Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 18

message: we're light on references (essentially none) for the flynn effect discussion in the the causation section and associated sub-article. does anyone know the primary sources for the claim that the flynn effect might have implications for the cause of the IQ gap? i've only seen it mentioned w/o references in 2ndary sources. --Rikurzhen 22:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  flynn effect - primary sources 

message: # "IQ test results" is more scientifically accurate given the lack of consensus/merit for "IQ" testing. zen master T 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote "results" 

message: # (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote neutral 

message: # A "score" is literally a mark made in taking a talley. As such, "score" is descriptive of what happens when one grades a multiple choice exam or an exam such as an essay exam that requires active reading of the response. P0M 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote "scores" 

message: # I don't care either way. To me, result seems much more definite than score, so I fear Zen is going to achieve the opposite of what he tries to do. My dictionary has: "result [...] 4. a list pf scores [...]". I fear the semantic details of this issue are beyond my grasp of the English language. (And I still detest polls on Wikipedia) Arbor 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that the result of an IQ test might be something other than a score doesn't make sense to me, but likewise the change would be harmless ... if not for the basis that motivates it. --Rikurzhen 14:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not the definiteness of the word, the issue is neutral presentation. "Score" errantly implies merit to something that has not been sufficiently scientifically established as having merit or meaning anything. "Result" is a much more neutral way of describing controversial data. zen master T 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Intelligence research seems to be by far the most accurate category for this research, and is more helpful to the reader than interdisciplinary field. Rikurzhen catalogued the different kinds of specialists that contribute to this field in the above section,Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_17#labels.  We discussed this very briefly in Archive_16#Interdisciplinary_field.  If we're especially concerned about clarifying what intelligence research means, we could include a footnote along the lines of: researchers contributing to this area include psychologists, psychometricians, geneticists, and sociologists. Thoughts? --Nectar T 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan. --Rikurzhen 03:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not just intelligence research. It's "race" research, too. In fact, to reduce it to intelligence research is one of the fundamental problems in the conceptualization of this article. We need to remember all the disciplines that consider issues of race: anthropology, etc. In addition, there are disciplines like statistics, philosophy of science, neurology, etc. whose disciplines come into play. Just because intelligence researchers want to play up their role in this does not mean this is exclusively their purview. This is one of the more interdisciplinary fields of inquiry out there by nature of the overlap involved in race and intelligence. Jokestress 18:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I repeat my concern that this is like saying "evolution shouldn't be reduced to biology", just because there are lots of other sciences that are concerned with evolution as well (computer science, theology, ...).To be more concrete. (1) The philosophy of science angle you can take up with pretty much every aspect of human inquiry. By that argument, every field is multi-disciplinary. Also, you should take up with Lulu, who has argued against using Lakatos' classification. (I think it's very appropriate. But it doesn't make the field multi-disciplinary.) (2) As an almost-statistician I can safely say that there is no statistics research involved. It's all first-year stuff. Pretty much every exact science uses such things. That doesn't make it multidisciplinary. (3) Neurology etc. is indeed part of "intelligence research", under which headline I would also group subfields of cognitive science, psychology, neurology, etc. (4) Anthropology is a indeed very important, originally the entire topic was a subfield of anthropology. I would like something like: ‘Race and intelligence is an area of anthropology and intelligence research...’ or something like that. That statement is correct and informative. Would I be correct in guessing that this would cover 90% of the published primary research literature? Arbor 16:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interdisciplinary field (continued) 

message: the entirely environmental hypothesis is certainly prominent despite lulu's claim to the contrary. for example, Nisbett (2005) argues "the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil." --Rikurzhen 06:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two major results were partly genetic and insufficient data. Jokestress 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted the results and Dd2 is right. The low amount of people chosing genetic-only is also an indication that people are strongly biased toward cultural explanations. As has been pointed out as well, officially there is no such thing as a 'slightly genetic' camp. --Scandum 10:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  entirely environmental 

