Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 26

message: ::I've been following the discussion here for over a day and it occured to me to ask Arbor exactly how JereKrischel's changes are "biased wording"? Everything JereKrischel is pointing out about this "research" is true. The article needs more critical sources and every disputed point and disputed word choice should be changed or caveatted. Pristine Clarity 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, everything pointed out is true. The problem is that it's already pointed out in the original text, and pointing the same thing out an additional 15 times in a small text isn't improving readability and distracts the reader from what is actually written. --Zero g 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response doesn't make sense to me, every occurence of non neutral presentation requires a caveat or re-wording, right? We need to disassociate presentation from conclusivity. In my interpretation this article (and area of "research") is so vastly non scientific and utilizes a minefield of propaganda-esque suggestive language it's staggering. Unfortunately, it is difficult to illustrate just how wrong the way this issue has been presented. Pristine Clarity 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, everything needs to be placed in the proper context which the text in question currently does. If you can't illustrate how wrong (pov) this issue has been presented adding weasel words isn't going to improve the article. While I see room for improvement I'd suggest basing any refutations on expert opinion and keeping repetition to a minimum. --Zero g 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How should someone go about trying to convince you what you consider to be the "proper context" is wrong? "Expert opinion" is not allowed to violate Wikipedia's presentation neutrality policies, right? What you interpret to be "weasel words" are actually necessary caveats, though they don't come anywhere close to conveying the extreme problems with the way this issue is misleadingly structured. Pristine Clarity 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How is that an NPOV/NOR violation? Please attempt to defend what others (including critical sources) interpret to be a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? You seem to be confusing "original research" with determinations of presentation neutrality violations? Pristine Clarity 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a vastly non-neutral method of presentation? --Rikurzhen 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you disagree with my interpretation but that doesn't make it inaccurate, nor an NPOV violation. I am only trying to get you and everyone to see the (extreme) lack of neutral presentation on this issue. Pristine Clarity 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Zen Master? --Rikurzhen 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please attempt to explain the current version of this article's vastly unscientific paradigm of presentation? Pristine Clarity 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet, our job is just to report the issues in the accepted language used in the literature.--Nectar 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who has ever criticized this article and area of "research" has been trying to tell you there is no such thing as "accepted language" on anything having to do with this issue. You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim? That can not possibly be neutral. Pristine Clarity 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim Indeed, that's exactly what NPOV requires. --Rikurzhen 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Zen-master]] sockpuppet 

message: This article does not utilize anything resembling a fair, neutral, nor scientific presentation of the issue. The current version of this article presents this issue as regurgitated from pro Pioneer Fund sources, Wikipedia's neutrality policies should be a much much much higher standard. Given a highly disputed and controversial subject an article should explicitly note each and every disputed point and explain to the reader exactly where the controversy begins. One of the biggest controversies surrounding this subject (that the current version of the article fails to mention) has to do with language, this article absolutely should not exclusively use pro Pioneer Fund sources' word choices. Pristine Clarity 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen Master? --Rikurzhen 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please attempt to explain the current version of this article's vastly unscientific paradigm of presentation? Pristine Clarity 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet, our job is just to report the issues in the accepted language used in the literature.--Nectar 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who has ever criticized this article and area of "research" has been trying to tell you there is no such thing as "accepted language" on anything having to do with this issue. You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim? That can not possibly be neutral. Pristine Clarity 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be arguing Wikipedia should just regurgitate what race and intelligence researches claim Indeed, that's exactly what NPOV requires. --Rikurzhen 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific presentation? 

message: One problem with the current version of this article and "research" is it presents the issue extremely conclusively and suggestively. This area of "research" presents this issue using the anti-thesis of the scientific method in my interpretation. Does the current version of this article and do these "researchers" present the issue as a "working hypothesis" or are they attempting to portray everything as conclusive? This entire issue seems presented inside a dichotomy and paradigm that prevents readers from significantly considering alternative/environmental causes, it's as if everything is described in terms of "race" to presuppose that as the cause or main cause. This is a massive violation of neutral presentation. 
Plus, the foundation of "race and intelligence" research is IQ testing which is itself fundamentally disputed so I don't see how any conclusions can even be proposed until those disputes are resolved? How can there possibly be "practical consequences", as the first sentence of the current version of this article claims, if the premise and foundation of this research is fundamentally disputed? I think this subject should be re-written, re-organized and re-titled around where the abstract foundation of this subject is so we properly convey where the scientific dispute begins, something like IQ test results disparity could work (I am open to alternative suggestions)? And it's additionally disputed whether current "IQ tests" actually measure the abstract concept of "intelligence". Just because someone named their test "intelligence quotient" doesn't mean it accurately measures intelligence (if even possible). Cruxtaposition 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just based on the recent creation of that account, and the immediate interest in this article.  I've never done any sock-puppeting (and don't ever intend to), but I would suppose the smart thing to do would be to create a bunch of accounts randomly in time, use them in different areas for a few months, and have them converge "coincidentally" on articles.  Otherwise, it's just too easy to see new accounts pop up after old accounts have been blocked.  That being said, although Cruxtaposition's POV represents one extreme, there is merit to some of the concerns - we need to be very careful about how we present the research that is available, so as not to overstate their results. Hopefully some of the pro-hereditarian editors can help us move towards NPOV by "writing for the enemy" a bit - both Rikurzhen and Nectar seem very well educated on the subject, and I believe that they both could do a good job in mellowing out the language, and still presenting the research fairly.  --JereKrischel 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Zen-master repeat his/her same fringe demands over and over again. S/he was blocked by the arbitration committee because s/he wasn't willing to participate productively or within the rules of the community. I understand how you guys feel. I think the vast majority of WP editors are nice people and npov issues are solveable.--Nectar 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say it again, Nectar, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue, and work together despite our vastly disparate opinions.  I hope you will forgive me if any of my comments seem overly harsh or critical - my sincere hope is to express my concerns in such a way that they are understandable and clear, and sometimes that desire for clarity may come across as aggressive and opinionated.  I also endeavor to clearly understand your core concerns and issues, and I hope I've demonstrated some level of understanding of your POV.  --JereKrischel 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis vs Conclusion? 

message: To me, there is nothing more reflective of the very deep-seated and racially inclined motivations behind this whole blog other than the complete lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" article on wikipedia.  Nobody even thought to divorce Racial notions from genetics when contributing to wikipedia.  Even within white populations, there are smart people and stupid people - so it would obviously go without saying that there should be an article considering genetics and intelligence that is probably completely independent of race.  If possible, totally avoiding any reference to race in such an article would be an indication of the maturity and high level of importance that individuals attribute intelligence in all societies.   --Nukemason 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inheritance of intelligence. Please help improving it. Arbor 11:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response to this.  However, I have had a brief look at the article that you have referred me to and feel that it does not consider certain questions that, perhaps a genetics and intelligence article might (yes, inheritance refers to genetic aquisitions of sorts - but, in the future, not all genetic acquisitions need occur via the mechanisms of inheritance).  This is an issue that is covered in the eugenics wiki (briefly, the subsection that concerns eugenics technologies).  However, I don't think that certain issues are covered such as *how much* human intelligence can be realistically enhanced (in particular, a point of interest for me has always been about theoretical limitations on human intelligence that are innately tied up with the characteristics of neurons, etc... - currently a hot topic in bio and nano tech).  Not so much as a 'point', but rather a smudge.  
--Nukemason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the lack of a "Genetics and Intelligence" wikipedia article