisbett here. As discussed right at the beginning of mediation, it might be a good idea for someone to write a summary of the nine points that Nisbett makes in arguing "The case for a purely environmental basis for black/white differences in IQ" (the title of the appendix). Preferably someone who supports the herditarian point of view. Mathsci ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I submit Nisbett is not an expert on the topic in that he hasn't contributed any peer-reviewed science to the area (as far as I know). I think the only reason his book is being featured prominently here is because it is recent. I remember reading a recent review of his book (I think it was in Intelligence). I will try to dig it up and link to it. My point is we shouldn't over-weight his book here as I don't think he is mainstream in this specific are Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
hiding off-topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Nibett is a prestigious social scientist. He received his PhD. from Columbia University, one of the top psychology programs in the orld. And he is co-director of the Culture and Cognition program at the University of Michigan, also one of the top programs in the rowld. he has published important work on intelligence with major presses. I think his psychology credentials are better than anyone working here, and at least as good s Jensen's. We should treat him as a significant view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Nisbett's got a great vita and is surely a big name-- in his field. His field is not this. Here's a review of his book by someone in field (published in Intelligence).
A Must Read — Perhaps with Maalox Review of: Richard Nisbett (2009) : Intelligence and How to Get it. New York, Norton, ISBN 976-0-393-06505-3
There are good and bad things about the book, but the review shows that clearly this is not Nisbett's field (the review takes place as an insider critiquing the outsider's comments).
Doesn't mean he's wrong. My point is a book should be secondary to data.
I also think its recency will make it be over-weighted here. I guess I am fine with the Wiki article featuring it, but I don't think it is mainstream...jmo.
Bpesta22 (
talk)
01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
Bpesta22 (
talk)
01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it fails because it seems to be (not convinced yet) a work of advocacy and not science per the reasons mentioned in Rushton's review (it's a long review, summarized well though in the discussion section). I don't think it's as bad as Gould, but I don't think it should be given as much weight as say the APA article. Perhaps it's a minor issue, as I am not against mentioning it here, even though I don't personally believe it's much of a contribution to the literature. I also think time will show it to have little impact on the field (obviously, jmo).
I've just seen a history of white knights from other areas attempting to save the poor idiots who actually do the research here. While it's entirely possible a white knight could expose the ignorance of a whole field, I haven't seen any in this field so far. 184.59.172.151 ( talk) 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Comment presumably by Bpesta22. Please log in when contributing here. Mathsci ( talk) 07:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bpesta22 ( talk) 02:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
off-topic material hidden, per mediation rules |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dr. Pesta, thanks for your views. As an expert in the field, your opinion that Nisbett is not as reliable a source as Rushton and Jensen is appreciated and important. mikemikev ( talk) 09:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have refactored several comments above. Comments on Brian Pesta's credentials and position are hereby strictly off-limits, per mediation rules. Mathsci, slrubenstien - if you cannot find some more convincing statement about Nisbett's importance in academia than comparing him to a wikipedia editor, then I would suggest the Nisbett is a very, very unimportant source, and if you make that argument one more time I will ask that any reference to Nisbett be removed from the article simply on the grounds that he is comparable to a wikipedia editor. Focus on content; not on editors. -- Ludwigs2 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not offended by questions about my credentials. I am aware of how my vita compares with other researchers.
I do think discussion here is relatively civil and productive (I've seen lots worse). I do really like the new intro, and think it's good to go. So, I think progress is being made here.
For Nisbett, I guess it's up to you all to decide. I mentioned my article only because I was asked for specifics on problems I had with his book. My point was not to prop up my work but to show that Nisbett's discussion on this specific issue is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst. Were that section sent to experts for peer-review, it would not pass (as written). That was my point.
Also, the Pioneer Fund has detailed info about charges of racism against it. My suggestion is if the editors want to make the claim that it's a hate group, they should at least link to the fund's rebuttal section (btw, Rushton is now the director of it).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the Nisbett thing is a minor issue now. I am fine including him, but he is no white knight as I described above and I do see flaws with his contribution to the area. But, presenting him to balance the issues is fine (I do think he carries no more or less weight in this specific field than rushton or jensen). I do think his section on RT would not pass peer review in the field, as written. Mentioning his ideas and Rushton's rebuttal would be perfectly reasonable.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At Ludwig's suggestion, I am posting this plan here for comment. Aprock, Occam, Faye and several other editors made extensive comments on our current draft. All good stuff! I think that we (?) promised them that those comments, at least the non-controversial ones, would be incorporated. Alas, no one has done so. Anyone else want to volunteer? If not, I will do so. (I think that a large number of changes are best done by a single person, acting with the forbearance of all active editors on the page.) If you object, please say so. My plan is to, like last time, make a whole bunch of edits in just a 24-hour period. My only request is that people not edit war with me while I am doing so. Give me a chance to make all the changes that I need to. Then, if you object, feel free to revert to what we have today (or to change whatever specific aspects you disagree with). Unless someone objects (or someone else volunteers), I plan to do this tomorrow. I realize that no large set of edits can make everyone equally happy, but I do think that, taken as a whole, my changes will (like last time) lead to an article that all can agree is better than what we have now. Comments? David.Kane ( talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wapondaponda: My main plan: 1) Incorporate all the non-controversial comments made by Aprock, Occam, Faye, Mathsci and others about the initial draft. 2) Do more tightening, better sourcing, better writing, more conciseness and so on. The same sort of changes that I made last time around, just done better. 3) Incorporating more general advice. MathSci has, for example, made some interesting comments (which I am still working to understand) about the importance of secondary sources like Makintosh and Nisbett. I plan on following that advice. Slrubenstein has provided thoughts on how to frame an article like this so that, in the future, editors find it easy to work with. I will try to do that. 4) I will not add Significance section, but I will try to rationalize the other sections in a sensible fashion. 5) I hope that my fixes to the interpretation section will assuage the concerns of the proponents of a Significance section. How does all that sound? David.Kane ( talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
<-I replied to David.Kane on my talk page and will just reproduce what I wrote there.
I think there are probably three things to do:
Mackintosh's book is extremely neutral, well-written and accessible, so might be the right place to start. The environmental point of view is also well represented in the book edited by Fish that I mentioned to Varoon Arya on the mediation talk page. I would get other people to help, because this is a lot of work. Mediation can probably stop fairly soon. If these become the three goals for the article, then developing these parts van progress more slowly according to everybody's availability as an editor. Mathsci ( talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it has been deemed necessary to cover the Pioneer Fund, I think it's more than fair to suggest a mention be made of the role of the Sociobiology Study Group and possibly also of its daughter organization, Science for the People. The Sociobiology debates of the 70's and 80's are certainly central to the whole environmental vs. hereditarian debate, particularly in relation to the issue of race and intelligence. Notable members of the Sociobiology Study Group included Dawkins, Gould and Lewontin, among others. This whole issue gets very political - not to mention slightly dangerous - very quickly, and I advise caution to any editor attempting to make critical mention of either of these organizations on Wikipedia. But the role of both has been documented in reliable sources, and at present the attention given to the Pioneer Group makes the whole history section extremely lop-sided. I'm a bit swamped with real-life work at the moment, so I won't be digging up the sources (google will provide all that is necessary), but anyone interested will find more than enough to put the history of this debate back into something resembling balance. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My take on two recent issues:
1. The brain size IQ link is interesting, but I don't think it needs a whole long section. It's clear now that brain size correlates weakly but significantly with IQ (cite McDaniel). This is a race blind meta-analysis, so it's strong evidence. Less well known is whether races differ in average brain size and whether those differences co vary with iq.