message: We've been discussing the "Culture/genetic explanation" section a bit.  In part, some editors have mentioned that that discussion should not get too long, but rather shunt some of it to the subarticle.  In principle I agree, but there's not all that many words in the section now.  Moreover, the style of causal explanation really is the central focus of discussions around the topic.
IMO, a better opportunity for trimming the main article is in the section "Significance of group IQ differences" which refers to the child article Practical importance of IQ.  That section is longer currently than the "Culture/genetic" one, and is also less central the the controversies that prompt this article (and its topic) in the first place.  But the reference currently just points to IQ, rather than an independent article.  At a quick glance, most of the charts in the section seem to be replicated in the IQ article.  I'd recommend trying to get the section down to about half its current length; but make sure, of course, that all the good language and concepts are covered in the child article. 
Any objection in principle to me trying to do this? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two distinct but related concepts being entertained: (1) the practical importance at an individual level and (2) the practical importance of group differences. The IQ article should focus on (1) and this article should focus on (2). --Rikurzhen 19:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think that is mostly agreement in principle.  Much of what is in this section now are things along the lines of "what jobs can someone with IQ X do?" For the most part, that's the individual level.  I'm thinking that creating an actual article Practical importance of IQ (to individuals) is worthwhile; but I would then want to redirect readers of IQ there for part of the content currently covered in IQ.  Of course, I have not edited IQ, so I suspect there's a whole new tarpit in trying to do so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate for trimming 

message: I am banning Zen-master from editing this article for two weeks for disruptive editing. He may still edit the talk page, but if he is disruptive here I will have to extend the ban. If he edits Race and intelligence at any point during the next 14 days, any administrator should block him for up to 48 hours. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master and Wikipedia:Probation for more information. --causa sui talk 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen-master banned 

message: Reynold's 1987 meta-analysis puts the mean African American IQ at 86.9, whereas Roth's 2001 meta-analysis puts it at 83.5.  Is there any reason we aren't using the more recent meta-analysis provided by Roth?--Nectar T 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the white mean from Roth? Roth is better in being newer and more comprehensive. However, in being so comprehensive, most of the data comes form pen-and-paper tests. People with poor literacy tend to score lower on these tests (they give up before they should) than on non-written tests, and this tends to drag the Black average down. I don't know how large this effect is -- why I asked about the White mean from Roth. --Rikurzhen 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynolds and Roth 

message: The article has some strange and very biased descriptions of this. The article states that "Indeed, even proponents of a partly genetic interpretation of the IQ gap such as Rushton and Jensen (2005) and Gottfredson (2005b) argue that their interpretation does not in itself demand any particular policy response:" The article also states that "Robert Sternberg asks "What good is research of [this kind] supposed to achieve?" This is an inaccurate straw-man description of Sternberg's article, using an out of context citation, and a very doubtful description of Rushton's view, more correct would be that Sternberg argues that Rushton et al implicitly states that little or nothing can and should be done to help genetically inferior groups in society. See his article here . Ultramarine 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: read the cited papers. they are quite clear. --Rikurzhen 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the description of Sternberg view is an inaccurate straw-man. The description of Rushton's view is very doubtful. See the reference. Ultramarine 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You forgot to mention what follows immediately after "In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) offered some specific policy recommendations based on their conclusions about genetic variation and IQ, which are generally concordant with political conservatism, such as scaling back affirmative action, reducing the intrusiveness of government, and returning to individualism." Ultramarine 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The research findings are concordant with conservatism or liberalism. Are you trying to contradict their own claim and Gottfredson's interpretation of their claim on the basis of that sentence? --Rikurzhen 02:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first paragraph again. The article is incorrect regarding Sternberg's and Rushton's position on public policy. Rushton want to reduce policies such as affirmative action and may also as Murray argue that racial differences in IQ is scientific evidence for conservatism. It is this that Sternberg argues against, not that the research is dangerous and have no utility. That is a gross and inaccurate straw man. Ultramarine 02:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy implications 

