Another specific example Under Genetic explanations WRN has written this To support these claims they often cite several lines of evidence that they interpret as support for a partly genetic cause of group differences in IQ 1 Black White East Asian differences in IQ reaction time and brain size are observed worldwide in a range of cultures and environments In the United States significant Black White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years within every occupation or socioeconomic level tested in every region of the country and at every time since the invention of ability tests 106 2 Jensen and other have argued that the magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlate with the extent to which those subtests measures g 107 which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability 108 From these and other findings they argue that race differences have a partly biological basis 109 3 The rising heritability of IQ with age within all races studies have found on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20 in infants rises to 40 in middle childhood and peaks at 80 in adulthood and studies showing the virtual disappearance 0 0 by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ for example family income education and home environment with adopted siblings partaking in the studies no more similar in IQ than with strangers 110 From these studies they argue that most suggested environmental explanations for IQ difference between groups do not have a strong enough effect on IQ to fully account for group differences 4 Studies of US comparisons of both parents to children and siblings to each other finding regression to differing means for different races 85 for Blacks and 100 for Whites across the entire range of IQs 111 despite the fact that siblings are matched for shared environment and genetic heritage with regression unaffected by family socioeconomic status and generation examined 112 This seems to be excessive detail WRN has essentially recreated Rushton Jensen arguments and placed citations in his citation This essentially allows WRN to write an entire section as if it were incontrovertible based on various references without any possible response The NPOV fact that should be reported is that Rushton and Jensen make some assertions not that they make some assertions and here is the factual evidence they use to back it up If anything every one of their lines of evidence should be attributed directly to Rushton and Jensen as much of that same evidence may be interpreted as undermining the genetic hypothesis depending on the viewer It seems very weaselly in any case Can we agree these four points should be removed from the article Comments