In other words, it's one thing to say that blacks average smaller brains than whites, but the distributions would surely overlap. The better study is one showing that the race difference in brain size maps directly on to individual (and group) scores on IQ tests. As far as I know, that study's not been done. It's sorta like the problem with environmental explanations-- until one shows that when controlling for individual brain size, the gap between blacks and whites goes away, this is only very indirect evidence of something important (in my view).
2. The PF is indeed controversial. I applied for a grant from them about 2 years ago (not funded). I was very careful to research and read about it first, because I heard the usual rumors about it being a hate group. In my opinion, it's not (I was satisfied with the explanation they gave about their controversies on their web site). Even if it were, though, the bottom line is the data and the research methodology used to produce the data. Unless there's a big conspiracy going on here (implicating the PF, people who got money from it, all peer reviewers and editors of various journals-- including APA journals) I don't see how mentioning the PF is relevant to this article. One needs more, I think-- direct evidence that its influence has biased the data. I don't think anyone's got that evidence. The PF is interesting enough to have its own wiki article, and just linking to it would be enough coverage (plus a sentence or two on it's role in funding research here).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 00:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ack; nice call. I was not familiar with these. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bpesta22 (
talk •
contribs)
01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your call on how much you want to feature the PF but money alone won't get stuff past peer review. It it's biased, it shouldn't survive peer-review. If it does, then the journal it appears in will quickly lose its reputation. If that doesn't happen, then for a topic this controversial, other scientists will trash it with data published in other premier journals. None of this has happened. Rushton, Jensen, Lynn get lots of stuff published. Intelligence has an impact factor above 3 (could be in part due to publishing controversial stuff). Their work is generally not contradicted by quality articles in other premier journals (witness the APA task force report). What is it then about the PF that's useful for this debate?
Also, look at Rushton's vita. He publishes in many APA journals. These journals simply do not publish crap (not saying that an article is "true" if published there, but it does mean the article passed rigorous peer review). For example, the R&J "30 years.." paper is published in an APA journal. Also, all these papers seem to be highly cited (though it could be controversy versus impact).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
SLU-- that seems reasonable and fair. Those who think the PF is relevant should write the section; then we can critically evaluate it.
I am a little confused about the expertise thing. I thought I was asked to give "expert" opinion. In a legal setting, if one is vetted as a qualified expert, then opinions-- versus facts -- are allowed into evidence. I'm not saying verbatim quote my opinions in the article, but please let me know if you require I cite every claim before you all will consider it. The sections I wrote above did not include citations because that is time consuming. Were those deemed ok to add to the article, I could easily add cites.
Thanks!
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly fair, Slu, and about what I expected coming into this. I admit to being surprised at how balanced discussion was here, compared to, well, anywhere else. That is good. In fact, it seems like my contributions not really needed here but I don't mind sticking around and adding my 2 cents, whether or not my comments get incorporated into the article.
I don't expect my one article on race and IQ needs to be cited. I was a bit surprised it got accepted as (except for perhaps the mediation analysis) I wasn't sure the incremental contribution was big enough to merit publication, and my minority sample size was pretty small. That said, if this article features race differences on reaction time or inspection time, as far as I know, mine is the most current example.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
During this discussion B.Pesta has had cause on a couple of occasions to refer to his point about error variance, in one of his published articles he linked for us. There was one occasion where Muntuwandi pointed out problems with some research that were indicated by the sample size and numbers of standard deviations (I don't recall whether he had an independent verifiable source making this point). I realize that both of these points are pretty technical and hard to explain both clearly and concisely. However, the fact is that the vast majority of interpretations of the test scores rely on statistical manipulations where sample size, standasrd deviations, error variance, etc are important and I think the article needs to cover them, somehow. How scientists reach their conclusions is just as important as the conclusions they reach. I suggest a section addressing this head-on: a paragraph or two on why we depend on certain concepts and procedures in statistics in order to intepret the data, and what kinds of problems researchers face or what issues researchers have to be sensitive to in analyzing data e.g. different sample sizes limit the kinds of comparisons we can make between different data sets, error variance, etc. I reread David kane's first revision 9the current article) and - without meaning to fault David in ANY way - some sections on different variables or factors or interpretations are hard to follow, and the reason is that they all take for granted a very basic understanding of how statistics can and cannot be interpreted. If we had a section on this around the beginning (maybe right after the section on the IQ test results?) i think it would make it a lot easier for people to follow the rest of the article.
many of you may not agree but I would suggest that this is because many of you have a good grasp of statistics and know this stuff quite well. The good news is: this means it should be pretty easy for you to write up what i am suggesting. And yes, links to articles that go into detail would be a good way to keep such a section concise. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Aprock, I am asking two things. First, can someone (you? B.Pesta? Muntuwandi?) write an entirely neutral explanation of the most basic principles of statistics one must understand in order to understand why as the article currently has it some interpretations have gained favor and others have been dismissed. You raise a second point, but the issue is: are there reliable sources making the point you are making now; the points Muntuwandi has made, and the point B.Pesta has made about error variance. Well, we know that Pesta has an article in a peer-reviewed journal making that point, so I think we should explain the point and cite Pesta. Can you or Muntuwandi provide sources for th points you are making? If so, can we include those points in the article, with citations? I think we really need a section explaining why certain concepts or principles of statistics are important for assessing the different interpretations of the data. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I for one would be very grateful to you for doing this. Of course any criticisms of The Bell Curve in a verifiable source should be explained in the article on the book itself. Perhaps - at whatever pace you can manage - you can work up an expanded criticism of that book for the article on the book, and a compressed account of statistical issues for this article. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk
I'd be happy to write a few paragraphs on the stats end of it. My data are freely available to anyone who wants them. I suspect that's true of any data published in the journal. It would be an extreme red flag if any researcher refused to provide the data when asked for it. I suspect that anyone doing research on this specific topic knows damn well that they'd better keep the raw data forever...!