message: One of the current bullet points in the summary is:
* IQ tests do not show statistical bias against socio-economic or racial-ethnic groups
I think I may have reworded an earlier version to indicate "statistical".  But looking at it again, I cannot figure out what claim is being made (w/ or w/o the word "statistical" in there).  Other than the vague insinuation that "IQ tests are really groovy", what specific fact is being purported here (and purported as consensus)?
various criteria have been proposed to detect bias. by these criteria, the tests are not biased. the question of bias is often one of "validity". predictive validity is described by the apa report: --Rikurzhen 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive ability section (statistical bias) 

message: Re Lulu: "The alleged flaws in Eyferth are far less serious than those in ANY of the studies advanced by Rushton"
It's not uncommon to note strong limitations of interpretability of studies.  In fact, it'd be inappropriate to ommit such criticisms.  If this has been done with any problematic studies of Rushton's, that should be corrected.  I take it you're referring to something not on this page but on the main page of "Culture only or partially genetic explanation?" --Nectar 09:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote seems fine, and I left it in place.  But inserting sotto voce interruptions of the basic presentation to add "but this isn't really true" every time you disagree with content reads as doggerel.  After all, how'd you feel if I copied all my criticisms of the S&R survey over into its brief description (using more words to criticize it than are used to describe it; as you did for Eyferth)? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking over more discussions of the study, you're right.. it looks defendable enough to leave it alone.--Nectar 11:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyferth 

message: Hi, dear contributor signing with User:Anon. I can see that you are actually the anonymous IP  []. I have re-signed some of your comments to use the correct signature, but I am unsure how to proceed. Please continue you contributions to this page by signing with four tildes. Also, get a proper account, that would make it easier for us to talk to you. Arbor 19:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not signing under a false name I am anonymous (Anon in Wiki-speak), however you want me to sign my comments I will oblige.....well maybe not anyway you want me too. 147.26.148.42
Sorry, but you are (or rather were) signing as a false user (not maliciously, I assume). User:anon is a registered account, and it's not yours. If and when you make a contribution it is registered (in the "history") under your IP, not under User:anon. If I look at User:anon's contributions, yours won't show up. This is basically the fault of User:anon choosing a highly misleading user name; the account ought to be closed. Anyway, thanks for following standard procedure (not doing so is a sure way of getting banned by the moderators, and we don't want that). Better yet: get your own account so we can talk to you. Best, Arbor 09:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon user signing under false username 

message: I would just like to strongly echo Danny Yee in saying that removing talk page comments is highly disruptive and not to be tolerated except in cases of simple vandalism, no matter how strongly you may agree with their content. --causa sui talk 09:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, I am sure we all agree. First, note that the removal was done by User:Ironbrew, and as far as I can see that has been his only contribution to this page, at least looking at his edits since July, . If there is a deliberate campaign, it's certainly not perpetuated by the current editors on this page. Second, the removed contribution was by anonymous user IP 147.26.148.42, who signed his statement as User:anon (actually typing in the hyperlink instead of signing with four tildes). I don't know if making misattributed contributions counts as vandalism, but User:Ironbrew removed a comment that was attributed to User:anon without ever having been written by that user.  That could have been a well-intentioned vandal hunt. (However, his misleading signature seems to have been based on ignorance instead of malice, see my exchange with him above; I think we solved it. I don't support User:Ironbrew's handling of this, and think my own was better.) The same anon IP has also used language on this page somewhat outside the boundaries of polite conversation (search for racist and white supremacist on this page). I would be happy if you extended the same diligence in correcting his behaviour as you extend to User:Ironbrew. In general, please stick around on this page. We need all the help we can get to keep this talk page useful. Arbor 09:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any comment on the conspiracy theories about coverup attempts or whatever. I'm just speaking to the point that removing comments is not acceptable. The signature of the user is immaterial. If one thinks a user has a confusing signature, that would be the appropriate topic of a user RFC. I would also be inclined to accept fixing his signatures, given that Arbcom has ruled in the past that confusing signatures are not allowed. To the point of incivility on the part of the anon, I would also think this should be the topic of a user RFC. --causa sui talk 12:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ryam, whether or not the signature User:anon is confusing or not is not the point. The point is that user 147.26.148.42 used it. It is not his. User:Anon and IP 147.26.148.42 are two different persons, but the latter used the former's signature. That's as bad as if I signed one of my contributions using your signature. (Except I am now sure 147.26.148.42 acted in Good Faith.) All I am saying is that User:Ironbrew may himself have acted in Good Faith when he removed that contribution. (I honestly don't know.) As to your intervention, seeing that User:Ironbrew seems to have only this single (highly questionable) contribution to the current page ever, maybe your could have left the warning on his own talk page. He may not see it here. Arbor 14:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a "me too" here.  There are certainly editors on this page whom I disagree with on content and POV issues; but they have respectfully discussed those disagreements here, and have followed Wikiquette consistently.  Not one regular editor is engaging in any kind of conspiracy to supress content.  One single improper deletion was performed by one editor who had not previously edited this article or talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, it sounds like we are all on the same page. :-) Carry on! --causa sui talk 02:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A warning

message: Save Robert Perloff from the deletionists!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Perloff
He signed both the WSJ and APA statements. The deletionists think it's a vanity article for some reason. Back in a week or two. Bye! Jokestress 09:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with this article? --causa sui talk 09:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, he signed the Wall Steet Journal statement on race and intelligence frequently cited here and helped craft the American Psychological Association statement on race and intelligence frequently cited here, and is considered a key intelligence researcher frequently cited here. And deletionists want to get rid of his entry for being a vanity article. So a vote would be nice. Jokestress 10:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, thanks for the note. --causa sui talk 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save Robert Perloff! 

message: They basically go into denial, against all rhyme or reason, and argue with their eyes wide shut the whole time, because they just don't want to believe that they come from a group that officialdom (be it science or history) has labelled them as inept or bad in some way. I personally can't blame them for reacting that way, but after a while when the reality of it sinks in for everybody, there has to be a quiet realization and admission that that's just the way things are. If a person fails to reach this level and persists with the denial, he can't look forward to the next level which is reconciliation and striving to make the individual inside the best that he can be, despite what officialdom says about the group he belongs to. 
For example, I see Japanese-educated people in denial about Japan's war crimes. But on the other hand, I also see Japanese people who ventured to look outside of their highly-edited and revised government-approved history text books come to the realization of their past, and they move on from there to form a more wholistic and accurate view of history, themselves, and their position in the world.
Now, as far race and intelligence goes, it doesn't do any good to deny the research. 
However, one would do well to ask oneself what he can do personally to be different from the group he belongs to, if the group he belongs to has a low score and this really bothers him. This may sometimes involve rejecting the group he belongs to (eg blacks "acting white") but as far as one's personal intellectual/spiritual journey is concerned, no group should dictate that anyways. In fact, in an increasingly intermingled world, much of the human journey for this century will probably involve transcending the limitations of one's group or background. 
And finally, intelligence is helpful in creating wealthy, peaceful, advanced societies, but it's not the be-all and end-all nor is it the highest human value. In fact it can sometimes be used in downright evil ways, like creating terrible weapons or enriching oneself on the toil and sweat of the less intelligent or fortunate, all of which create more pain and discord in the world. Don't get me wrong...intelligence is great, but the real underpinnings of peace and harmony are kindness and putting others before yourself. --Atrahasis 18:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linda Gottfredson likewise sees a balance between intelligence and “organizational citizenship behavior”.  --Elabro 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascinating how people behave when they see their heritage or nation attacked 