It's probably a good idea to have a very brief primer on correlation, regression and partial correlation (perhaps also factor analysis). Anything more, and you'd be better served linking to the wiki page that covers each type of statistic.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to step on Aprock's toes here. If he/she wants to write it, that is fine. Let me know.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am starting another major rewrite of the article now. You patience is much appreciated. I will be done by noon EDT April 9. If other editors could avoid edit warring with me during this period, I would appreciate it! Of course, once I am done, you may do whatever you like. Goals:
No rewrite can make everyone happy. I hope that you will judge this effort on the following basis: Is the article that I show you tomorrow better, on the whole, then the article we have today (or, at least, the article that we started with several months ago). If you have any thoughts, feel free to offer them here. But I will probably not have the time to reply until tomorrow. David.Kane ( talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
TechnoFaye is proposing the following section be added to to the draft, under the heading Brain Size. This would be a subsection of the Group Differences section. Text as follows, with a reflist template to make reviewing references easier. -- Ludwigs2 20:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Many MRI volumetric analyses have shown that on average, the brains of people identifying themselves as African-American are 5% smaller than the brains of people identifying themselves as white, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and 6% smaller than people identifying themselves as Asian. [6] [7]
These results have been duplicated worldwide many times and verified by three other methods not involving MRI. [8] The subjects used in the study were similar in body size. [9] Since the anomaly is seen in newborns, fetuses, and embryos just weeks old, the difference is not likely to be due to environment. [10]
The average brain volumes (in cm3) are approximately 1,268 (Africans), 1,362 (Europeans), and 1,415 (East Asians). [11] The black/Asian difference is about one-quarter measuring cup of brain material.
A study on twins showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. [12] A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors.Posthuma; et al. (2002). "The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin". Nature Neuroscience. 5: 83–84.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 30 ( help)In a study of the head growth of 633 term-born children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort, it was shown that prenatal growth and growth during infancy were associated with subsequent IQ. The study’s conclusion was that the brain volume a child achieves by the age of 1 year helps determine later intelligence. [13]
References
- ^ Harvey I, Persaud R, Ron MA, Baker G, Murray RM. Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared with schizophrenics and healthy controls. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 689-99.
- ^ Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7–20.
- ^ Jones PB, Harvey I, Lewis SW, Toone BK, Van Os J, Williams M,Murray R. M. Cerebral ventricle dimensions as risk factors for schizophrenia and affective psychosis: an epidemiological approach to analysis. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 995-1011.
- ^ The Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence: Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.
- ^ Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Rushton JP. Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 1997; 25: 7-20.
- ^ Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
- ^ Brain weight at autopsy: Vint FW. The brain of the Kenya native. J Anat 1934; 48: 216-23, Broca P. Sur les crânes de la caverne de l’Homme Mort (Loere) Revue d’Anthropologie 1873; 2: 1-53. Bean RB. Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain. Am J Anat 1906; 5: 353-432. Mall FP. On several anatomical characters of the human brain, said to vary according to race and sex, with special reference to the weight of the frontal lobe. Am J Anat 1909; 9: 1-32 Pearl R. (1934). The weight of the Negro brain. Science 1934; 80: 431-4 empty skull volume: Morton SG. Observations on the size of the brain in various races and families of man. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 1849; 4: 221- 4. Head-size/body weight ratio: Dozens of studies, summarized in Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
- ^ Schultz AH. Comparison of White and Negro fetuses. In: Davenport CB, Osborn HF, Wissler C, Laughlin HH, Eds. Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics: Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State (Plates 11 and 12). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 1923.
- ^ Schultz AH. Comparison of White and Negro fetuses. In: Davenport CB, Osborn HF, Wissler C, Laughlin HH, Eds. Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics: Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State (Plates 11 and 12). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 1923.
- ^ Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Paul Thompson, Tyrone D. Cannon, Katherine L. Narr; et al. "Genetic influences on brain structure" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience. 4 (12): 1253–1253.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Catharine R. Gale, PhD, Finbar J. O'Callaghan, PhD, Maria Bredow, MBChB, Christopher N. Martyn, DPhil and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team (October 4, 2006). "The Influence of Head Growth in Fetal Life, Infancy, and Childhood on Intelligence at the Ages of 4 and 8 Years". PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 4 October 2006, pp. 1486-1492. Retrieved August 6 2006.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
I could have posted this comment equally well on the talk page of the article.
TechnoFaye's edits were completely out of line in using pre-1930 references about brain size. [6] The edits on this topic, which have been made repeatedly, go against all wikipedia policies. (Independently of mediation, repeated instances of this extreme kind of edit can often result in a community topic ban.) Mathsci ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984). Using the method of weighing brains at autopsy, Paul Broca (1873) reported that Whites averaged heavier brains than did Blacks, with larger frontal lobes and more complex convolutions. (Broca also used endocranial volume and found East Asians averaged larger cranial capacities than Europeans, who averaged larger than Blacks.) Other early autopsy studies found a mean Black–White group difference in brain weight of about 100 g (Bean, 1906; Mall, 1909; Pearl, 1934; Vint, 1934). A more recent autopsy study of 1,261 American adults found that the brains of 811 White Americans in their sample averaged 1,323 g and the brains of 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223 g—a difference of 100 g (Ho, Roessmann, Straumfjord, & Monroe, 1980). Because the Blacks and Whites in the study were similar in body size, this was not responsible for the differences in brain weight. --Rushton
It appears that neural wiring is an important factor in determining intelligence. [9] [10] -- Horse wiz ( talk) 22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Faye, I agree that it’s worthwhile for the article to discuss brain size, but I have some suggestions about it.
1: Do we really need references about this from more than 70 years ago? Methodology for measuring brain volume has improved so much during the time since then that I really don’t see what this material adds to the article. If you think this material is worth mentioning just out of historical interest, I think you should qualify it by saying something like, “comparisons of average brain size between races have been the subject of studies since the 19th century, and many of early studies of this have obtained similar results to modern studies, despite their primitive methodology.”
2: I think we need to neutrally present the debate that exists over whether the difference in brain size is due to genetics or environment. At least one of the sources you’re using (Niesser 1997) takes the perspective that the difference in brain size is environmental, so NPOV policy requires that we present his perspective also.
Is that an acceptable compromise between TechnoFaye and other users? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 04:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Within human populations, studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures. Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4. [1]
A study on twins showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. [2] A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors.Posthuma; et al. (2002). "The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin". Nature Neuroscience. 5: 83–84.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 30 ( help)In a study of the head growth of 633 term-born children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort, it was shown that prenatal growth and growth during infancy were associated with subsequent IQ. The study’s conclusion was that the brain volume a child achieves by the age of 1 year helps determine later intelligence. [3]
Many MRI volumetric analyses have shown that on average, the brains of people identifying themselves as African-American are 5% smaller than the brains of people identifying themselves as white [4] [5] [6] and 6% smaller than people identifying themselves as Asian.Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). [7]The average brain volumes (in cm3) are approximately 1,268 (Africans), 1,362 (Europeans), and 1,415 (East Asians). [6]
- ^ S. F. Witelson, H. Beresh and D. L. Kigar (2006). "Intelligence and brain size in 100 postmortem brains: sex, lateralization and age factor". Brain. 129 (2). Oxford University Press: 386–398. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh696.
- ^ Paul Thompson, Tyrone D. Cannon, Katherine L. Narr; et al. "Genetic influences on brain structure" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience. 4 (12): 1253–1253.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Catharine R. Gale, PhD, Finbar J. O'Callaghan, PhD, Maria Bredow, MBChB, Christopher N. Martyn, DPhil and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team (October 4, 2006). "The Influence of Head Growth in Fetal Life, Infancy, and Childhood on Intelligence at the Ages of 4 and 8 Years". PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 4 October 2006, pp. 1486-1492. Retrieved August 6 2006.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7–20.