message: Btw. A bit relevant to Danny Yee's original question (Rikurzhen's reference to epistasis is helpful too).  In Triple Helix (which I read recently and mislayed for now), Lewontin gives a really interesting chart where gene frequencies (of multiple, i.e. two, interacting sites) show a sensitive dependency on initial conditions.  The example he gives is taken from an empirical study of some Australian grass, I believe.  But the general concept is that a slight difference in initial frequency of alleles in a starting population can lead the evolutionary direction to any of a variety of local fitness maxima. Just saying "intelligence is an advantage" may be quite insufficient for a real evolutionary picture. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... on that point, it's not clear what all of the fitness advantages of higher intelligence were and what times they were acting. Nor is it clear that sufficent time has passed for the design space of building a smarter brain to be fully explored by mutation. The recently discovered ASPM and MCPH1 alleles only showed up in the last 5-15k years, and the ASPM allele is not finished sweeping. Moreover, culture has had a drastic effect on reproductive fitness -- note that sexual selection is one hypothesis for the evolution of human intelligence. --Rikurzhen 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. yeah, I know this is not actaully an illustration of strange attractors in the chaos theory sense... I just like the section heading. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange attractors 

message: Twice the article mentions Indian, which indian is it referring to? American-Indian, or Indian from India?
:South Asian Indians. --Rikurzhen 02:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know where American-Indian's fall in the list? 67.165.96.26 02:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  indian - what type, american or from india? 

message: (Note that the Ashkenazi Jewish population has significantly higher average IQ scores than other Whites, usually approximated to be one standard deviation from the mean of other Whites.)
How come no footnote? Give us several references, please. Also note there is only one average IQ score, not "average IQ scores"  GangofOne 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Askenazi IQ

message: Encarta has a article sub-section titled "race and intelligence"
With respect to some of the debate that's taken place over this page recently, I thought these bits were worth quoting here. (Note they are copyrighted.)
The debate about racial and ethnic differences in IQ scores is not about if the differences exist but what causes them. ...
No one knows exactly what causes racial and ethnic differences in IQ scores. Some scientists maintain that these differences are in part genetically based. Supporters of this view believe that racial and ethnic groups score differently on intelligence tests partly because of genetic differences between the groups. Others think the cause is entirely environmental. In this view, certain racial and ethnic groups do poorer on IQ tests because of cultural and social factors that put them at a disadvantage, such as poverty, less access to good education, and prejudicial attitudes that interfere with learning.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
--Rikurzhen 06:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Their account is more balanced than Wikipedia's. "Supporters ... believe" and "Others think". Can we copy or imitate this wording? Elabro 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? What are you comparing it to in this article? My concern is WP:AWT. --Rikurzhen 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Encarta seems OK, for a one paragraph summary.  But it doesn't seem particularly different in tone from WP; in fact, I wasn't sure what point Rikurzhen had in mind by mentioning it.  For a long article, however, the tone we have is certainly much more scholarly, and other than some minor wording and perspective issues I've mentioned before, I think our article is quite balanced.  Supporters and opponents are both addressed, just over the course of multiple sections rather than forcing every sentence to present all/both sides. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encarta on this topic 

message: I distrust studies which examine only a few factors. Many studies are commissioned to "prove" an idea or a hoped-for outcome. Like drug companies hope a study finds their pill better than another company's pill. 
I also distrust research programs which publish positive results while ignoring negative results (see publication bias). 
Can Wikipedia find any studies which - instead of factoring out politically incorrect attributes such as IQ or education of parents - include as many factors as can conveniently be measured?
Can Wikipedia digest research (without conducting "original research", of course) which shed light on the fact that US blacks score 15 to 18 points lower on IQ tests than whites and Asians? 
*Is skin color the only correlate?
*Isn't family stability a factor?
*Presence or absence of the father in the home?
*Marital status of the mother
**Presence / absence of a father who is married to the mother?
*Pressure to finish homework before being allowed free time?
*Support in the culture for academic achievement?
**Versus being told "you're acting white"?
Can Wikipedia explore all this objectively, or is it too much of a taboo subject? Elabro 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Elabro, skin color is not a correlate (or at least a very weak one). Maybe the article should be even more clear about that. (I tried to work that in once, but it got modified.) Instead, geographic ancestry ("race") is a strong correlate. Now, skin color is of course linked to race. But there are many Indians with darker skin color than some Blacks, and the "degree of pigmentation" has is not a good predictor of the relative IQ of those groups. More generally, I think you will find most of your points adressed in the article—if there is something you propose to change to make the information more accessible (since obviously you didn't find it the first time around) please improve it. Best, Arbor 15:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about ethnicity and culture?