- ^ The Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence: Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.
- ^ a b Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
Great, a nice explanation. But how does it relate to the brain size data? mikemikev ( talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Rushton in the book "Race and intelligence: separating science from myth" (ed Jefferson Fish, Routledge) is only available on questia (free one day trial access). A version of the article by its author, Joseph L. Graves jr, is in print elsewhere [11]. I have made it available here. The article in the book is more detailed and is summarised in the article. On pages 146-147, Graves explains that Rushton has misrepresented the original data on brain size, gathered not by him but in the following book:
This would appear to place a questionmark next to the unqualified use by Mikemikev of Rushton's paper as a WP:RS in the article. Mathsci ( talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Look at what happened to Linda Gottfredson for daring to do science in this area. I think this answers why few people do research in this area...sorry for the ghastly looking link (feel free to fix it)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4Y6489M-2&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F18%2F2010&_alid=1286734883&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5897&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9aea813b4eed1008bc773ee85092aca8 other Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I dedicate what's to come to Bryan, in consideration of the treatment he got at that `science blog. They can't do that at wikipedia. Here, watch... TechnoFaye Kane 05:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the latest round of edits to the article do not conform to wikipedia core policies. The "history" section has serious problems becase it lacks context and is uninformative: it reads like an attempt to sanitize controversy by omission, despite what is written at length in multiple secondary sources. I have restored the lede and part of the history section, discussed at length here. I suggest we restore something like ordinary editing procedures as soon as possible, to avoid fruitless discussion. Mathsci ( talk) 06:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MathSci - particularly after D.K's comment, I need you to please stop guessing other editors' motives. I understand the cynicism, particularly for a case like this. But it's back to the hoary content/contributor problem. Folks will focus on the contributor aspect if one tries to include it with a content aspect, and Hilarity typically Ensues as people whack at strawmen (causing a feedback loop, since it often "confirms" suspicions). 99% of conflicts resulting in mediation come from this very problem. Just something to consider; continue as you will. Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not get into a edit war with MathSci. However, I feel that his behavior in not allowing me a final 3 hours to edit the article in peace is not very polite. But perhaps I am not being objective? If you think that my hard work on this article has earned me some goodwill from the editors involved in this mediation, please revert his latest change. David.Kane ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is really a problem of the redraft being done in mainspace, what David is writing isn't a final version, and regardless of his personal views, he's been very reasonable in terms of welcoming input and doing the thankless task of drafting. I'll make another plea to move the major redrafts to a sub page so that we can avoid everyone getting their undies in a bunch until the draft is ready.
A.Prock (
talk)
18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
why is the pioneer fund mentioned in the history section? it doesn't seem to meet the standard for importance relative to the size of the section/article. it's not, for example, in nisbett (2009). -- DJ ( talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
i'm struggling to express this clearly... we run the risk of losing needed subtlety if we put significant emphasis on a narrative of a conflict between two monolithic views. you can measure this by looking at who is being emphasized, attributed and quoted. lots of rushton and nisbett but less of authors like loehlin and hunt. -- DJ ( talk) 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(A version of this comment also appears on the article talk page.)
I have finished my one day plus a few hours of work on the rewrite. Comments:
I will leave it to other editors to judge whether or not this version, taken as a whole, is superior to the previous one. I look to the mediator for discussion about where we go from here. My recommendation: See if there is consensus that this version is better then where we started and see if there is consensus to end this mediation and go back to normal editing. David.Kane ( talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, his name is misspelled in the article:
"Nesbitt finds this argument unpersuasive, noting that
The g loadings of subtests do not differ that much, the g loading of a particular subtest cannot be construed as evidence about the degree to which the subtest measures strictly biological or hereditary differences as opposed to environmentally produced differences, and the scores for blacks have improved almost as much on a g-weighted IQ test as on a non-g-weighted test."
This is utter bullshit. digit span forward is half as g-loaded as digit span backward. Just one example. To say that g loadings don't differ that much is to say there's little variation. That implies g loading should not / can not correlate with other things. That's patently false (the fact that g-loadings correlate strongly with other things suggests that differences in g loadings are critically important). It's also not at all accepted that the gap has shrunk on the most g-loaded tests. I'd need to research the lit again, but I remember just the opposite in several recent large scale studies on the topic.
I think I predicted this-- using someone who hasn't published in the journal will likely lead to distortions about articles and data presented therein. I'm waiting for someone to claim g is a statistical artifact now...
Bpesta22 ( talk) 02:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I had to pull out my Jensen / g factor. See page 378. 149 psychometric tests on the x axis. g loadings range from .26 to .89 (that's vastly different from "do not differ that much"). The correlation between g loadings and the b/w gap is .63.
IMO, Nisbett's statement is so off the mark it can only be Gouldian advocacy and not science. Feel free to argue differently, but then also produce data showing no trivial differences among cognitive ability tests and g-loadings, and no mapping of them to the gap. Good luck.
Bpesta22 (
talk)
02:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem with ANY structural equation model is that there are many models that fit the data equally well. The one the researcher chooses needs some other justification (a theory, perhaps) than just that "it fits the data". But, that's a problem with all of SEM versus just Spearman's hypothesis specifically.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Continuing WP:BRD, I think that it is not a great idea to have the Bell Curve picture in the lede. Mathsci ( talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to demand that image. I just thought having something to illustrate the distribution of score as well as the overlap could be helpful to the reader. (By the way, I've posted a similar note on the talkpage.) -- Aryaman (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the balance between the environmental interpretation and the hereditarian interpretation is not very good at the moment. There are too many criticisms of the environmental point of view and too few of the genetic point of view. Critiques of the genetic point of view can be found in the books of Fish, Mackintosh and Nisbett. I think these sections and the introductory passage preceding them need a lot more work, with tightening up and the addition of missing content. Mathsci ( talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am through the "data gathering" section but still have the rest to review. Could someone provide an update on what's most likely to happen here? If it's possible or likely that the outline and article will be scraped or reverted to an earlier version, then I'd prefer not to spend more time on this now. On the other hand, if it's likely that David' outline is the first step toward a new and agreed-upon article, then I will keep going.
re citations. I am aware that all my claims eventually need ample cites. That process is tedious (but will be done) so I was hoping to do it last, and only if agreement is reached that what I wrote be included. Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks DK
I don't expect that all or even most of my comments will go in. If there's consensus here that they should go in, then they should.
Realize though that lack of citations so far is a non-issue. I wouldn't put any claims in my review unless I could make them well-cited. To save time, however, they do not yet include cites.