message: *researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities
**"Contrary to The Bell Curve findings, a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites."
**"Most studies of socioeconomic status do not consider such obvious factors as family income or neighborhood conditions."
**"After World War II, many American GI's (both white and black) fathered children by German women; these children were then raised in German society. The children fathered by black GI's had an average IQ of 96.5, and the children fathered by white GI's had an average IQ of 97 -- a statistically insignificant difference."
*Take a look at this research and the work that preceeded it (i.e. Ogbu, Thernstrom & Thernstrom) --Rikurzhen 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific studies

message: There is not a consensus among experts that the partly genetic theory is correct, as is implied in several places in the current article. Unless supporting arguments is given, I will correct this inaccuracy. Ultramarine 09:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "the partly genetic theory", there are lots of different theories, for one thing, and the "genetics has zero effect" is a strawman.  A Google search on "partly genetic theory" returns hits only to this page and mirrors thereof.  So can we please use something more like "predominantly genetic", or at least "significantly genetic"?  Barring that, please point me at anyone with any kind of clue who either denies Down's Syndrome is inherited genetically or that it influences cognitive capacities. -- Danny Yee 09:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Down's syndrome has no bearing on whether different races have different genetic average IQ. Please point me to anyone who denies that heavy metal poisoning in children affects intelligence. Ultramarine 10:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ultra: "There is not a consensus among experts that the partly genetic theory is correct," Exactly. But the media tells us "there is consensus among experts that the partly genetic theory is pseudoscience", which is wrong. That's why it is correct to say that the media portrayal is false. Arbor 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The media portrayal may have been wrong in 1987 when the study was done. That is no reason include a study of expert opinions under "partly genetic", as noted there was no consensus. Ultramarine 12:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here is a different search . Ultramarine 12:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's not the same thing.  By using "partly genetic theory" we're asserting that there is a specific theory about the genetics of intelligence (note: not about race) that goes by that name, when there clearly isn't.  We're also effectively invoking a complete strawman in opposition, since the presumable negation of "partly genetic" is "not at all genetic".  Does anyone really have an objection to using "substantially genetic" instead, and trying to avoid singular "theory" when we're actually referring to a body of often quite different ideas? -- Danny Yee 12:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly possible that there is no genetic compenent and that all the differences in tested average IQ between races is due to environemnt. Ultramarine 12:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is incorrect to have an comparison between a genetic and non-genetic theory. As noted, even Rushton states that not all of the differences are genetic. Thus, I will restore partially genetic shortly. Ultramarine 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert opinion and "partly genetic" nonsense 

message: Note to Rikurzhen: Ultramarine did not delete the "linked to specific genes" thing.  S/he just move the sentence down a couple paragraphs.  I don't really care which place it goes, but we don't need to duplicate it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oops! i'll revert myself, but it would be nice to have attribution to that claim. --Rikurzhen 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplication 

message: * a new analysis of an old question Do black women have higher IQs than black men? -- jensen (1998) mentions this also, but it appears to be poorly studied.
* murray's commentary article gives the data:
** more detail on the 1997 AFQT normalization 
** this test says it may have shrunk
** unfortunately, a better measure of g say it has not
good material for Race_and_intelligence_(Average_gaps_among_races)#Is_the_gap_closing? --Rikurzhen 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  b-w gap shrinking? 