I briefly skimmed Aprock's comments and seemed to agree with most of them; could be I missed something (I think he/she is dead on re the requirement that any explanation co-vary systematically with race, or it's not an explanation. This is what I referred to awhile back as the difference between a source of error variance versus a confound (finding a confound here would be the explanation for the race gap, at least partly).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also added to Talk:Race and intelligence
Mathsci ( talk) 11:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wapondaponda: are you satisfied with the compromise Mathsci and Occam worked out, or do you still have qualms about it? And Occam: please tread a little more gently. when you say "nobody other than you [Wapondaponda] had a problem..." that means that you were aware that Wapondaponda did have a problem, and you should have taken care to address that before charging ahead. ok? -- Ludwigs2 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD is indeed very important here. If someone reverts you, my advice is this: start a section on the talk page of the article in question. Summarize your edit, and why you believe you are not violating NPOV, V, or NOR. Ask anyone if they believe you are violating any of these core content policies, and if so, how. Tell people you will welcome suggestions about how to phrase your edit and here to put it (i.e. improve the style). Wait a day or two, but at least 36 hours, and then if no one has any objections, make your edit again. If someone has objections, respond to them - seriously, and collegially. This is all part of collaborative editing which is wht Wikipedia is all about. But once you have responded to all objections by improving your proposed edit, edit the article again. My point: once reverted, take it to the talk page of the article and discuss it in a constructive and cooperative way, welcoming suggested improvements. Once discussion is over, then make your edit again. (originally from slrubenstein)
I have made available a pdf file of Appendix B of "Intelligence and how to get it" by Richard Nisbett here. As discussed right at the beginning of mediation, it might be a good idea for someone to write a summary of the nine points that Nisbett makes in arguing "The case for a purely environmental basis for black/white differences in IQ" (the title of the appendix). Preferably someone who supports the herditarian point of view. Mathsci ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I submit Nisbett is not an expert on the topic in that he hasn't contributed any peer-reviewed science to the area (as far as I know). I think the only reason his book is being featured prominently here is because it is recent. I remember reading a recent review of his book (I think it was in Intelligence). I will try to dig it up and link to it. My point is we shouldn't over-weight his book here as I don't think he is mainstream in this specific are Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
hiding off-topic discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Nibett is a prestigious social scientist. He received his PhD. from Columbia University, one of the top psychology programs in the orld. And he is co-director of the Culture and Cognition program at the University of Michigan, also one of the top programs in the rowld. he has published important work on intelligence with major presses. I think his psychology credentials are better than anyone working here, and at least as good s Jensen's. We should treat him as a significant view. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Nisbett's got a great vita and is surely a big name-- in his field. His field is not this. Here's a review of his book by someone in field (published in Intelligence).
A Must Read — Perhaps with Maalox Review of: Richard Nisbett (2009) : Intelligence and How to Get it. New York, Norton, ISBN 976-0-393-06505-3
There are good and bad things about the book, but the review shows that clearly this is not Nisbett's field (the review takes place as an insider critiquing the outsider's comments).
Doesn't mean he's wrong. My point is a book should be secondary to data.
I also think its recency will make it be over-weighted here. I guess I am fine with the Wiki article featuring it, but I don't think it is mainstream...jmo.
Bpesta22 (
talk)
01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
Bpesta22 (
talk)
01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it fails because it seems to be (not convinced yet) a work of advocacy and not science per the reasons mentioned in Rushton's review (it's a long review, summarized well though in the discussion section). I don't think it's as bad as Gould, but I don't think it should be given as much weight as say the APA article. Perhaps it's a minor issue, as I am not against mentioning it here, even though I don't personally believe it's much of a contribution to the literature. I also think time will show it to have little impact on the field (obviously, jmo).
I've just seen a history of white knights from other areas attempting to save the poor idiots who actually do the research here. While it's entirely possible a white knight could expose the ignorance of a whole field, I haven't seen any in this field so far. 184.59.172.151 ( talk) 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Comment presumably by Bpesta22. Please log in when contributing here. Mathsci ( talk) 07:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Bpesta22 ( talk) 02:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
off-topic material hidden, per mediation rules |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dr. Pesta, thanks for your views. As an expert in the field, your opinion that Nisbett is not as reliable a source as Rushton and Jensen is appreciated and important. mikemikev ( talk) 09:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have refactored several comments above. Comments on Brian Pesta's credentials and position are hereby strictly off-limits, per mediation rules. Mathsci, slrubenstien - if you cannot find some more convincing statement about Nisbett's importance in academia than comparing him to a wikipedia editor, then I would suggest the Nisbett is a very, very unimportant source, and if you make that argument one more time I will ask that any reference to Nisbett be removed from the article simply on the grounds that he is comparable to a wikipedia editor. Focus on content; not on editors. -- Ludwigs2 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not offended by questions about my credentials. I am aware of how my vita compares with other researchers.
I do think discussion here is relatively civil and productive (I've seen lots worse). I do really like the new intro, and think it's good to go. So, I think progress is being made here.
For Nisbett, I guess it's up to you all to decide. I mentioned my article only because I was asked for specifics on problems I had with his book. My point was not to prop up my work but to show that Nisbett's discussion on this specific issue is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst. Were that section sent to experts for peer-review, it would not pass (as written). That was my point.
Also, the Pioneer Fund has detailed info about charges of racism against it. My suggestion is if the editors want to make the claim that it's a hate group, they should at least link to the fund's rebuttal section (btw, Rushton is now the director of it).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the Nisbett thing is a minor issue now. I am fine including him, but he is no white knight as I described above and I do see flaws with his contribution to the area. But, presenting him to balance the issues is fine (I do think he carries no more or less weight in this specific field than rushton or jensen). I do think his section on RT would not pass peer review in the field, as written. Mentioning his ideas and Rushton's rebuttal would be perfectly reasonable.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At Ludwig's suggestion, I am posting this plan here for comment. Aprock, Occam, Faye and several other editors made extensive comments on our current draft. All good stuff! I think that we (?) promised them that those comments, at least the non-controversial ones, would be incorporated. Alas, no one has done so. Anyone else want to volunteer? If not, I will do so. (I think that a large number of changes are best done by a single person, acting with the forbearance of all active editors on the page.) If you object, please say so. My plan is to, like last time, make a whole bunch of edits in just a 24-hour period. My only request is that people not edit war with me while I am doing so. Give me a chance to make all the changes that I need to. Then, if you object, feel free to revert to what we have today (or to change whatever specific aspects you disagree with). Unless someone objects (or someone else volunteers), I plan to do this tomorrow. I realize that no large set of edits can make everyone equally happy, but I do think that, taken as a whole, my changes will (like last time) lead to an article that all can agree is better than what we have now. Comments? David.Kane ( talk) 20:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wapondaponda: My main plan: 1) Incorporate all the non-controversial comments made by Aprock, Occam, Faye, Mathsci and others about the initial draft. 2) Do more tightening, better sourcing, better writing, more conciseness and so on. The same sort of changes that I made last time around, just done better. 3) Incorporating more general advice. MathSci has, for example, made some interesting comments (which I am still working to understand) about the importance of secondary sources like Makintosh and Nisbett. I plan on following that advice. Slrubenstein has provided thoughts on how to frame an article like this so that, in the future, editors find it easy to work with. I will try to do that. 4) I will not add Significance section, but I will try to rationalize the other sections in a sensible fashion. 5) I hope that my fixes to the interpretation section will assuage the concerns of the proponents of a Significance section. How does all that sound? David.Kane ( talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
<-I replied to David.Kane on my talk page and will just reproduce what I wrote there.
I think there are probably three things to do:
Mackintosh's book is extremely neutral, well-written and accessible, so might be the right place to start. The environmental point of view is also well represented in the book edited by Fish that I mentioned to Varoon Arya on the mediation talk page. I would get other people to help, because this is a lot of work. Mediation can probably stop fairly soon. If these become the three goals for the article, then developing these parts van progress more slowly according to everybody's availability as an editor. Mathsci ( talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it has been deemed necessary to cover the Pioneer Fund, I think it's more than fair to suggest a mention be made of the role of the Sociobiology Study Group and possibly also of its daughter organization, Science for the People. The Sociobiology debates of the 70's and 80's are certainly central to the whole environmental vs. hereditarian debate, particularly in relation to the issue of race and intelligence. Notable members of the Sociobiology Study Group included Dawkins, Gould and Lewontin, among others. This whole issue gets very political - not to mention slightly dangerous - very quickly, and I advise caution to any editor attempting to make critical mention of either of these organizations on Wikipedia. But the role of both has been documented in reliable sources, and at present the attention given to the Pioneer Group makes the whole history section extremely lop-sided. I'm a bit swamped with real-life work at the moment, so I won't be digging up the sources (google will provide all that is necessary), but anyone interested will find more than enough to put the history of this debate back into something resembling balance. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My take on two recent issues:
1. The brain size IQ link is interesting, but I don't think it needs a whole long section. It's clear now that brain size correlates weakly but significantly with IQ (cite McDaniel). This is a race blind meta-analysis, so it's strong evidence. Less well known is whether races differ in average brain size and whether those differences co vary with iq.
In other words, it's one thing to say that blacks average smaller brains than whites, but the distributions would surely overlap. The better study is one showing that the race difference in brain size maps directly on to individual (and group) scores on IQ tests. As far as I know, that study's not been done. It's sorta like the problem with environmental explanations-- until one shows that when controlling for individual brain size, the gap between blacks and whites goes away, this is only very indirect evidence of something important (in my view).
2. The PF is indeed controversial. I applied for a grant from them about 2 years ago (not funded). I was very careful to research and read about it first, because I heard the usual rumors about it being a hate group. In my opinion, it's not (I was satisfied with the explanation they gave about their controversies on their web site). Even if it were, though, the bottom line is the data and the research methodology used to produce the data. Unless there's a big conspiracy going on here (implicating the PF, people who got money from it, all peer reviewers and editors of various journals-- including APA journals) I don't see how mentioning the PF is relevant to this article. One needs more, I think-- direct evidence that its influence has biased the data. I don't think anyone's got that evidence. The PF is interesting enough to have its own wiki article, and just linking to it would be enough coverage (plus a sentence or two on it's role in funding research here).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 00:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ack; nice call. I was not familiar with these. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bpesta22 (
talk •
contribs)
01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your call on how much you want to feature the PF but money alone won't get stuff past peer review. It it's biased, it shouldn't survive peer-review. If it does, then the journal it appears in will quickly lose its reputation. If that doesn't happen, then for a topic this controversial, other scientists will trash it with data published in other premier journals. None of this has happened. Rushton, Jensen, Lynn get lots of stuff published. Intelligence has an impact factor above 3 (could be in part due to publishing controversial stuff). Their work is generally not contradicted by quality articles in other premier journals (witness the APA task force report). What is it then about the PF that's useful for this debate?
Also, look at Rushton's vita. He publishes in many APA journals. These journals simply do not publish crap (not saying that an article is "true" if published there, but it does mean the article passed rigorous peer review). For example, the R&J "30 years.." paper is published in an APA journal. Also, all these papers seem to be highly cited (though it could be controversy versus impact).
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
SLU-- that seems reasonable and fair. Those who think the PF is relevant should write the section; then we can critically evaluate it.
I am a little confused about the expertise thing. I thought I was asked to give "expert" opinion. In a legal setting, if one is vetted as a qualified expert, then opinions-- versus facts -- are allowed into evidence. I'm not saying verbatim quote my opinions in the article, but please let me know if you require I cite every claim before you all will consider it. The sections I wrote above did not include citations because that is time consuming. Were those deemed ok to add to the article, I could easily add cites.
Thanks!
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly fair, Slu, and about what I expected coming into this. I admit to being surprised at how balanced discussion was here, compared to, well, anywhere else. That is good. In fact, it seems like my contributions not really needed here but I don't mind sticking around and adding my 2 cents, whether or not my comments get incorporated into the article.
I don't expect my one article on race and IQ needs to be cited. I was a bit surprised it got accepted as (except for perhaps the mediation analysis) I wasn't sure the incremental contribution was big enough to merit publication, and my minority sample size was pretty small. That said, if this article features race differences on reaction time or inspection time, as far as I know, mine is the most current example.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
During this discussion B.Pesta has had cause on a couple of occasions to refer to his point about error variance, in one of his published articles he linked for us. There was one occasion where Muntuwandi pointed out problems with some research that were indicated by the sample size and numbers of standard deviations (I don't recall whether he had an independent verifiable source making this point). I realize that both of these points are pretty technical and hard to explain both clearly and concisely. However, the fact is that the vast majority of interpretations of the test scores rely on statistical manipulations where sample size, standasrd deviations, error variance, etc are important and I think the article needs to cover them, somehow. How scientists reach their conclusions is just as important as the conclusions they reach. I suggest a section addressing this head-on: a paragraph or two on why we depend on certain concepts and procedures in statistics in order to intepret the data, and what kinds of problems researchers face or what issues researchers have to be sensitive to in analyzing data e.g. different sample sizes limit the kinds of comparisons we can make between different data sets, error variance, etc. I reread David kane's first revision 9the current article) and - without meaning to fault David in ANY way - some sections on different variables or factors or interpretations are hard to follow, and the reason is that they all take for granted a very basic understanding of how statistics can and cannot be interpreted. If we had a section on this around the beginning (maybe right after the section on the IQ test results?) i think it would make it a lot easier for people to follow the rest of the article.
many of you may not agree but I would suggest that this is because many of you have a good grasp of statistics and know this stuff quite well. The good news is: this means it should be pretty easy for you to write up what i am suggesting. And yes, links to articles that go into detail would be a good way to keep such a section concise. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Aprock, I am asking two things. First, can someone (you? B.Pesta? Muntuwandi?) write an entirely neutral explanation of the most basic principles of statistics one must understand in order to understand why as the article currently has it some interpretations have gained favor and others have been dismissed. You raise a second point, but the issue is: are there reliable sources making the point you are making now; the points Muntuwandi has made, and the point B.Pesta has made about error variance. Well, we know that Pesta has an article in a peer-reviewed journal making that point, so I think we should explain the point and cite Pesta. Can you or Muntuwandi provide sources for th points you are making? If so, can we include those points in the article, with citations? I think we really need a section explaining why certain concepts or principles of statistics are important for assessing the different interpretations of the data. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I for one would be very grateful to you for doing this. Of course any criticisms of The Bell Curve in a verifiable source should be explained in the article on the book itself. Perhaps - at whatever pace you can manage - you can work up an expanded criticism of that book for the article on the book, and a compressed account of statistical issues for this article. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk
I'd be happy to write a few paragraphs on the stats end of it. My data are freely available to anyone who wants them. I suspect that's true of any data published in the journal. It would be an extreme red flag if any researcher refused to provide the data when asked for it. I suspect that anyone doing research on this specific topic knows damn well that they'd better keep the raw data forever...!