message: Have any papers been published in journals about a genetic theory of intelligence? Wikipedia doesn't have an article about this, if the red link here means anything.
There is no genetic theory of sports proficiency either. 
I think rather there is an agreement that if all environmental factors have been identified that what remains "must be" genetic. So there is a push toward research that might find the genetic cause.
But some of this stuff comes perilously close to Eugenics. Elabro 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: see IQ#Genetics_vs_environment --Rikurzhen 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic theory

message: I added http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271 as supporting source for the Bias accusation paragraph (I also a link to that in my copy of The Bell Curve). However, the paragraph looks too weak in comparison to the accusations; the paragraph presents the allegations too feebly. Contrary to the suggestion of this Wikipedia article, it's not just the funding that is in doubt! Harald88 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that section is continued in its own article: Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias). also, the article you linked is rather poor, and I would strongly advise against taking its conclusions as well founded or representative of the informed opinion of experts. --Rikurzhen 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who you call "experts" I call people that have intentionally created and perpetuated an unscientific dichotomy for the purpose of inducing racism and "IQ" based classism upon society. zen master T 22:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  That Wikipedia article also lacks the information about possible more direct observer bias. As no references appear in that other article, all references are centralised on this article, as well as the main points. And although the fair.org article is clearly biased, the presented factual allegations have nothing to do with its bias nor with the "informed opinion of experts" that Rikurzhen has in mind. In such social matters, the correct expert is the political scientist who also covered the Iran-Contra scandal. Harald88 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you'd like to point one some parts of the artilce that you think should be incorporated into this article. Unfortunately, the author appears to have lept to the demonstrably false conclusion whenever he interjected. --Rikurzhen 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, before this discussion runs on needlessly, read what Encarta, 52 professors and an APA task force report have to say about the science. --Rikurzhen 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already read most of that and neither their or his opiniated conclusion matters: what is lacking now in the Wikipedia article is the allegation of a direct link between the Bell curve data and researchers who have themselves a bias towards finding the results that they wanted to find. Harald88 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The important question is: what results? For example, the swipe at Bouchard's within group heritability estimates is at best anachronistic -- within group heritability is no longer a matter of doubt. Indeed, none of the prominently cited data is in doubt, and the conflict over interpretation is of course the heart of the article. --Rikurzhen 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must get sleep now, maybe I'll have time tomorrow. But I doubt that I am much needed for those details, my main role purpose is to put attention to this point. It's just a matter of fair presentation of arguments. Cheers, Harald88 23:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe someone will be able to make something of it, but I doubt this editorial can offer anything that isn't better done by Tucker (2002). --Rikurzhen 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The statement should not be convincing on it's own, but only to the extent that it is an accurate summary of expert opinion. This we can confirm by its correspondence with other public statements, text books, encyclopedias, review papers, etc. Thus, it is telling that no contrary statements exist. Your claim about this being an "ad" is incorrect: it's an invited editorial. Their description of how heritability increases when environmental variation diminishes is poorly written, but not misleading. The question of within group heritability of IQ is quite firmly settled: it varies from 40% to 80%, increasing over that range during development. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, well I'm familiar with the Gould and Lewontin argument. And if anyone did what G&L claimed, G&L would be right to criticize them. I think if you read the article, especially the Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation) article, you'll see that no one (at least now) commits that fallacy. Indeed, the WSJ statement says: There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. In the sub-article we make this point with a long quotation from The Bell Curve qutoting Lewotin's seed example to show that all parties agree that Lewontin is right. --Rikurzhen 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess you could say charitably that G&L's criticism is anachronistic, but Jensen called it a straw man. --Rikurzhen 19:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, there's never been any serious disagreement about that point in the technical literature. For example, "Group racial and social class differences are first of all individual differences [i.e., they are the statistical averages of individual measurements], but the causes of the group differences may not be the same as of the individual differences" (, p.154). --Rikurzhen 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation of bias suspicions too feeble?