It's probably a good idea to have a very brief primer on correlation, regression and partial correlation (perhaps also factor analysis). Anything more, and you'd be better served linking to the wiki page that covers each type of statistic.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to step on Aprock's toes here. If he/she wants to write it, that is fine. Let me know.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 15:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am starting another major rewrite of the article now. You patience is much appreciated. I will be done by noon EDT April 9. If other editors could avoid edit warring with me during this period, I would appreciate it! Of course, once I am done, you may do whatever you like. Goals:
No rewrite can make everyone happy. I hope that you will judge this effort on the following basis: Is the article that I show you tomorrow better, on the whole, then the article we have today (or, at least, the article that we started with several months ago). If you have any thoughts, feel free to offer them here. But I will probably not have the time to reply until tomorrow. David.Kane ( talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
TechnoFaye is proposing the following section be added to to the draft, under the heading Brain Size. This would be a subsection of the Group Differences section. Text as follows, with a reflist template to make reviewing references easier. -- Ludwigs2 20:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Many MRI volumetric analyses have shown that on average, the brains of people identifying themselves as African-American are 5% smaller than the brains of people identifying themselves as white, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and 6% smaller than people identifying themselves as Asian. [6] [7]
These results have been duplicated worldwide many times and verified by three other methods not involving MRI. [8] The subjects used in the study were similar in body size. [9] Since the anomaly is seen in newborns, fetuses, and embryos just weeks old, the difference is not likely to be due to environment. [10]
The average brain volumes (in cm3) are approximately 1,268 (Africans), 1,362 (Europeans), and 1,415 (East Asians). [11] The black/Asian difference is about one-quarter measuring cup of brain material.
A study on twins showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. [12] A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors.Posthuma; et al. (2002). "The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin". Nature Neuroscience. 5: 83–84.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 30 ( help)In a study of the head growth of 633 term-born children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort, it was shown that prenatal growth and growth during infancy were associated with subsequent IQ. The study’s conclusion was that the brain volume a child achieves by the age of 1 year helps determine later intelligence. [13]
References
- ^ Harvey I, Persaud R, Ron MA, Baker G, Murray RM. Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared with schizophrenics and healthy controls. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 689-99.
- ^ Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7–20.
- ^ Jones PB, Harvey I, Lewis SW, Toone BK, Van Os J, Williams M,Murray R. M. Cerebral ventricle dimensions as risk factors for schizophrenia and affective psychosis: an epidemiological approach to analysis. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 995-1011.
- ^ The Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence: Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.
- ^ Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Rushton JP. Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 1997; 25: 7-20.
- ^ Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
- ^ Brain weight at autopsy: Vint FW. The brain of the Kenya native. J Anat 1934; 48: 216-23, Broca P. Sur les crânes de la caverne de l’Homme Mort (Loere) Revue d’Anthropologie 1873; 2: 1-53. Bean RB. Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain. Am J Anat 1906; 5: 353-432. Mall FP. On several anatomical characters of the human brain, said to vary according to race and sex, with special reference to the weight of the frontal lobe. Am J Anat 1909; 9: 1-32 Pearl R. (1934). The weight of the Negro brain. Science 1934; 80: 431-4 empty skull volume: Morton SG. Observations on the size of the brain in various races and families of man. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 1849; 4: 221- 4. Head-size/body weight ratio: Dozens of studies, summarized in Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
- ^ Schultz AH. Comparison of White and Negro fetuses. In: Davenport CB, Osborn HF, Wissler C, Laughlin HH, Eds. Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics: Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State (Plates 11 and 12). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 1923.
- ^ Schultz AH. Comparison of White and Negro fetuses. In: Davenport CB, Osborn HF, Wissler C, Laughlin HH, Eds. Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics: Vol. 2, Eugenics in Race and State (Plates 11 and 12). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 1923.
- ^ Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Paul Thompson, Tyrone D. Cannon, Katherine L. Narr; et al. "Genetic influences on brain structure" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience. 4 (12): 1253–1253.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Catharine R. Gale, PhD, Finbar J. O'Callaghan, PhD, Maria Bredow, MBChB, Christopher N. Martyn, DPhil and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team (October 4, 2006). "The Influence of Head Growth in Fetal Life, Infancy, and Childhood on Intelligence at the Ages of 4 and 8 Years". PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 4 October 2006, pp. 1486-1492. Retrieved August 6 2006.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
I could have posted this comment equally well on the talk page of the article.
TechnoFaye's edits were completely out of line in using pre-1930 references about brain size. [6] The edits on this topic, which have been made repeatedly, go against all wikipedia policies. (Independently of mediation, repeated instances of this extreme kind of edit can often result in a community topic ban.) Mathsci ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984). Using the method of weighing brains at autopsy, Paul Broca (1873) reported that Whites averaged heavier brains than did Blacks, with larger frontal lobes and more complex convolutions. (Broca also used endocranial volume and found East Asians averaged larger cranial capacities than Europeans, who averaged larger than Blacks.) Other early autopsy studies found a mean Black–White group difference in brain weight of about 100 g (Bean, 1906; Mall, 1909; Pearl, 1934; Vint, 1934). A more recent autopsy study of 1,261 American adults found that the brains of 811 White Americans in their sample averaged 1,323 g and the brains of 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223 g—a difference of 100 g (Ho, Roessmann, Straumfjord, & Monroe, 1980). Because the Blacks and Whites in the study were similar in body size, this was not responsible for the differences in brain weight. --Rushton
It appears that neural wiring is an important factor in determining intelligence. [9] [10] -- Horse wiz ( talk) 22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Faye, I agree that it’s worthwhile for the article to discuss brain size, but I have some suggestions about it.
1: Do we really need references about this from more than 70 years ago? Methodology for measuring brain volume has improved so much during the time since then that I really don’t see what this material adds to the article. If you think this material is worth mentioning just out of historical interest, I think you should qualify it by saying something like, “comparisons of average brain size between races have been the subject of studies since the 19th century, and many of early studies of this have obtained similar results to modern studies, despite their primitive methodology.”
2: I think we need to neutrally present the debate that exists over whether the difference in brain size is due to genetics or environment. At least one of the sources you’re using (Niesser 1997) takes the perspective that the difference in brain size is environmental, so NPOV policy requires that we present his perspective also.
Is that an acceptable compromise between TechnoFaye and other users? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 04:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Within human populations, studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between brain size and a number of cognitive measures. Studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4. [1]
A study on twins showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. [2] A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors.Posthuma; et al. (2002). "The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin". Nature Neuroscience. 5: 83–84.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 30 ( help)In a study of the head growth of 633 term-born children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort, it was shown that prenatal growth and growth during infancy were associated with subsequent IQ. The study’s conclusion was that the brain volume a child achieves by the age of 1 year helps determine later intelligence. [3]
Many MRI volumetric analyses have shown that on average, the brains of people identifying themselves as African-American are 5% smaller than the brains of people identifying themselves as white [4] [5] [6] and 6% smaller than people identifying themselves as Asian.Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). [7]The average brain volumes (in cm3) are approximately 1,268 (Africans), 1,362 (Europeans), and 1,415 (East Asians). [6]
- ^ S. F. Witelson, H. Beresh and D. L. Kigar (2006). "Intelligence and brain size in 100 postmortem brains: sex, lateralization and age factor". Brain. 129 (2). Oxford University Press: 386–398. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh696.
- ^ Paul Thompson, Tyrone D. Cannon, Katherine L. Narr; et al. "Genetic influences on brain structure" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience. 4 (12): 1253–1253.
{{ cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Catharine R. Gale, PhD, Finbar J. O'Callaghan, PhD, Maria Bredow, MBChB, Christopher N. Martyn, DPhil and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team (October 4, 2006). "The Influence of Head Growth in Fetal Life, Infancy, and Childhood on Intelligence at the Ages of 4 and 8 Years". PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 4 October 2006, pp. 1486-1492. Retrieved August 6 2006.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)- ^ Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7–20.
- ^ The Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence: Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.
- ^ a b Rushton JP, Jensen AR. Thirty years of research on group differences in cognitive ability. Psychol, Public Policy, Law 2005; 11: 235-94.
- ^ Rushton JP. Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 1995.
Great, a nice explanation. But how does it relate to the brain size data? mikemikev ( talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Rushton in the book "Race and intelligence: separating science from myth" (ed Jefferson Fish, Routledge) is only available on questia (free one day trial access). A version of the article by its author, Joseph L. Graves jr, is in print elsewhere [11]. I have made it available here. The article in the book is more detailed and is summarised in the article. On pages 146-147, Graves explains that Rushton has misrepresented the original data on brain size, gathered not by him but in the following book:
This would appear to place a questionmark next to the unqualified use by Mikemikev of Rushton's paper as a WP:RS in the article. Mathsci ( talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Look at what happened to Linda Gottfredson for daring to do science in this area. I think this answers why few people do research in this area...sorry for the ghastly looking link (feel free to fix it)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4Y6489M-2&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F18%2F2010&_alid=1286734883&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5897&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9aea813b4eed1008bc773ee85092aca8 other Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I dedicate what's to come to Bryan, in consideration of the treatment he got at that `science blog. They can't do that at wikipedia. Here, watch... TechnoFaye Kane 05:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the latest round of edits to the article do not conform to wikipedia core policies. The "history" section has serious problems becase it lacks context and is uninformative: it reads like an attempt to sanitize controversy by omission, despite what is written at length in multiple secondary sources. I have restored the lede and part of the history section, discussed at length here. I suggest we restore something like ordinary editing procedures as soon as possible, to avoid fruitless discussion. Mathsci ( talk) 06:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MathSci - particularly after D.K's comment, I need you to please stop guessing other editors' motives. I understand the cynicism, particularly for a case like this. But it's back to the hoary content/contributor problem. Folks will focus on the contributor aspect if one tries to include it with a content aspect, and Hilarity typically Ensues as people whack at strawmen (causing a feedback loop, since it often "confirms" suspicions). 99% of conflicts resulting in mediation come from this very problem. Just something to consider; continue as you will. Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I would rather not get into a edit war with MathSci. However, I feel that his behavior in not allowing me a final 3 hours to edit the article in peace is not very polite. But perhaps I am not being objective? If you think that my hard work on this article has earned me some goodwill from the editors involved in this mediation, please revert his latest change. David.Kane ( talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is really a problem of the redraft being done in mainspace, what David is writing isn't a final version, and regardless of his personal views, he's been very reasonable in terms of welcoming input and doing the thankless task of drafting. I'll make another plea to move the major redrafts to a sub page so that we can avoid everyone getting their undies in a bunch until the draft is ready.
A.Prock (
talk)
18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
why is the pioneer fund mentioned in the history section? it doesn't seem to meet the standard for importance relative to the size of the section/article. it's not, for example, in nisbett (2009). -- DJ ( talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
i'm struggling to express this clearly... we run the risk of losing needed subtlety if we put significant emphasis on a narrative of a conflict between two monolithic views. you can measure this by looking at who is being emphasized, attributed and quoted. lots of rushton and nisbett but less of authors like loehlin and hunt. -- DJ ( talk) 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(A version of this comment also appears on the article talk page.)
I have finished my one day plus a few hours of work on the rewrite. Comments:
I will leave it to other editors to judge whether or not this version, taken as a whole, is superior to the previous one. I look to the mediator for discussion about where we go from here. My recommendation: See if there is consensus that this version is better then where we started and see if there is consensus to end this mediation and go back to normal editing. David.Kane ( talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, his name is misspelled in the article:
"Nesbitt finds this argument unpersuasive, noting that
The g loadings of subtests do not differ that much, the g loading of a particular subtest cannot be construed as evidence about the degree to which the subtest measures strictly biological or hereditary differences as opposed to environmentally produced differences, and the scores for blacks have improved almost as much on a g-weighted IQ test as on a non-g-weighted test."
This is utter bullshit. digit span forward is half as g-loaded as digit span backward. Just one example. To say that g loadings don't differ that much is to say there's little variation. That implies g loading should not / can not correlate with other things. That's patently false (the fact that g-loadings correlate strongly with other things suggests that differences in g loadings are critically important). It's also not at all accepted that the gap has shrunk on the most g-loaded tests. I'd need to research the lit again, but I remember just the opposite in several recent large scale studies on the topic.
I think I predicted this-- using someone who hasn't published in the journal will likely lead to distortions about articles and data presented therein. I'm waiting for someone to claim g is a statistical artifact now...
Bpesta22 ( talk) 02:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I had to pull out my Jensen / g factor. See page 378. 149 psychometric tests on the x axis. g loadings range from .26 to .89 (that's vastly different from "do not differ that much"). The correlation between g loadings and the b/w gap is .63.
IMO, Nisbett's statement is so off the mark it can only be Gouldian advocacy and not science. Feel free to argue differently, but then also produce data showing no trivial differences among cognitive ability tests and g-loadings, and no mapping of them to the gap. Good luck.
Bpesta22 (
talk)
02:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
A problem with ANY structural equation model is that there are many models that fit the data equally well. The one the researcher chooses needs some other justification (a theory, perhaps) than just that "it fits the data". But, that's a problem with all of SEM versus just Spearman's hypothesis specifically.
Bpesta22 ( talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)